Cool.
Eric, could you scan up the overlay for us?

hhp

Yeah, that would be very cool if you could.
Nice article, although hard to see details in a small .gif image. ;)

hildebrant.

Lily-liver.

hhp

from Typo-L:
In response to requests from the culturally deprived, I have scanned
the article from the New York Times in the Sunday Arts section and
posted it on my website:

http://huntingdesign.com/typo/nyt-article/

The main scan is about 600k.

-- Randal

I like the new redesign, alot of digital type has gotten soft when compared to its metal origins. It seems they have addressed this in the redraw.

It appears to me that the NYT is taking a quote about the typeface Franklin Gothic No. 2 out of context and applying it to the MoMA logotype, making a highly lauded and respected designer look like an •••. On top of that, they then make Carter's job look pointless.

The author, Andrew Blum, decided to be glib and ignorantly dismissive. And the article reflects that.

Richard, thanks!

Yes Chris, the tone was provincial. Which wouldn't be as
bad if New Yorkers didn't think they're highly sophisticated.

hhp

Richard, pretty decent scanning technique, btw. Just your black is a touch light.

hhp

Oh, Randal did that - got it.

hhp

nice work if you can get it!

Is it just me or does the nytimes.com story identify the wrong sample as the old "soulless" sample? At least the scanned version and the online versions can't seem to agree which is the old and which is the new.

>> a lot of digital type has gotten soft when compared to
its metal origins. It seems they have addressed this in
the redraw.

hmmm. Doesn't it look like Carter's cut is the softer of the two?

There are in fact multiple faults with the reproductions shown: the small web image exhibits a sharpness difference which obviously cannot be due to the outlines; in Randal's top image the rendering of the new font is mangled (with half-bitting typical of conversion to low-res 1-bit rendering); and in the lower overlay you can't see what's going on in the corners.

Not to mention that the string "MoMA" provides a severly handicapped representation of the fonts.

> Doesn't it look like Carter's cut is the softer of the two?

You can't tell, since it's a bad repro. Look at the top corners of the two "M"s - a font can't even do that.

hhp

confused

They hardly changed the designs at all, what's the point of spending all that money just to make the "o" a tiny bit bigger?

Who REALLY notices any of the flaws they said it had? Obviously no one if it's been used successfully for, how long now?

"Don't fix what ain't broken" is a wonderful adage to apply to this situation.

The problem with the question as posed by the NY
Times caption, and with the subsequent perseverating
over the two logos, is that Carter wasn't hired to
redraw the MoMA *logotype* -- he was hired to create
a revised cut of Franklin Gothic (two of them, in fact,
text and display).

Any comparison of four letters -- well three, actually --
especially these particular few, will inevitably show
little perceptible difference. The real differences, I
suspect (and justification for the project) will only be
seen when the fonts are used in mass. Then the
cumulative effect of refined letterforms and spacing may
show up in a difference in overall fit and color --
moderate passages of text in a catalog or brochure,
large display signage, etc.

A logo alone is bound to be an inadequate demonstration,
IMHO.

-- K.

> Carter wasn't hired to redraw the MoMA *logotype* -- he was hired to create a revised cut of Franklin Gothic

Yes, and the questions become:
1) Why would the article focus on the logo instead of running text?
2) Why would MoMA use a text (or even just texty) font out of the box for their logo?

The first is easy to answer (because laymen don't get it, especially when a logo is all-text), but the second's most probable answer (because MoMA doesn't get it) is disconcerting.

hhp

"I think MoMA probably wanted some good, free press (they
deserve it). But to the casual reader, it just looks like MoMA
paid too much to tweak their existing mark (which is bad,
free press). "

See, that's what I got out of it. The fact that he redesigned Franklin Gothic was just a side note to me. What I saw was "we paid some moron 5 figures to tweek 4 letters and now our logo is better than ever!"

"I'm really glad there are organizations, especially cash-
strapped museums, that care about type."

I'm overthrilled by joy - it sure is amazing that MoMA did this - isn't it "small" thing like these that put quality into a brand?

I can be choked by the lowlevel of quality that are exepted by most people. I thought (I'm from Denmark, mayby I'm wrong) that NY Times was a serious newspaper that was able to see more than at first reaches the eye! Shame on You NYT! :-)

And I would love to see more of the redesigned typeface ...

As a critique of the logo from the new design of Franklin Gothic. The mark of a good logo is surely that it reproduces well.
Is it supposed to appear in a box?
If so it demonstrates the difficulty of visually centering type in a box.
The Mo and oM spaces appear unequal.

I thought it strange that the writer didn't note that a very slightly modified Franklin Gothic No. 2 shows up all over the Times, in major section heads, captions, etc. Does anyone know how the Times arrived at their version of No. 2? It's very slightly condensed, and the dots of the i and j are a little taller, closing up the space between themselves and the lower parts of their letters, and the top of the lower-case t extends nearly to the cap height. Other than that it looks identical.

