Yes, my parents don't read CA. My freakin' point is that they or someone like them might be at a bookstore, see an image on a cover that connects with them, stop, read, look and learn something they might not know.
And don't give me any lectures on what I need to do about sweatshops. You don't know a damn thing about me, my family, how many hours they and I have put in at sweatshops making crap for you. I applaud their grit because they worked their ass off their whole lives, they're proud of their work and they'd do it all over again if they had to. Do you think people in Latin America go on about their "masters". I think you are deluded. They have a job, it feeds their family, they take pride in it. Do you actually know any of these people? I do.
I don't look down on anyone who disagrees with me or my work, I have no clue what you're talking about. My TV is lying to me? what is this?
And TIME magazine doesn't suck. If just saying things suck is what goes for dialogue around here then I might be heading out soon. I think hhp and I just don't have many things in common. Probably who I was trying to bug with my CA cover anyways.
I wish you wouldn't get all personal here but if that's where you want to go then I'm right there with you.
I don't think we're using "sweatshop" in the same way. The people I'm talking about, which having traveled a good deal I know well enough, would kill to be you. As for Latin America, it's been leaning very strongly to the left for a few years now. Do you read the BBC? For anything besides Irish issues, it's really your best bet.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4916270.stm
Or if you want a "design" perspective, get yourself some copies of the Argentine magazine tipoGrafica, where anti-imperialistic sentiment is firmly entwined in the content. Yes, we're different, not least because we listen to different people. I would simply urge you to consider who you're really listening to, backstage.
But really, as you said above, you think you've "made it". So I have to think that the only chance you have of changing your mind is via a person you trust personally. Clearly I cannot be that person. Which does not mean we should treat each other impersonally.
Well, I've traveled a good deal too. But traveling a good deal is not the same as living somewhere.
I think you lean left politically, and I believe a lot of your comments come from there. I respect that, I've had plenty of civil conversations with communists in Cuba, some in my own family.
I am not a right winger by far, I'm very liberal, I just think that there are so many apologists for communist tyrants. Tyranny is tyranny whether it's right or left wing. I know everything about what's going on in Latin America, don't need to check out the BBC. I'm Latin, I watch Spanish T.V., and read papers, left and right, it's all well covered. It's not being spoon fed to me, they present all sides, etc. And what's going on is more dicators taking over, through "democratic" means. Basically, Latin Americans are all freaked out by Bush so they're reacting to it and getting nationalistic. Now Chavez wants to be president for life in Venezuela, like Castro. I say to all leftists, what would you think of having Bush as president for life. Tyranny is tyranny, left or right.
I don't know who you think I "listen" to backstage. And this whole I "made it" thing was in "quotes" for a reason, it was tongue in cheek. But I do believe everyone in my family who has left Cuba has made it. I came by boat, my cousins have risked their lives on inner tubes for a week floating out at sea, some have died. Do you think this is a casual thing? It's the biggest decision we've had to make to leave our homeland, our grandparents, our sisters, our kids. And why have we left? Because it's suffocating to live there. I don't see Americans or Europeans getting on rafts to float somewhere else. Something must be right then. It's called freedom and opportunity, something that those born in free countries just take for granted all too often.
Thanks for the insightful comments. I look forward to treating one another with respect. You commie!
yes, that was a joke.
this exhibition at the v&a may be of some interest.
I did not say I was annoyed by the use of an image which has become ubiquitous. My displeasement comes (and will always come) from what can be called a "scapegoat" syndrome. Evil acting is not partial, but this does not mean being "liberal" or addressing a problem by firing against a single individual solves anything. It leads only to a growing resentment.
Surely Edel was aiming his cover design to a specific audience, and he was addressing something he considered important. But what does it mean "an homage to strange power of brands"? If he's sure his criticism went through, then he succeeded. I'm not the qualified audience to understand this. I may know poverty as we had in Italy in the early 20th century (part of my grandfathers were farmers and very poor) but I barely know who Che Guevara was, so I think it's not essential I get this particular message.
