Wednesday, January 7, 2009

And another thing.

Years ago when I was just a wee spit o' a lad and was in summer camp I had a counselor, Marty, who was English. I remember one afternoon the camp went to see a summer stock performance and Marty got the playbill and from a typographic point of view, ripped it apart.

Now this was probably 1970 before the word "font" had entered everyone's vocabulary. Type was really set and setting it was a big deal. Care had to be exercised. And at least to professionals or the astute, there was a readily discernible difference between good and bad.

Today there is no such difference. Virtually everything is bad.

Oh, I'm not trying to act the old guy and disparage everything new, but seriously, look at the type in almost any banner ad--see the one above that I've randomly selected. Look at the cover of this week's Adweek and their seemingly arbitrary use of surprinting or knock-out. I don't understand.

I know we all have to work longer and harder and faster (which sounds like a porno flick) but do we have to work uglier?


Tore Claesson said...

I think it's partly down to the fact you nowadays don't actually have to learn much more than a design software program to do all sorts of stuff. Before it could be costly if you didn't know what you were about to order from the type house. You had to think and plan and make upfront decisions. You had to know shit. Also, software has made it easy to make it complicated. So people don't dare to keep it simple. Afraid that it won't look "enough".

Anonymous said...

Hey, Geo, what's wrong with "act(ing) the old guy and disparage everything new?"

I've made a career out of it.