So: is the Times' No. 2 the same thing they're calling "soulless" in the old MoMA usage? If so, I suggested in a letter to the Times that they should ask Matthew Carter for a copy of the new and improved No. 2.

(I wonder: will Carter call the revised face Franklin Gothic No. 2.1, or does it merit a whole-number upgrade?)

Tim: I thought the same thing about the o kerning, but, of course, the typeface isn't finished yet.

BTW, I think Carter is working on a new body face for the NYT.

Kerning: you can't expect even an expert type designer to kern everything, like the "oM" for example... which is one reason you don't use a font totally as-is for a logo, especially if you think you're sophisticated.

hhp

>> Kerning: you can't expect even an expert type designer to kern everything...

just curious, if you know, Why no kerning in Georgia ///


bj

I guess because it would throw off the matching between
on-screen versus printed texts (since you can't kern bitmaps).

hhp

Presumably when the font was redesigned Carter realised that it was going to be used in the logo and would have considered this when setting the kerning.
Equally, whoever supplied the logo to NY Times should have checked it.

I would not infer anything about the kerning or spacing
of Carter's MoMA Gothic from the overlay. I suspect that
this illustration was built on the old logo. From the scan
of the article which RK mentioned above, the old logo
looks unevenly spaced in the MoM, while Carter's looks
fine to my eye.

I would expect that in a heavy sans serif like this the M
and the o would quite likely have symmetrical sidebearings.
Probably no kerning necessary.

Georgia does not have kerning, presumably, because
kerning has little meaning for screen display, and
probably because MS didn't ask/pay Carter to provide
kerning. That's my guess.

-- K.

just a quick response to Cheshire Dave ...

i've freelanced at the New York times, and their Franklin Gothic 2 is the same as everyone else's. it might rip differently since they do their film in house. and they love FG just as it is. i think they were paraphrasing MoMA's stance in the article.

Thanks, Kathrin. That's interesting -- I swear, the differences I noted are real, unless I have some other version of No. 2, and the Times has the "real" digital version. If I get a chance, I'll scan the Arts & Leisure section head and show their No. 2 v. mine.

I did send a letter to the editor, but not on those points. I should note that the dots on the i and j really are enlarged and closer to the bodies of their respective letters, while the top of the lower-case t has been raised to nearly cap-height level.

Just an experiment: here's "Arts & Leisure" set in the No. 2 I have, 60pt, no modification in display whatsoever. I'll try to bring in the section and scan it tomorrow. In the meantime, if anyone wants to pit my No. 2 against theirs, be my guest. (Insert impression of Mike Myers yelling, "Who's the boss of Number Two?")

What I saw was "we paid some moron 5 figures to tweek 4 letters and now our logo is better than ever!"

chris, did you just call matthew carter a moron?

No, actually, I was calling the guy in charge of the whole renovation a moron.

>moron

But surely renovation is a necessary strategy for preservation?

The alternatives are a strict "do-nothing", which runs the danger of decay and erosion -- or a wholesale change.

It's good to preserve some of the past, and the investment of time and effort in a supposedly superficial "polishing" nonetheless provides buy-in and involvement from a variety of parties, a little publicity, and work for designers.

It didn't seem like anything was wrong before. No renovation is needed unless something is wrong. Was the Museum losing patrons or something because of their "outdated" image?

It seems like a lot of companies renovate their image just to do it.

Is it still unclear that Carter designed a font and not a logo?
Has anybody here seen the font in action?

hhp

Is the typeface already in use at MoMA? Have any of you NY guys seen it in use?

Big question: will anybody notice?

Nicolaj

Since readers aren't supposed to notice everything (some things they're only supposed to "feel"), the bigger question (which is much much harder to answer) is: will anybody benefit?

hhp

I saw the overlay in the physical paper (different from the image in the online article) and the differences between the two faces are extremely slight. Sacrilige in this forum, but talk about gilding a lily.

Kent, the voice of sound reason, I've been wondering about this myself and am glad that you posted before I did. Now my thoughts and questions have been answered.

Well said Kent.

I think MoMA probably wanted some good, free press (they
deserve it). But to the casual reader, it just looks like MoMA
paid too much to tweak their existing mark (which is bad,
free press).

I'm really glad there are organizations, especially cash-
strapped museums, that care about type.

Hrant. In an attempt to answer your second question -- And I'll probably sound as if I'm waffling -- I think that perhaps they chose Franklin Gothic as an understated (yet bold) way of representing a museum which has some of the boldest and most colorful art in New York. Or maybe just plain old -- it holds color. Why dress up the museum too much? This said, I also like what The Walker in Minn. did with Matthew's type. So that is where I'm waffling. But, MoMA need not be that way. Why compare them to anyone?

Chesh, you noticed it was 'very slightly condensed' and
'dots of the i and j are a little taller.'

Sounds like you caught someone scaling their type
horizontally. That itself is worth a letter to the editor. =)