Whatever message Edel cared about, the important is if it's received with an openly critical attitude by people who should get it. Visual suggestions rely largely on their context, but if a cliché helps, welcome.
Interesting that even a reformed revolutionary isn't allowed into an exhibition of "Che as icon". Here's the Guardian's take on it: Sorry Gerry. You're just not the right sort for Che's V&A party.
Trisha Ziff, the curator of Che Guevara: revolutionary & icon at the Victoria & Albert Museum
... submitted her guest list, which included Mr Adams, a personal friend with whom she had worked on exhibitions in the past. She then received an email from Shaun Cole, acting head of the contemporary programme at the V&A, who told her all guests had been approved "except Gerry Adams, who is not relevant or appropriate". Ms Ziff, already unhappy that the museum had removed much of the text accompanying and explaining the images, which has now been posted on the website instead, said: "I was gobsmacked. Inviting Gerry was not a stunt and it never occurred to me there would be a problem."
She and Mr Adams wondered if Guevara would also have been barred, had he still been alive.
The explanation from the museum seemed to be that various fashion models had been invited to another exhibition opening at the same time, and one wouldn't want them bumping into the "irrelevant" and "inappropriate" Mr Adams.
Meanwhile the museum shop will be selling copies of all the featured Che images, a Che-branded lip balm, a Che finger puppet, a Che chocolate cigar, a Che doll, a Che cigar box, Che T-shirts, Che stickers, Che neon signs and Che badges. Whether Che's works Guerrilla Warfare, El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba and Critical Notes on Political Economy will be available at the shop is not currently known by this author.
My comment was meant not as any sort of criticism. Everything communicates, art or otherwise, you can't not communicate. Even without Mr. Rodriguez's explanation it reads as a statement about capitalism. However, given the explanation the context helps me now view it from his eyes.
The first time I met Laurence, at the TypeCon98 "ice-breaker" party,
he was wearing a Che shirt. A real one. I didn't know who he was, but
I remember approaching him with a "nice shirt", and moving on, for
the moment. It's great to see the spirit is still alive, my friend.
That's what I meant. I appreciate a lot Laurence's story.
I think this discussion validates what John Hudson tried to say when he questioned whether visual language can truly be considered "communication". All what we have read and wrote here seems to prove pictures 'per se' are precious but are not enough detailed to truly communicate concepts.
People seem to be always more prone to follow the easy route instead of considering the various facets of an historical fact by getting into it.
Music and visual language communicate things that words can't.
I prefer the abstraction of those mediums…
I think many people have come to think of image as being more important than what it stands for. What matters too much to some is being chic. Are we becoming a more shallow world? Probably true for the more "sophisticated consumer"--after all, isn't a designer logo required to be prominently displayed on our clothing to be truly chic?. Real people who have real struggles each day for basic needs don't have this luxury.
There is type on things but mostly branding. Edel showed a Time magazine cover and said it had no type on it. We have become so accustomed to the icons of our modern era that we no-longer consider the letters T-I-M-E in succession as a word. Type and letter forms are also visual images. Communication happens either way. It rarely is the intended message though. That is why graphic design is much harder than it is given credit for (if done well). Perhaps if we consider that the job of a magazine cover is simply to get someone to open it instead of getting the total meaning of the written story, we can find a bit more success in what we see done every day but still strive to do more when given the chance.
Paul, abstraction is actually why I prefer text faces to display ones.
On the other hand, I don't hold things like photography in
high regard, at least not in the way it's usually seen/used.
When you say that about a text face are you referring to its primary goal being functionality?
Mediums for expression just are, it's the pieces that either resonate or not.
I love novels, but I have also thought much about the power of words.
Perhaps the pen wields the sword…
I mean that the text font sphere is non-literal, subconscious.
That said, no font can be pure text or pure display.
Chris! Laurence, Sweet Posts.
quote - I mean that the text font sphere is non-literal, subconscious.
Since text faces are addressing the subconscious it seems like an anthropological approach would make sense. Claude Levi-Strauss or perhaps Jung…
Does this make any sense?
