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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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?
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.
27 Aug 2002 — 10:54pm
Does 38.017 have a front??
27 Aug 2002 — 11:02pm
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.
28 Aug 2002 — 9:46am
Type can be considered sexy, but I don't think that particular font (Knockout?) conveys sexy. Others may disagree.
28 Aug 2002 — 10:37am
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?
28 Aug 2002 — 10:54am
It's also important to note that all
the judges for this contest are male.
Stephen
28 Aug 2002 — 1:42pm
Wow. 38.021 is just amazing. Beautiful, clever, representative, detailed and very well-crafted. I'd buy it.
28 Aug 2002 — 3:13pm
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.
28 Aug 2002 — 4:55pm
OoO ya lets see those men.
could we see what the body text says on 38.008 too?
29 Aug 2002 — 10:04am
Here's a few that must have slipped through the cracks. We apologize if your shirt(s) were among these:
29 Aug 2002 — 1:29pm
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.
29 Aug 2002 — 4:35pm
> 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
29 Aug 2002 — 5:31pm
>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.
29 Aug 2002 — 5:32pm
38.017 is really great. and I keep returning to 38.021 to admire the overall antiqued aesthetic. It works really well from afar.
30 Aug 2002 — 12:36am
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...
30 Aug 2002 — 4:49am
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.
30 Aug 2002 — 8:41am
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
30 Aug 2002 — 9:35am
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?
30 Aug 2002 — 9:42am
> can we get a closer look at the back image for 38.002?
Yeah, and without that damn "TYPOPHILE" mask.
hhp
30 Aug 2002 — 10:26am
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.
30 Aug 2002 — 11:53am
> 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
28 Aug 2002 — 11:19am
The missing front from 38.017.
28 Aug 2002 — 2:07pm
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.
28 Aug 2002 — 3:51pm
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.
28 Aug 2002 — 5:30pm
Tanya, Let me see if I can remember it all...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...
That's the gist of it anyway.
30 Aug 2002 — 9:18am
Alternate line for 38.002 : I only use hyphens - so shoot me.
27 Aug 2002 — 2:25pm
something beautiful about 38.021
and something hip about 38.005