I love it. Subtlety is pleasant when you get it, but for most people who are on the go, ya gotta hit 'em over the head.

So you're angry that it alludes to a sad, sickly truth about capitalism?

hhp

chéesh

I enjoy it. The Che symbolizing the used-to-be radical sixties folks now greying boomers with SUVs their iPods and sneakers :-) It is just plain fun, enjoy!

ChrisL

Except Che was neither a hippy nor a party-hopper.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4567474.stm

And what he fought and died for was not the right to party,
but something a little bit more important, in fact increasing
in importance every day.

hhp

The good news is that sneakers and electronic gagdets don't fool everybody:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4916270.stm

hhp

It isn't about what Che really was, it was about the perception 60s youth had of him as a rebel. The youth of the 60s also misunderstood Eastern religions and philosophies as well but knew how to chant Om as they toked up. As a member of 60s youth, I was as guilty as the rest in my misconceptions at the time.

ChrisL

Jorge Alderete draw this 3 years ago

And what he fought and died for was not the right to party,
but something a little bit more important, in fact increasing
in importance every day.

I loved Mortorcycle Diaries, I'm sure its the glamorized version of the story, but still very enlightening.

but regarding this design, i think Che Viva Banana says it better. >^p

> the perception 60s youth had of him as a rebel.

If that's true, and if Communication Arts is
limited to these people, that could make sense.

hhp

So, this is like the umpteenth 'clever' interpretation of the iconic Che Guevara picture. How utter, utter, utter unoriginal.

ƒ

Fredo, they could have used the Mona Lisa :-)

ChrisL

I recently saw a host of a show about gaming on G4, named Adam Sessler, wearing a shirt that had the Che image with a red circle slash* over it. Which made me, as a child of the '80s, think of the Ghostbusters' logo.

The only reason I don't roll my eyes completely at the CA cover is the similarity of the Che image's common appearance and the Apple iPod ad campaign. But it's hardly a sophisticated editorial image. Even they are cashing in on Che.

*Is there a name for that thing?

Che sera sera :-)

ChrisL

or else simply "Cliche sera"

ChrisL

Who wins the cliche contest for notable faces? Marylin Monroe, Che, Elvis, or Mona Lisa?

ChrisL

And what he fought and died for...

And killed for. Don't forget killed for. Including over a thousand unarmed prisoners executed by firing squad under his orders.

Power, as Mao rightly observed, comes out of the barrel of a gun, not out of a poster no matter how charismatic the model.

Wow, this is a great thread. Thank you, Eric.

Let's hope it doesn't get ugly...

My thoughts after a few seconds were, the illustration was repeating itself multiple times over, given the audience (us) the point would be made immediately w/o the swoosh or ‘pod buds. IMHO

Regarding the design's execution, the metaphor IS redundant, but it's interesting that without both Swoosh and iPod Buds it looks like a commentary on that particular company/industry/product. Maybe avoiding this was the designer's intent. Just a thought...

Anyway, I agree that this is becoming a tired visual. Expected something more inspired from CA.

"Power, [...], comes out of the barrel of a gun [...]"

No, just intimidation, coercion, terror, insurgence and revenge.

Power lies in the resonant messages that typographies convey.

I think they are be purposefully redundant. In other words I read it as a statement about how over-materialistic we are today. So much so that even something which can stand for something more than simple marketing is now being reduced to another tool to market to the masses. If this makes any sense.

great thread. i think a lot of what feel about it has already been said, particularly around the redundancy. you could slice the cover in a number of ways, depending on how optimistic you want to be about the intellectual depth of it. i liked it, i think, because it wasn't about che at all but rather a juxtaposition of mostly meaningless symbols -- though symbols that people continually adopt as an expression of their values.

that said, the symbols used were the 'obvious' ones. maybe they're trying to attract attention from the adbusters crowd.

the cool thing is that it inspired a discussion like this, which would indicate that it was a success on some level.

It looks like the illustration on the cover was commisioned from illustrator Edel Rodriguez to coincide with his write-up on pg. 82, as well as the Cuba Si! feature on page 68, which is an interesting survey of post-revolution graphic design in Cuba.

Hrant
So you’re angry that it alludes to a sad, sickly truth about capitalism?