To me what seems to make most sense in the sphere of text face design
is to learn to let go: not to ignore what we [think we] know, but to come
to terms with the fact that A System Can Never Understand Itself, and
as a result that Control is largely illusional.
"On the other hand, I don’t hold things like photography in
high regard, at least not in the way it’s usually seen/used."
Can you explain this a bit, please, Mr. hrant? Maybe i'm dim, but I don't think I see what you're getting at? What i've always loves about photographs is that there's often more there than the photographer can see when he or she takes the picture.
Hrant - Are you actually trying to tell me it's a lot like life?
I can't believe it…
The worst part of a capitalist society is that it makes you concentrate on results, instead of process.
But that can be avoided…
That could also be seen as one obvious difference between design and art. The design must have a clear idea of what it wants, and it must work. A typeface is not interesting 'in theory' as much as in action. Art doesn't have to 'work' in that sense. But as Tiffany wrote, that doesn't mean it won't communicate.
"Music and visual language communicate things that words can’t.
I prefer the abstraction of those mediums…"
Paul, I think you have not read the thread I mentioned. it's here:http://typophile.com/node/8733
It's not just an intellectual thing. In fact, I think both verbal and nonverbal have the power to obscurate or enlighten, they are means.
The discussion in that thread was about the possibility of communicating complex ideas.
It's emblematic you name music, since music seems a good example: while music per se can touch our deepest corners (in many ways), it's only in pop music elaborate ideas start to be conveyed through verbal language as well. This, depending on the use, can reinforce or weaken the emotional facet, but nonetheless lyrics articulate meaning, a thing which is not possible in classical or instrumental.
By saying this I'm not even remotely implying analytical thought is, or should be considered something superior to mythic, symbolic or poetic one. In fact, poetry could be the best example: it's part of "the arts", but according on how you use it, you could convey meaning the most effectively, because you can be partly analytical as well.
In the end, it's all about a "common language", a language of communion.
I see no difference between design or art or music and life itself.
I love Hrant's last comment, what is true when he stares into the microcosm of a text face is true everythwere. That is the power of microcosmic observation. All of sudden a text face becomes alchemic.
No offense, but I find the theories on this board more interesting than the typefaces themselves. I am interested in journeys.
I am paranoid about words, yet my tongue is not still…
Well, glad this image was able to create this long, strange trip. Nice ideas, some fly right on over my head, but, you know, not a type "expert" over here. As Sorkin says it gets "real vague cloudy wispy language" around here sometimes. Did you know there's a whole other group redesigning existing ampersands! That's real passion! Typophile is the perfect title for this place, it's fun.
So, I hate to bring it back to the real world. I have a question that I've always wondered about since college, when all my professors were 60's, Che lovin', hippies. The question is, how does a designer, whose passion is to communicate and to do that freely, square those beliefs with the support of Che, the Cuban Revolution, Castro, etc., who stay in power through outright censorship, control of the media, propaganda, etc. And don't tell me that the West does the same thing, and that I just don't know it. That's the canned answer.
Regardless of what the west does, how can a designer who thrives on the free flow of ideas, such as the one's in this post, support a dictatorship with such passion. Maybe hrant or the fellow with the Che shirt can help me out. This is not a post about type, I know, but the group is subtitled "anything goes". If you'd like to talk ampersands, well, you know where to go.
> That’s the canned answer.
Well then it seems that first you'd need to open your mind. There are so many things that confuse your simplistic take on "communication". Complex, paradoxical, human things like the benefits of freedom from choice, the nefarious origins of free compulsory public education, the succubus that is free speech, that throw any western moral minimalism straight out the window in the mind of any free-thinking human being.
Here's a clue from my end though: I'm not a commie, I'm a monarchist.
If you find the time, and would like the perspective of a generally highly-regarded type designer, please read Eric Gill's (short) "Essay on Typography". Gill was very concerned with the dignity of man, as opposed to how fast he can chow down how many pizzas while watching how many football games.
