I feel like this is really pervasive in the field of art. I worked at a workshop for a while where artists would come in with ideas and the specialists in ceramics/casting/metalurgy/etc would then...
I feel like this is really pervasive in the field of art. I worked at a workshop for a while where artists would come in with ideas and the specialists in ceramics/casting/metalurgy/etc would then make it (think things like the Bean in Chicago). The chasm between the initial incoming description we would receive and the final description made available to the public was incredible. Full of this esoteric, aggrandizing language. We worked with a number of these folks, but bar none Marina Abramovic was the worst. A lot of us would experiment in-house with new techniques (we had access to all the fun machines like industrial CNCs and forges when they weren't in use) and sometimes the output would get proposed to artists. One of the digital team members had made a 3D negative of herself and Abramovic saw it and proceed to do a series of herself. The accompanying language about her emotion and genius was... well just embarrassing.
I do agree to an extent, but, counterpoint - have you ever seen David Lynch talk about film? He mostly just can't do it. He's trying to express the thing he expresses by making film through a...
Exemplary
I do agree to an extent, but, counterpoint - have you ever seen David Lynch talk about film? He mostly just can't do it. He's trying to express the thing he expresses by making film through a medium other than film and it just doesn't work. Same goes for people like Bjork on music, Hirst on whatever he's doing at the moment, Abramovic in performance and so on.
Often, asking high-concept artists to talk about their art in forms other than that very art itself just ends up sounding ridiculous, pretentious, etc. If they were capable of expressing those things in words, they'd be writers, not musicians/painters/etc. We don't expect authors to create a sculpture explaining their latest book, and nobody would be surprised if Neil Gaiman's latest sculpture was a load of crap - so same goes for conceptual art.
That's a really good point I hadn't considered. I don't usually mind the ridiculous or eccentric language, often that comes with the artistic personality and aesthetic. I think what rubs me about...
That's a really good point I hadn't considered.
I don't usually mind the ridiculous or eccentric language, often that comes with the artistic personality and aesthetic. I think what rubs me about it is usually the focus on genius and ego. In this case it's a pretty novel idea and the language is pretty innocuous. I overreacted.
I find it very difficult to appreciate typography. I can't understand why people are so passionate, I just can't appreciate what it is they see. I don't think this is a good looking typeface but...
I find it very difficult to appreciate typography. I can't understand why people are so passionate, I just can't appreciate what it is they see.
I don't think this is a good looking typeface but it is good art in my opinion and art doesn't have to look good.
There's definitely an internal 'taste' between designers/typographers - my peers/tutors back when I studied type would have had an absolute field day with this. I think it's gorgeous. You can...
There's definitely an internal 'taste' between designers/typographers - my peers/tutors back when I studied type would have had an absolute field day with this.
I think it's gorgeous. You can really 'feel' that's it's been shaped by something other than human-design. You could get a really nice hierarchy matching one of the heavier weights with the lighter weights (they've defined them here by their years).
I thought maybe at first the body text of the site used the typeface, but seems to be the site-wide font. I think that's a missed opportunity, but often these higher-concept typefaces struggle a bit a the paragraph level.
Is this under an open font license? I don't see a license on the web page, and I downloaded the font and I don't see a license in the zip file either. I'm happy to gleefully pirate stuff, but this...
Is this under an open font license? I don't see a license on the web page, and I downloaded the font and I don't see a license in the zip file either.
I'm happy to gleefully pirate stuff, but this would probably receive more attention and wider adoption if it were under an open license and institutions worried about copyright infringement could use it safely.
The experiment and results are interesting, but holy cow the accompanying text is pretentious.
I feel like this is really pervasive in the field of art. I worked at a workshop for a while where artists would come in with ideas and the specialists in ceramics/casting/metalurgy/etc would then make it (think things like the Bean in Chicago). The chasm between the initial incoming description we would receive and the final description made available to the public was incredible. Full of this esoteric, aggrandizing language. We worked with a number of these folks, but bar none Marina Abramovic was the worst. A lot of us would experiment in-house with new techniques (we had access to all the fun machines like industrial CNCs and forges when they weren't in use) and sometimes the output would get proposed to artists. One of the digital team members had made a 3D negative of herself and Abramovic saw it and proceed to do a series of herself. The accompanying language about her emotion and genius was... well just embarrassing.
I do agree to an extent, but, counterpoint - have you ever seen David Lynch talk about film? He mostly just can't do it. He's trying to express the thing he expresses by making film through a medium other than film and it just doesn't work. Same goes for people like Bjork on music, Hirst on whatever he's doing at the moment, Abramovic in performance and so on.
Often, asking high-concept artists to talk about their art in forms other than that very art itself just ends up sounding ridiculous, pretentious, etc. If they were capable of expressing those things in words, they'd be writers, not musicians/painters/etc. We don't expect authors to create a sculpture explaining their latest book, and nobody would be surprised if Neil Gaiman's latest sculpture was a load of crap - so same goes for conceptual art.
That's a really good point I hadn't considered.
I don't usually mind the ridiculous or eccentric language, often that comes with the artistic personality and aesthetic. I think what rubs me about it is usually the focus on genius and ego. In this case it's a pretty novel idea and the language is pretty innocuous. I overreacted.
I find it very difficult to appreciate typography. I can't understand why people are so passionate, I just can't appreciate what it is they see.
I don't think this is a good looking typeface but it is good art in my opinion and art doesn't have to look good.
There's definitely an internal 'taste' between designers/typographers - my peers/tutors back when I studied type would have had an absolute field day with this.
I think it's gorgeous. You can really 'feel' that's it's been shaped by something other than human-design. You could get a really nice hierarchy matching one of the heavier weights with the lighter weights (they've defined them here by their years).
I thought maybe at first the body text of the site used the typeface, but seems to be the site-wide font. I think that's a missed opportunity, but often these higher-concept typefaces struggle a bit a the paragraph level.
Is this under an open font license? I don't see a license on the web page, and I downloaded the font and I don't see a license in the zip file either.
I'm happy to gleefully pirate stuff, but this would probably receive more attention and wider adoption if it were under an open license and institutions worried about copyright infringement could use it safely.
I wonder how long before the letters become unrecognizable as such 🤔
Edit: I just want to add how cool I think this is.