Was that even implied in my post? I meant what I said. This isn't about my personal views/politics. It's about the 'art of communication' in a first rate (I think) industry mag. I just felt a bit insulted that I would need to be hit over the head THREE TIMES.

Chris
Fredo, they could have used the Mona Lisa :-)

Narrowly avoided...

John/Tiffany

I agree with you on your observations Miss Tiffany, but I think... it's conceptual, but in a 'freshman just out of high school ' way. It just seems like a piece that should either be subdued, or blown to the extreme . ex. Che wearing Prada/Nike/Abercrombie, sitting on pile of fashionable corpse's, eating McDonalds, drinking Pepsi whilst the valet pulls up his H3 for the opening night of the new season of American Idol.

Peter
No, just intimidation, coercion, terror, insurgence and revenge.
Power lies in the resonant messages that typographies convey.

So your saying guns don't kill people, typography does?.

Anthony
Regarding the design’s execution, the metaphor IS redundant, but it’s interesting that without both Swoosh and iPod Buds it looks like a commentary on that particular company/industry/product. Maybe avoiding this was the designer’s intent.

Could you clarify "...looks like a commentary on...intent" ? thx

And yes, the iconography is tired. If they had run it like I first suggested. Someone may have posted something about tired iconography too. *shrugs

Without having read the article, the image suggests shifting trends in the use of graphic design, exposing an ideological clash between Cuba's political past and their impending future in the global marketplace. It's not about a Cuban relationship to Apple, or Nike per se, but the effects of consumerism as a whole on the present design culture. Using multiple corporate elements helps convey this meaning (if you accept that Apple and Nike represent consumerism as a whole). I dont think I would've made that connection as swiftly had it been just an image of Che without the other symbols.

I think your point about the treatment needing to be subdued or blown to the extreme is a good one. This piece falls somewhere in the middle, which is why it feels passé.

i didn't realize that apple and nike were really together untill i saw this today: http://www.apple.com/ipod/nike/

Well, I just finished the article.

Here is the title;

Cuba Si!
By Robert L. Peters, FGDC
Graphic design in post-revolution cuba.

In 13 pages of the feature, about a half a page near the end adressed post-revolution graphic design in Cuba. The rest was history of Cuba and US bashing. I was really hoping to learn something about Cuban graphic design.

Anthony, I wish the article would have addressed ANYTHING of design substance. But alas, it did not.

At least there's the Hoefler feature to look forward to. It's supposed to be about type. Let us hope for the best.

That might be a clicheed comment on misuse of icons but not nearly as patronising as Adobe's latest promotion. Guerilla marketing Pah.
http://www.adobe-live.com/

Tim

Some of you are too young for this one.

I think showing the Nike swoosh AND the earbuds hints at consumer excess as well as the perceived "need" to be trendy.

Reaganomics :-)

ChrisL

Wow Tim, that was weird....I really don't know which one is worse.
I saw a stencil graffiti of Che close to my sister's house ages ago then recently I noticed that someone had added two Mickey Mouse ears to it.

That sounds a little bit Banksy.
Tim

Extremely Banksy-esque...but it's not. In fact I don't think Banksy was even born when this stencil appeared. I went out yesterday to take a picture for you guys but the building wasn't there anymore! Typical.
Speaking of which....did you spot a Banksy on Woody Allen's Match Point?

"Who wins the cliche contest for notable faces? Marylin Monroe, Che, Elvis, or Mona Lisa?"
Did they design fonts too!?

>but the building wasn’t there anymore! Typical.
I had a similar experience with a station that I left a broken-down motorbike at :)

>Speaking of which….did you spot a Banksy on Woody Allen’s Match Point?
I don't really get Woody Allen.

>Marylin Monroe, Che, Elvis, or Mona Lisa
P22 will produce these faces eventually :)
Tim

"Did they design fonts too!?"

No, but they were often typecast :-)

ChrisL

Or this?

"There you go again"

ChrisL

"I don’t really get Woody Allen."

Perhaps you aren't screwed up enough. How someone could make me not care about watching Scarlet J. is quite an achievement, but he managed it.

PS, I wish the moderator could fix it when someone screws up the /cite.

I wish Scarlet J. wouldn't have gotten collagen injections in her lips.

