This article was about how the futura typeface is overused, in particular when the author went to a senior show and most of the projects were set in this font. I think the writer brought up a good point; it is easy to use a typeface and then when you see it successful you always have it to fall back on and reuse because you "know" it is a good font. I think avoiding this is something that designers learn to avoid. With more experience you would know that it is not okay to use the same typeface in projects with completely different moods, tone, and overall purpose. Another interesting point was how when students were asked about why they used futura then questioned again on their answer apologized. They didn't know how to defend their reasoning whether it was right or wrong. I think this logic could be applied to other fonts as well. It is crazy to think about how much helvetica is out in the world that you see everyday.
An alternative to futura could be frutiger it has similar structural elements to futura like sharp edges. Franklin Gothic could be another option, it has a tall x-height and large bowls.
I also read Designing Under the Influence. This article started by the writer talking about students show he attended and one piece of work that caught his eye. In one girl's portfolio she had one piece stand out amongst the rest and when asked about her Barbara "Krugeresque" in her work she had no idea who the designer was. Intentianally or not it may have never crossed the girls mind that her work resembled something that was already successful. Does that make it "copying?" This really gets at how important it is to have a general understanding and education of design history and present. A good point that writer brought up was can you "own" a graphic style? Technically, no. But if something is successful it is only a matter of time till it is reused in a different but very similar way.
No comments:
Post a Comment