To paraphrase the Roman Senate: Give them pizza, and give them
football, and they will not revolt. And this empire is imploding too.
Edel, I have spent a lot of years talking to people of differing political opinions, including on this forum. I am struck that people are amazingly impervious to facts when it comes to politics. Politics is a realm where people are vulnerable to particularly irrational thinking. 'Are you on the side of the good guys?' seems to be the main question.
If it were more rational people would be asking 'What social problems are to be solved?' and 'What are the best solutions?' The question of parties and personalities would come after you have some answers to those questions. But unfortunately, that's not the way it is.
Symbolic posturing, as you satirize in your 'Che' picture, seems to be the most pervasive form of political communication.
Nigella: I enjoy looking at photos, and I take a lot of them myself. But there's an aspect to photography, arguably its central aspect, that's a myth: its alleged ability to "capture the moment", to reflect Life, or whatnot, which is completely a self-validating modern illusion. If you look to the early discourse concerning the "existential fallacy" of photography, before the time when it started making enough money for enough people that people started thinking "well, OK, what the hell", you will find some lucid arguments of why this particular technology is essentially entertainment. When we try to get closer to Life by increasing CCD resolution for example, we're entirely missing the point.
You could say that photography is too Modernist to really be humanly relevant.
Funny, you must be reading my mind, I'm sitting here chowing on a pizza and watching a football game. France 0 Switzerland 0. Great game, and great pizza.
Don't think I got an answer though, still wondering why you thought he was wearing such a "great shirt". Grew up around folks with such lofty language and ideals. Saw them really destroy a homeland and drive the human will for life and fun to the ground. So, yes, give me pizza and football, such joy. Gooooooaaaaaal!!
The shirt was great because he meant it. If you can't/won't die for a good cause, it's still better than ignoring it, and certainly better than apologism for treating your fellow humans like dirt. Nevermind actually voting for a war criminal for president. Or really, voting at all in such a rigged system.
The posers you complain about do exist, but they're really no different than the ones brought up to think "nuke 'em"! Among the affluent masses, politics is subject to fashion just like anything else, and different people go different directions. But alongside those peons there exist truly concerned people, and ignoring that is a self-serving, weak escape from personal responsability.
I'm not reading your mind, I'm describing what I see around me,
of which you're more a part than I am. On the other hand, I was
thinking of the football with the funny ball, so luckily for you
you're not at the heart of it.
When you watch Brazil play, think of their slums, and what kinds
of things have caused them to exist and persist... y ¡buen provecho!
"The posers you complain about do exist, but they’re really no different than the ones brought up to think “nuke ‘em”! Among the affluent masses, politics is subject to fashion just like anything else, and different people go different directions."
This is what I was trying to say. That, in the end, it's all just the same. I could have done a blank cover, or an Ampersand with earphones! But this is how I thought it would best be said.
I still feel that an attempt at democracy and people speaking out is the best we can do. You say they vote for a war criminal, yet you forget the other half that didn't.
And I also watch the football with the funny ball. Now really, in your argument about the masses is there such a difference between the two. It's still a bunch of folks sitting around watching a ball. You will tell me that soccer fans are just a higher being. You make distinctions that just benefit what you like. The round ball is good. The BBC is great, except for the Irish stories. Again, it's all the same.
When I watch Brazil play, yes, I think of the slums, and what causes them. But I grew up in a slum and something caused that too, called Communism. What slum did you grow up in exactly?
There's a whole world of slums, and making a living drawing type or writing stuff in a discussion group ain't doing a damn thing to solve them. So, I guess I'm realistic. Either join in and work for what you're so passionate about or just go about working for the man. But don't work for the man and wax poetically about the struggle. Join it.
And I like pictures.
I'm your alter ego, but hey, we can talk.
Hrant - You're right on the money (capitalist expression) about photography. I was a photojournalist for ten years and I know it's easier to mislead - intentionally or not - with pictures than with words. Until recently people found pictures more trustworthy than words, but digital has killed the illusion of photography's credibility. It used to be very easy to deify or demonize with one picture. I'm not so sure of that anymore.
