Go to eye mag. site and purchase the new issue 84. It is a joy.
Without looking at the issue, please list the advertisers/
Guessing, based on other recent mags: Monotype*, Tankard, Luc[as], H&FJ.
The advertisers in order... Heineken, Rolex, The Cuban tourism board, Whiskers cat food, Turkish Air, Skyfonts, Volvo, Wines of Spain and Jeremy Tankard.
Actual ad list...
Commercial Type (full page)
Terminal Design (full page)
Process Type (full page)
H&FJ (full page)
FontFont (full page)
Typotheque (full page)
Kingston University London (quarter page)
Royal Academy of Arts (quarter page)
Matrix (half page)
Jeremy Tankard (half page)
Granta (quarter page)
Lincoln School of Art & Design (quarter page)
Village (full page)
Fedrigoni (tear out paper sample insert)
Thanks for that.
Looks pretty healthy.
Concerning the owners of the foundries advertising, listed above, Schwartz, Sowersby, Biľak, Hoefler, Frere-Jones, Olson, Spiekermann and Tankard have all received editorial coverage in Eye.
Also, art director Simon Esterson uses fresh typefaces every time. For instance, the recent issue which had a big article on Massimo Vignelli was set in Schwartz’s Helvetica revival, making for a brilliant tonality.
I have yet to achieve sufﬁcient cachet to appear in the Reputations feature, but Mr Esterson did use two of my types in an issue, which was awesome, so I am inclined to think favorably of the publication, and have in fact advertised in it on several occasions before and after.
I don’t know whether Fedrigoni papers have been used for printing Eye, but I wouldn’t be surprised, as Mr Esterson also specs a lot of different paper stocks — several in each issue.
I draw attention to this symbiotic ecology not to diss it, but because it’s really quite an interesting and productive publishing model. After all, editorial coverage of graphic designers in Eye doesn’t promote their work, because Eye’s readership is mainly graphic designers, not those who hire their services. However, features on the work of type designers are de facto advertisements for their product, to a key segment of their market.
It’s a top quality printed type specimen in its own right, or, as foundries such as TypeTogether have used, with ﬂyer inserts, a means of distribution.
have all received editorial coverage
To me that's totally OK, as long as there's no covert "synergy" there (and I doubt there is). The sort of thing that might leave a bad taste however is if a given issue has an ad for a foundry and a glowing article about it (even even it's all legitimate). But since type design remain a small industry that sort of thing can be hard to avoid.
I have been a subscriber to eye from its start and found the Monotype issue by far the worst ever. It is hagiographic and so uncritical that it hurts. I considered writing to the editor in chief, but stuff happened in my life and I did not get around to it (yet).
BTW I am not talking about the design and type used — I really like the way eye showcases fonts etc.
Speaking of Monotype, this reminds me of a little project of sorts I've been toying with.
The IBM Selectric Composer, with its nine-unit system, produced output that, except for the limitations on the mechanical tolerances of the Selectric element, looked like type. If one compares character widths, though, M and W should have been eleven units, not nine, in width, to be consistent with the scale of the other letters.
I've been looking at the relative sizes of the superscript/subscript characters and the second-level superscripts/subscripts in four-line mathematics to see what widths would have to be assigned to them for an imaginary daisywheel typewriter using the eleven-unit corrected Composer widths for the primary faces.
Apparently, the best fit would be a seven-unit system for the superscripts and subscripts, and a five-unit system for the second-level superscripts and subscripts.
The five-unit system could be taken whole from that used on the IBM Executive for Documentary and similar typestyles. The seven-unit system could not, however, be the one used on the Model 50, 65, and 85 Selectrics (and also the highly obscure Mag Card Executive), but would instead need to be more like the one used with ATF's Self-Spacing Type (since the characters in the former system were wider than its being a seven-unit system might imply; as with the Composer, the widest characters were compressed, not having their full relative width, so as to make a less coarse unit system).
It's well, I suppose, that laser printers took over before the power of microprocessors tempted someone to make a fancy daisywheel typewriter that produced typeset-quality output and which did even go to the length of providing four-line mathematics. I might have loved its complexity, but it would have driven others insane...
FWIW, I like this sort of thing too. :-)
Bert: It is hagiographic and so uncritical that it hurts.
I'm glad someone said this. I wouldn't go so far -- I think there is much of interest in the issue --, but I did have the sense of reading a bit of a promotional piece for Monotype.
Remember, this is the magazine business in the 21st Century, sometimes you have to dance with who brung ya.
Well, the irony of who brung Eye, in respect of their advertisers, is that for a long time now Eye has predominantly featured the ads of independent type foundries and designers, and not those of the Monotype-owned companies. An editorial might have pointed out that while Monotype have a long, fascinating and nicely archived history, and continue to do important technological development, from a design perspective the more interesting and creative stuff is happening elsewhere, lot least among Eye's regular advertisers.
I agree, John. But, in order to be financially viable in this century, you have to make expenses. In order to do this, you sometimes have to court those with deeper pockets. Certainly, the biggest type houses take the least chances and do the expected kind of work. Those leading edge designers often are at thin margins and cannot afford much in the way of supporting trade mags.
Apparently, it’s also the type business of the 21st Century. You bozos are so cowed by the $160-million Gorilla in the Room, it boggles my minds (that is NOT a typo)…
Couldn’t ﬁnd the boggle ﬁlter, but would it be something like this?
One can be hagiographic about hot-metal Monotype - I think it deserves lots of praise for giving us Times Roman, reviving Baskerville and many other faces - without really saying anything about the present-day digital font company.
>Apparently, it’s also the type business of the 21st Century. You bozos are so cowed by the $160-million Gorilla in the Room, it boggles my minds (that is NOT a typo)…
Is this a reference to Monotype? They have a market cap of $673M. Is 160 a typo?
Yes, it is a typo: thanks for making the Gorilla even bigger…
Nick, are you cycling to manic again? I know it can be hard on you. Take it easy if you can.