Rolling Stone v/s Hippie

Primary tabs

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paul Shecter R.G.D.'s picture
Joined: 29 Jan 2004 - 8:36pm

On the second hand, our discussion is about the look of Hippie and how it “pays hommage” to Jim Parkinson’s word mark for Rolling Stone. [tongue firmly in cheek here]

Hippie is poor lettering, and not well balanced.

What we need to define here is “paying hommage” or diluting or “ripping off”.

In my humble opinion, using a style as inspiration is paying hommage. But when we talk about taking or appropriating images from the past and reusing them in a different context or using them to lend validity or historicisim for a product should that be called “rip off”?

Licko said she was paying hommage with her “classics” inspite of the gimmicks by the dutch guys (was it Erik or Just? who did the ligature programming). Scher said nothing at the time (it was done ex-post facto).

So maybe we can define these differences as whether the designer actually says that they are paying hommage or state where they get their inspiration; many type designers are going back in time to get inspiration, or to do revivalist work.

I realize that there is no “answer” to this, but like language we can come up with consensus.

Maybe that is the direction we could take on this.

Tamye Riggs's picture
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 - 11:00am

We’re taking the opportunity at TypeCon2004 this July to explore the work of some of the artists who helped shape the San Francisco aesthetic of the 60s-70s. Jim Parkinson will give a presentation which will include a look at his early work — Jim’s talks are always a lot of fun. Roger Black is going to speak… Carl Rohrs, a talented NoCal calligrapher, will give a presentation about Rick Griffin. Carl’s talk will showcase the work Rick did for RS, and also his other contributions to the scene — Haight Ashbury posters for the Grateful Dead, his work with Surfer mag, etc. It’s going to be a treat to see what these guys were up to back in the day, as well as the great work they’re doing now.

Nick Shinn's picture
Joined: 8 Jul 2003 - 11:00am

The “designer” of the logo is a lazy, ignorant rip-off artist. Or maybe the client is to blame.

The easy route for designers working on historical projects is to use the shorthand symbols that have now come to be associated (often anachronistically) with a particular era, rather than do the necessary research, immerse oneself in the era, and channel something more authentic.

The issue is also one of cultural identity: surely the hippy movement in Chile had some local flavour. Surely Chile had its own local counter culture/rock publications which should be referenced.

Think globally, act locally!

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am

But whatever you do, please stop voting.


Tiffany Wardle's picture
Joined: 13 Jul 2001 - 11:00am

I wasn’t disagreeing with any of you. I was simply wondering aloud why the designer did it?

Of course it would be better for them to do research. But then, where do you draw the line? Is it alright then, that April Greiman “appropriately” appropriated the design of Herbert Matter?

It strikes me strangest, as Nick pointed out, that the design says nothing of Chile.

Gerald Giampa's picture
Joined: 8 Aug 2003 - 2:09pm

Rolling Stone was set letterpress on Monotypes, they briefly owned Mackenzie-Harris, San Francisco. M & H owned the Lanston Type Library.