Hrant's observation that the empire is crumbling is something I've felt for a long time.
Entropy is inevitable.
I look forward to the day that this empire breaks into smaller entities and California (or parts thereof) can be self-governing.
In the meantime I try to avoid prison, especially one of my own making…
Now I get it, everyone here is from California! All makes sense now.
You mean you're not? Moderator… :)
CA vague LI cloudy FOR wispy NIA language
Ah. C'mon. We don't have to agree but we do need to get along. And, no, we aren't all from California.
In some kind of genius way I can't access does that make sense?
I have to say I can't remember what I "meant" by wearing the T-shirt. Even if it was an attempt to provoke, I certainly didn't and don't intend to "communicate" by wearing certain clothes.
Of course people interpret T-shirts in various ways, whether there's text on them or not. Those interpretations are sometimes interesting, often manipulable, occasionally dangerous. In this case, one would be forgiven for thinking I was a supporter of the Cuban Revolution. I'd heard, probably from the Guardian, about directors of French companies being barred from the USA if their company supplied spare parts to Cuban x-ray machines, and that pissed me off. I'd also heard, probably from Michael Moore, about the Cuban health service being far better than the USA's, and that pissed me off too. The American embarrassments of the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis seemed, inexcusably, to explain their isolation of Cuba. So I had a few things to talk about over a drink if someone approached me because of the shirt. But I was also well aware that I wasn't being particularly daring wearing the shirt. For a start, Massachusetts is not Miami. And the police normally let people wear stuff like that: getting arrested is unlikely. The biggest risk was probably that I might be thought of as silly.
Perhaps a couple of years before TypeCon 98, I'd turned up to the Royal Courts of Justices on the Strand to hear Helen Steel and David Morris (the McLibel two) defend themselves against McDonalds. I wore a shirt that said "It's time for all honest citizens to turn to crime". I rather liked the idea of the juxtaposition and thought I was being a bit daring. In the event... I felt like a teenage jerk and never wore the shirt again.
During the "smart sanctions" bombing of Iraq (1991-2003), bearing in mind a Jesus-themed T-shirt of Easter 1999, I told a friend I was thinking of having a T-shirt made up in that style but depicting Saddam Hussein instead of Che or Jesus. If asked, I'd perhaps have made some comment about supporting neither Saddam's murderous regime nor Clinton's. It could have inspired some interesting debates in pubs. But there would have been serious risks: my favourite café in Cardiff was run by a lovely Iraqi man (who was later to tell me that everyone in Baghdad was waiting eagerly for the Americans to arrive). Some other Iraqis, who helped me out when I urgently needed a car stored for a week, had several edgy rottweilers on their semi in Rumney. Provoking such people is not big or clever. The friend, who might himself have been interested in wearing a Gerry Adams themed shirt, strongly advised against the Saddam shirt.
After that I mostly lost interest in clothing that can easily be (mis)interpreted politically, apart from wearing a long black leather coat to ATypI in Leipzig. I checked with Adam Twardoch whether he thought it likely that it would be interpreted as a Nazi symbol. He reassured me it would not – however he still takes some pleasure in reminding me of my ridiculous outfit at that conference. Sadly I don't think it inspired any debates to rival those where the rehabilitation of blackletter is discussed.
Edited to change "interpreted" to "(mis)interpreted"
I fully intend on moving there once they gain their independence.
A wonderful concept, but their flag sucks.
"It is not just a simple game. It is a weapon of the revolution" Che Guevara
Just to tie football and images of Che.
Mind it has also been a weapon of fascism and communism.
"Ah. C’mon. We don’t have to agree but we do need to get along."
It was a joke. Do I need to say something was a joke all the time around here or put in one of these :) silly things. California is a nice place, full of great people, who deserve their well earned independence. A place that picks a former body builder movie star as its leader should be an example for the entire world to follow. :) that, was a joke.