I'd think the word injection would deter any right-thinking person
(Heroin addicts always baffled me).

Perhaps you aren’t screwed up enough. How someone could make me not care about watching Scarlet J. is quite an achievement, but he managed it.

I wish the moderator could fix it when someone screws up this site .

ƒ

Did someone call for a moderator? Whassup?

I'm sorry Yves, I was referring to the content of a post rather than any actual tech problem. Unless You've invented a stupidofilter, that is.

ƒ

Can't the moderators fix it when someone screws up an /em or /cite?
Everything is in italic now.

I think that might be your browser, mine (Safari) shows Fredo's post as bold and yours as roman. Fredo what happened to Rorshach?
Tim

Can’t the moderators fix it when someone screws up an /em or /cite?
Everything is in italic now.

Yes, but we don't see everything, so you may have to alert us. I don't use IE, so you may see more problems than I do, depending on what browser you're using.

If it is only me seeing it, oh well, but here is the html from Graphic Fuzz's post that starts all the italic for me.

Ah, thanks for fixing it.

Oh, Chris that is brilliant!

whoaaaaaaa.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a budding Typophile :-)

ChrisL

Chris, nice!

Eric: the catashnikov (kalashnicat?) is entirely convincing.

hhp

What a load of tripe. George Lois was the last designer to create a magazine cover worth shit. Communication Arts is just another grand excuse for "succesful" designers to congratulate each other for being so brilliant.

And Che Guevera was a commie and deserved his end. Cuba could sink into the sea and nobody would shed a tear. We should have blown the place to pieces when we had it surrounded.

grumpy, please refrain from making hateful remarks on these message boards. this is your second warning.

Grumpy, there have been magazine designers since George Lois who have done some great work, like Neville Brody of course. the world doesn't end on your side of the "pond", as you like to call it. And as for your thoughts on Cuba... what on earth is your problem?

Paul D Hunt, it's nice to know you're trying to keep things well-mannered, but where were you when Fontplayer was spouting off his homophobic rubbish a few months ago? I'd hate to think you only apply the rules when you feel like it.

Either you don't understand the meaning of the word homophobic, or, well, I guess that about sums it up. You read into it what you wanted to read, I guess.

But I know I helped use up everyone's patience, to Grumpy's detriment. When even I find him over the top, I think Paul is justified in his warnings.

Nigella, if you took the time to read the board a bit more more you would see that Paul has decided to be more active & that he thought about & talked to us before he did - which is bloody nice. And if I not mistaken Fontplayer repented. Your comments about Grumpy I will fail to be censorious about. It appears that Grummpy has no pond, location or a valid identity. So as far as I am concerned he has no valid point of view either. Paul, what's the policy on typophile? I thought that you couldn't anonymous like Grumps. Can we just toss him overboard?

Nigella, as Eben pointed out, those remarks you're referring to are exactly what prompted me to be more proactive. sorry i wasn't more so a month or two ago.
Eben, we're watching this one and we'll see if we can't come to a consensus on how to handle it soon.

Grumpy

Get with the program. It is only politically correct to throw barbs at France.

Gerald

Eric

I'm not sure if anyone has commented on this, but your cat with the machine gun is as surreal as is the appropriation of the Che image. Are they not in some manner of Post-Modernist thinking one and the same? And do either really deserve more than a passing comment?

Gerald

YEEEEHAAA!!! Bring on the negativity!!! Cant we just stop!!! Holy Moley!!! Everytime I log in, were having a retread of the same old same old. It's really getting to the point… where I think people are LOOKING/TWISTING OTHER PEOPLES THOUGHTS for things to rag on them about, maliciously…seriously. We don't need it here. It doesn't foster anything positive, nor does it make me want to 'collaborate.'

I’m sorry Yves, I was referring to the content of a post rather than any actual tech problem. Unless You’ve invented a stupidofilter, that is.
ƒ

Fredrik

Were you refering to something in this thread? Please share.

Gerald,

Well, i guess I must explain my actions. I have very little confidence in myself as a designer, and I was simply posting to see if any of my observations had validity. Ok? Thanks.

Eric

Not sure what just happened here. Didn't intend to rankle you, thought it an innocent question actually. I do like the cat!!!

