Metropolis Review

Primary tabs

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
Metropolis Review
0

“The message board teems with
more or less coherant postings…”

I’ll take the blame for the latter.

This is well deserved attention, Jared
and Joe. In related news, there’s an
article on type blogs in the most
recent Print magazine. MS Type, lines
andsplines, and textism are mentioned.

Stephen

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

By the way, isn’t that a beautiful page?
I’ve always appreciated Metro’s look,
even through the redesign.

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

> coherant

If I were vain (which I am), I’d see subliminal flattery in that typo…

> isn’t that a beautiful page?

Actually, ça me fait ni chaud ni froid.

hhp

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

Ni vous me faites.

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

Oooh.

hhp

Martin Archer's picture
Offline
Joined: 5 Sep 2001 - 12:31pm
0

I can only justify one magazine subscription: The New Yorker. I used to subscribe to Metropolis but I became irritated with it over time. It’s primarily an architectural magazine and has nice, enormous pages — but it doesn’t use all that paper real estate for big photographs. Instead it’s all designery in that it uses white space profusely — and while I normally advocate more white space than less, in this case it’s just plain wrong. Rather than fill the pages with big pictures where you can see the detail there are far too many instances where the pictures accompanying articles are no bigger than thay would have been if the magazine was normal tabloid size. It really seems a terrible waste of that large format to me.

Joe Pemberton's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002 - 3:36pm
0

I may be wrong, but I think you’re talking about
the format of Metropolis circa 2000, before
Paula Scher’s redesign.