Day 38 : 21 August 2002 (18 entries)

Joe Pemberton's picture

001
001back

002
002back

003
003back

004

005

008
008back

009

010
010back

011
011back

012
012back

013

015
015back

016
016back

017

018
018back

019
019back

020
020back

021

cchs's picture

Does 38.017 have a front??

daveindermill's picture

The designs that feature scantly clad women do not seem to be something that the women of this site would enjoy. Maybe offensive to them. I noticed lots of women posters here. dO these images get you mad or do you just ignore them. Should anyone who did these actually think that the judges would pick these or is this just an exercise in peversion.

Reverse out the images. Imagine these were scantly clad MEN type designers fawing over letters. !!

Need a zoom in on 38.004. Chocalate letters? Hay, Forrest Gump would say -- type is like a box of chocalates.

pairth's picture

Type can be considered sexy, but I don't think that particular font (Knockout?) conveys sexy. Others may disagree.

tsprowl's picture

about scantly clad women thing 38.02, and so on. your right David, I wouldn't wear it. not for the fact that there's images of women referring to the 'sexy' but because the facial expressions. In the midst of orgasm (or is it fearful expressions? pain?) well its all a little umm odd if a hetero woman wore the shirt. Probably get more comments asking I was bi/gay instead of typophile.

then again sex sells eh?

Stephen Coles's picture

It's also important to note that all
the judges for this contest are male.

Stephen

j_hisekaldma's picture

Wow. 38.021 is just amazing. Beautiful, clever, representative, detailed and very well-crafted. I'd buy it.

brainiac's picture

38.002 needs a zoom to show if it has men included too. Nothing wrong with a provocative tee. Oh, and sex is OK too.

tsprowl's picture

OoO ya lets see those men.

could we see what the body text says on 38.008 too?

Jared Benson's picture

Here's a few that must have slipped through the cracks. We apologize if your shirt(s) were among these:

38022-front

38022-back

38023-front

dyana's picture

I don't find the images all that offensive. I find that anything that is meant to offensive (at least, in the design world) is usually just childish and boring. But here, I like the idea of "type is sexy," I just think the designer's answer is a little too easy.

But I agree with Tanya, as a heterosexual woman I wouldn't wear the shirt. Although, I still wear my rainbow sweater everywhere, and no one has asked me any personal questions yet.

If it was reversed, and it were men, then oh yes, I am all for the objectification of men; it just doesn't happen enough. Wink.

hrant's picture

> I still wear my rainbow sweater everywhere

What do you mean by "still"?...
BTW, my son has a rainbow sweater - is that like really bad?

> If it was reversed, and it were men

I don't get why it can't be mixed... Would that be like really homophobic?

hhp

dyana's picture

>What do you mean by "still"?...

I mean, sometimes I type words when they aren't necessary.

>> If it was reversed, and it were men

>I don't get why it can't be mixed

I don't get why either. But I was responding to David's question. I realize I forgot to include a quote. I lurk better than I post.

Your son should wear his rainbow sweater as much as he wants.

Jared Benson's picture

38.017 is really great. and I keep returning to 38.021 to admire the overall antiqued aesthetic. It works really well from afar.

cchs's picture

I like 38.017 as well. Give me gas, food, and type and I'm good to go...it kinda sums up the essence of a designer's passion for type without spelling the whole thing out too literally. Added bonus: using type as image/icon.

38.021 is cool in concept but I feel the craft and meaning begin to fall apart upon closer inspection...

tsprowl's picture

lorem...awwww, I was hoping it said something profound, comedic...shoot.

I was looking at 38.021 for a long time trying to pick out the fonts...I only recognized the one for typophile. there's a lot of tweaking, drawing and alteration in there...how is that lacking craft? what is your definition of 'craft' The only thing that bothers me is how colon bumps into slashslash.

otherwise I like it, its got that emblem idea, a bit rebelious. a biker patch, kind of labelling the person as the typophile before you get the fact that its a site.

cchs's picture

Hmmmm...

I guess my definition of craft is excellence in construction and execution. For me, typographic excellence is exemplified by appropriate font selction, masterful kerning and leading, attention to details such as punctuation, ligatures, rag, etc. Add to that overall composition

domokun's picture

we all know that type is (or can be) sexy. otherwise, why would we be on this site? i think the image on the back of 38.002 can be appreciated as much, if not more, than the artwork which appears on the cover of many vintage pulp fiction-type novels. in response to one of the previous comments on this piece, i know plenty of people, women and men, heterosexual and homosexual, who would appreciate the statement made by this submission. who's to say that only images of women were used to create the scene depicted? if it would help others appreciate it more, can we get a closer look at the back image for 38.002?

hrant's picture

> can we get a closer look at the back image for 38.002?

Yeah, and without that damn "TYPOPHILE" mask.

hhp

umlaut's picture

FINALLY! A series of entries that have caught my attention. Three of these submissions literally jumped at off the screen at me, 38.002, 38.021 and 38.022. Although each one does an excellent job of grabbing one's attention, I'm not sure how many people (other than myself) would be comfy wearing a T-shirt that dares others to shoot them (38.022). If these are meant to be worn as advertisements for the site, personally I do not feel that the general public would be as entertained by, or interested in 38.021. I feel that the simple, yet clever play on words and imagery in 38.002 would not only put a smirk on someone's face, but grab the attention of the general public and possibly drive more traffic to the site.

hrant's picture

> I'm not sure how many people (other than myself) would be comfy wearing a T-shirt that dares others to shoot them (38.022)

A few months ago I was *this* close to making a t-shirt that had a target in the back and said "Middle-Eastern-Looking" in the front...

hhp

Joe Pemberton's picture

The missing front from 38.017.

38.017front

Joe Pemberton's picture

This one needs a closer look. I didn't get it
until I realized this is more than decoration.
Over-the-top in an intentional, fun way.

So here's the designers revision... I
accidentally posted the old version.

38.021zoom2

Joe Pemberton's picture

That will teach me to upload without really looking.
My apologies.

Based on the number of submissions of this kind, I think
a few people have a mistaken (limited) understanding
of the -phile suffix.

Joe Pemberton's picture

Tanya, Let me see if I can remember it all...

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...

That's the gist of it anyway.

Joe Pemberton's picture

Alternate line for 38.002 : I only use hyphens - so shoot me.

GildedCage's picture

something beautiful about 38.021
and something hip about 38.005

Syndicate content Syndicate content