Yeah, observations always have validity. And there is no reason not to share them. But in a public forum no reason to expect just a pat on the back.

Maybe this forum should not be sub-titled "Anything goes." Reads like an invitation to head-bashing.

Gerald

Gerald,

I apologize, I'm Just a little annoyed that this thread got hijacked, and turned into hate-stew. I wasn't expecting a pat on the back, I was looking for opinions.

I'm just out of school and most of the people i went with couldn't care less about design 'off the clock.' I, on the other hand, do. And this, Typophile, is the ONLY place at all I have to talk about type/design with anyone. And, you could be completely right, and I could've just ignored it. It didn't really turn into any deep discussion.,

Eric

Yeah, I like your cat too!

But to get back to the point of your post - the swoosh, the iconic earbuds & che are all now ubiquitous parts of pop culture no matter when where or why they came from to begin with. Don't like it? - too bad & too late. So really, they are a kind of pop trifecta. The superimposition of two white marks over che gives the impression of complete pop saturation - or corruption - depending on where you stand. Anything less would fail to beat us senseless.

I suppose the length of discussion* and readers of the dialogue validate the design to a degree.
*even cul-de-sacs and admonitions
Tim

Eric,

I was referring to the post I quoted. Sorry, I thought it was obvious.
And yes, I like the cat too.

ƒ

“Who wins the cliche contest for notable faces? Marylin Monroe, Che, Elvis, or Mona Lisa?”

This conversation reminds me of Ron English's 'Popaganda' painting (semi-NSFW if your bosses are uptight).

Anybody else read this? I really like the quote about Che throwing Piñera's work on the floor. I can't decide whether to wear my Che shirt or my Jerry Falwell shirt today.

That's quite the article, Robert. Thanks for posting it.

I thought the synopsis couldn't have been written any better: The real lesson gained [...] is embedded in the final irony of the capitalist exploitation of a communist icon. In its capitalist incarnation, the image, ironically, becomes heroic, unassailable: the essence of idealism and socialist revolution. What gets lost is the real Che Guevera—the one behind the photograph.

And Eric, just for the record, that cat rocks!

Chris Rugan,
I got a big laugh out of the Ron English link! The symbolism of pop-culture juxtaposed on itself is truly surreal. It is great to see Walt Disney keeping abreast of other Hollywood giants :-)

ChrisL

Oh Chris......

"What gets lost is the real Che Guevera—the one behind the photograph."

...and just to bring this all the way back around to brands and consumerism, did you know Che was wearing a Rolex when he died?

NO! Really?!

Well, maybe not when he died, but when he was captured. A CIA officer who was helping the Bolvians find him took it as a trophy.

One of our local non-profit stores got sued by "Fashion Victim" the new owners of the Che photographic image. I googled and found this article:

http://thefrontweekly.com/print/36

An excerpt:

Fashion Victim is suing Northern Sun Merchandising of Minneapolis, which has been peddling Guevara t-shirts for the past 25 years. Fashion Victim supposedly bought the rights to the famous image of Guevara from the photographer Alberto Korda in 2002, ignoring the fact that the image circulated freely in the public domain for decades and that the familiar two-toned stencil-like version of Korda's photograph wasn't created by Korda but instead by Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick. The irony here, as a recent Utne Reader article points out, is that Fashion Victim manufactures its T-shirts in Honduras, a country that produces most of its exported clothing in sweatshops.

>did you know Che was wearing a Rolex when he died?

I believe it's standard squadie practice to wear an expensive watch - it comes in handy for bartering or when captured by a farmer - "Rather than hand me over to the Germans, take my watch and let me go."

"I believe it’s standard squadie practice to wear an expensive watch - it comes in handy for bartering or when captured by a farmer"

I think it has more to do with Guevera's upper bourgeoisie status and that he was a brand whore who probably *would* have his corpse stripped of an iPod and Bluetooth Razr and Airs today. I rather doubt that he doled out spendy branded watches to his cadres, just in case of capture.

Oh, and plus, I'd have a lot more respect for him if he'd been wearing a Movado.

> I’d have a lot more respect for him if ...

No you wouldn't.

hhp

Just saw Chris' portrait.

LOL! ;^)

Is that curl on your forehead a lonely white hair?