"CA vague LI cloudy FOR wispy NIA language
In some kind of genius way I can’t access does that make sense?"
Just mixing something Sorkin said before with CALIFORNIA. No genius, just messing. In Spanish there's a word, "joder", which is to joke, poke fun, because you like somebody. There's a lack of humor around here, so I'm just trying to lighten some of the existential talk.
lorp, thanks for the long explanation on the shirt, I'm sure everybody that wears one of those has a story. There's just a lot that people that wear these things need to know about what their unofficially backing. The free education in Cuba is not free. You work in the morning, on a field, picking potatoes, not for Cubans, but to export to Europe, then you go to school in the afternoon. They barely feed the students. The free health care is there if you can get a foreigner to send you the medicine you need and have a car to take you to Havana. The doctor that decides he's had enough can't leave the country, because the government owns your education. You know, because it was given to you for free. Marriages are split because one leaves and the doctor wife is forced to stay behind. I'd rather own my own education and do with it as I please, go to any country I choose.
And the police won't arrest you in Miami for wearing a Che shirt. They, like the Iraqis you mentioned, might just suggest it's not the smartest thing to walk around in one. You'd be surprised how many Iraqis, Cubans, and many of those "opressed" love America. With all its problems, its still a better option for them.
Destroying other countries is certainly a great way to bring in cheap labor.
US Citizenship Question: Which president freed the slaves?
Best Reply: Is that a trick question?
There’s a lack of humor around here
That may be, but I have several good laughs reading the posts in the different forums today. I think the group may be improving in that regard.
Edel. The "Ah c'mon" was me being a little sarcastic too. No, you don't need to be clear. There is a lot of negativity running around here lately and I am having a little trouble with it. I don't feel like I was mean. I was just asking, and since you say you were just joking then there isn't a problem. Not that there was a problem in the first place.
Which country freed Hrant?
Best Reply: USA
Which country directly witnessed the genocide of Hrant's people, driving them off their ancestral land (something you didn't suffer, in fact you gained back yours - be grateful, not snide) but now helps the guilty country cover it up? Which country helped the country where Hrant grew up become unsuitable for college education, causing him leave? Which country did Hrant adore as he was growing up, until he actually did grow up and saw what had really been happening, and what was going to keep happening more and faster? And which country is Hrant dreaming of leaving, if only that country would stop destroying the countries Hrant would want to move to? Your country is great for you. It kills and rapes for you. But it's not great for the rest of the world, including many who move to your country (who for some mysterious reason never get fully integrated). For millions of immigrants it's merely a lesser evil, and furthermore an evil that helped cause the evil back home.
Can any country free you?
Thoreau freed himself, as did Bohumil Hrabal, Naguib Mahfouz, Li Po and countless others over time…
Tyranny is an equal opportunity employer and has been for all of history. I often hear great praise heaped on my ancestral countryman Alexander the Great. They say he brought "civilization" to the world he conquered. That is a nice romantic notion a couple of thousand years after the fact. He was a bully and a marauder who conquered the world--meaning he was responsible for lots of killing while bringing "culture" as a gift to those he plundered. How was Alexander any better than the Ottoman Turks years later who conquered and enslaved Greece? No better, no worse. I am Greek and have heard many stories from my grandparents of Turkish tyranny heaped upon Greece. I will bet that there were similar stories during Alexander's time about him as well.
There have been villains from every corner of the world. For every villain killed, another rises to fill the void. Every power from the Egyptians enslaving their neighbors at the time of the Pharaohs to the Greeks, Romans, Turks, English, Spaniards, French, Dutch, Russians, and Americans have done deeds most foul. There is no place on this earth where a border can be drawn that does not contain their fair share of evil. This is half the nature of humanity. Thankfully, there is a good part in all as well. The duel between both parts of human nature is endless and timeless. Draw your borders. Blame whatever country or government you wish. That does not solve a thing for more than a moment. Both the problem and the solution rests within each of us. The blame-game is fruitless guilt dumping. Do something positive.
I'm with you ChrisL. All external kingdoms are suspect…