<-- MoMA
- Started
- Last post
- 57 Responses
- unknown0
balb0a - yeah, you're probably right.
As for the spelling - yeah, you're probably right too
- balb0a0
Maybe the subtext is what's important:
A major museum commited an incredible amount of time, and a correspondingly appropriate sum of $$ (it was 8 months after all) on a technically precise, subtle assignment that ultimately will not impact their bottom line at all.
Sounds like a dream client to me...
I just think they could have communicated that a bit better in the media, rather than "MoMA gets a new logo!!!".
- paulrand0
i agree with balboa
- kodap0
I'd do that in 10 months
- pemberton0
Carter didn't only redesign the 3 unique characters in MoMA, he redesigned Franklin Gothic No. 2 by revisiting the original metal type designed by Morris Fuller Benton.
Read the article... http://nytimes.com (Registration is free, don't be shy).
Or, see a scanned version and pick up the thread at Typophile: http://www.typophile.com/forums/…
- gravityroom0
Yes - you guys need to read the whole article...
It was a complete re-rendering of Franklin 2 from 8 sets of metal type found in the MoMA archive. This included missing characters.
The other thing you won't get from the website's little GIF file is that some of the signage features characters that go up to 4 feet tall. There's a bigger notice at that size than there is in an anti-aliased GIF file...
- pemberton0
Glad someone's reading the fine print =)
- gravityroom0
Hey man -
Anytime a typography story is featured in the NY times with Bruce Mau and Mathew Carter - its bound to be something big.
Most designers who don't design typefaces don't understand because they are looking for something more dramatic. These kinds of projects are subtle...
Plus the hokey NYTimes caption for the low rez GIF file doesn't help readers understand either.
- unknown0
uh, people, some geek made over 10K doing nothing to 4 letters. Only the geekiest of geeks from geekland would ever notice or care about the "subtle change" that the logo underwent. It was purely academic. The story was not written to advance the cause of obscure typography, it was reporting a bixarre case of expensive dorkitude.
- monkeyshine0
I'm a little surprised by some of the comments here. I'd think that as designers we'd all be excited that attention is being given to this amount of detail (the level of restraint and wisdom shown in the tweaked logo is impressive to me).
I mean, isn't this lack of vision, attention span what we complain about in our clients?
- Mimio0
Actually I think it trivializes the expertise of the designers to the general public. People have a basic contempt towards the seemingly over thought/worked aspects of design as a profession. I wouldn't expect the average person to understand the ability of type designers.
- bokkus0
carter's coming to my school this week and he's going to be discussing it i'm sure. anything interesting comes up i'll put it here.
- pemberton0
Chewbacca, you missed the point.
Carter redesigned two weights of Franklin Gothic No. 2. Not merely the 4 (3 actually) glyphs in MoMA. The NYTimes article really did a disservice by leading with the logo piece.
- unknown0
Think I get the point, and heartly welcome any new interpretation of Franklin Gothic - I just think that calling the old one "soulless", while the new one has "character" and "warmth" is way too pretentious. However reading the article the second time, I'm not so sure the journalist did a very good job when writing this.
- unfittoprint0
Newstoday's redesign has already happened. Until yesterday it was a bit "soulless". Now it has "character" and "warmth".
- unknown0
lol
- oeuf0
ridiculous.