And where does the Rolex story come from anyway? Where is the source? I don't believe it for a second, not that I think it impossible but because spreading the rumour is (or was at the time) too bloody convenient. I can't believe people don't question things before taking them for granted, it's so easy to spread this sort of stuff.

Serious, Chris, I had to save the image because it's too brilliant.

"And where does the Rolex story come from anyway? Where is the source?"

What, you want me to do your reading for you? You know, there's this thing called the Internet, and on it you can look things up in like two seconds, even if you're allergic to books.

For instance, if you typed "che" and "rolex" into one of the windows at the top of your browser, right now--or, better, maybe before you'd posted--you'd get about a zillion hits referencing the fact that Che was wearing one and that Felix Rodriguez, the CIA agent I referred to, took it and made a point of showing it off in years after. Several of the top hits at Google are from communist/socialist sources, just in case you find anything else ideologically suspect.

And you're welcome.

And where does the Rolex story come from anyway? Where is the source? I don’t believe it for a second, not that I think it impossible but because spreading the rumour is (or was at the time) too bloody convenient. I can’t believe people don’t question things before taking them for granted, it’s so easy to spread this sort of stuff.

Is it too bloody convenient or are your just perturbed someone has an opposing view?
bloody hostile is where this is going

how does anyone know ANYTHING about Che? He is either deified or villified. None here was a guerella fighter with him. We can't really say what was and what wasnt. That said, i'm inclined to believe either story based on that. I guarantee there is misinformation on both sides.

"No you wouldn’t."

Yes, I would, actually. Rolexes are what hicks buy when they win the Lotto.

I can't stop laughing right now…

You missed my point entirely.
It was too inconvenient.

hhp

An aside:

My brothers life long friend in Phoenix was a Green Beret in Colombia and Bolivia in the 60s and was on the team that took Che down.

One time I complained to him about Rage Against the Machine having Che stenciled on their amps while playing a Free Tibet concert and he told me the story and then told me he loved Rage Against the Machine!

It's a strangely spherical world…

peace

Even Marx knew that communism was a dumb idea, but that didn't stop Castro and Guevera and Stalin and Lenin from making it their system of dictatorship. Strong nations are built, like the United States, on a foundation of capitalism and military strength.

Its not surprising that Guevera would have a Rolex: it's always the pigs who find the truffles.

Its not surprising that Guevera would have a Rolex: it’s always the pigs who find the truffles.

Mmmmmmm, truffles...

A few decades of power, and the little people think they're god's gift
to mankind. In fact your descent has already started - but you're so
drunk on blood that you don't even realize it.

hhp

I think we need a general call for order. Let's get back on topic or kindly refrain from posting.

*hands Tiffany a Moderator Gavel*

Whew, Thanks Tiff.

Ironic though, we're talking about a time when the accuracy and dependability of a Rolex was far more useful to the left than the right. And now, we're talking about a time when earphones and running shoes are much more useful to the right than the left. A stencil for all seasons.

Eric: I think the topic was really interesting and I know how you feel about seeing your thread being hijacked. I remember how it felt when I asked for help regarding a book on gay parades and I had to read some really useless comments on how people felt about gays, which it wasn't really what I had asked. I didn't feel really bad because there were still loads of useful suggestions but still, it was a drag. I don't know but once you have start posted your thing, it's not something you can control so I hope you are not taking it too personal, I don't think anyone wanted to sabotage you. Also I don't really care about what people think about Che Guevara (it's not something I need or wish to control) and what I meant was exactly that there is misinformation on both sides (assuming there are only 2 sides).
I suspect that if I had answered "oh really? Che had a rolex??? Wow!" everyone would have been happier but hey, people don't always say what you want to hear... Well, I hope you feel better today. This was a particularly unfortunate thread that started going wrong the minute psycho-grumpy walked in. In fact I am inclined to think that grumpy and google-boy RNLee are the same person. Just a feeling...but yeah, I think the CA cover was interesting in a weird way...it looks almost like they did this as a joke and then found no use for it. Then they decided to publish an article on Cuban Design and they remembered they had something vaguely Cuban stashed in some drawer and the cover was ready. They forgot to add the rolex though...tsk...tsk...tsk...
Now, after all that I really need to go on a Typophile detox for a while.

I know how you feel about seeing your thread being hijacked

In most cases, it isn't hijacking, it is just derailed. Sometimes a simple comment is blown out of proportion and becomes the focus.

Not even derailed, but branching. Like a tree.

hhp

Anyway, if you want my opinion, I'm tired of seeing cultural icons abused by designers.

It's not that I have no sense of humour, but I tend to be more and more annoyed to see people targeting a single individual. And I don't care if it's a publically perceived "evil" figure. I just dislike it.

In my opinion, Chris post was the most thoughtful and balanced, and of course it reflected the truth about the perception people tend to have. The Beatles, for example, as many people in the 1960s and 1970s, developed a fascination for eastern spirituality, which rarely led them to deepen their search. This is probably true of any generation. Any process of insight is costly. It seems the majority of people prefer to use things at a very superficial level, especially as we are tempted to spend a lot of idle hours on the web.

I admit I skipped over some posts so instead of addressing anything said earlier I'd like to offer up my view on this cover when I first saw it. (and steer clear from derailing this any more)

The use of Che Guevara's image on the front cover pulled in the article about Cuba nicely while highlighting how one cult figure in a country has turned into a commercial success of sorts that it's just as recognizable as the Nike swoosh of white ear bud headphones these days. It also worked nicely as Apple's ad's tend to run with the silhouette's and headphones, replacing the star with Nike's logo was an obvious choice in a way considering it's one of the most recognized shapes on the planet now.

I am not sure you can crit an image the the one presensted *without* talking about who Che was ( or wasn't) or the fact that the info is all 3rd hand at best, etc. That's the whole point of the image; it's built-in controversy.

CA & the graphic artist (whoever that was) is attempting ( for the umpteeth time ) to stir the pot with an old contreversial image. And guess what? It worked. Here on Typophile anyway. That doesn't mean that there aren't other kinds of graphic design points to be made as well. But the two are going to mixed in this case. It's inevitable.

So I don't agree that the thread was hijacked. Not at all. The whole idea that it was seems completely & utterly ridiculous to me.

RE: 'or refrain from posting.'

This seems a bit harsh as well. I know that we are looking for a kinder & gentler Typophile & I am all for it. But it's hard to avoid breaking a new rule & especially one that you don't understand yet. I can be compliant & I am willing - but only for a rule that's clear. If someone can show me what I could be missing here I am willing to try to understand.

Sense?

Claudio, Nice post!

Eben, that was astute and perfectly stated.

Yep, things do sort themselves out eventually. I was one of the few that opted for "do nothing" in Paul Hunt's poll. I believe that at some point we can all stop, look back and find out where things started going wrong and why otherwise we'll all hold a grudge that will probably come back at the next opportunity...hasta la victoria siempre (oups!). Having said that, call me naive but I think that the cover should reflect the mood of the content/ article, in this case a survey on post revolution graphic design in Cuba. I wanted to know who the author was because I had never heard of him and found this:
http://cubanamericanpundits.blogspot.com/2006/05/cuba-si-propaganda-no-u...
I think it's easier to discuss the cover image if you know more about the content. The book cover (and I think it applies to mags as well) sets the overall tone of the piece so it's not enough to discuss Che (but it helps). I think it's more useful to discuss the relationship between the cover and the content. IMHO of course...

"I think it’s more useful to discuss the relationship between the cover and the content."

Exactly!

ChrisL

Lorenza, thats a good find. I've read the article, and as I posted earlier, there is very little about cuban graphic design or commercial exploitation ( which would lead to a discuss the relationships between cover and content". That's funny that Rodriguez was ticked about it too. The author is a former head of ICONGRADA, how does CA handle that???

Hi everyone,
This is the guy responsible for all this trouble! I was looking around to see if anyone thought anything of my CA cover and landed here. Glad it started up some discussion, it's great when a simple piece of art can do that these days I think.

Let me put out some info that might help understand the image a bit.

CA was doing a feature on the last ten years of my illustration work. I do a lot of work for The New Yorker, TIME, Rolling Stone, etc. I'm also an art director. I found out they were also doing a story on Cuban design in the same issue so I sent this image for them to consider for the cover and they loved it. Probably because they thought it would start some conversation such as this.

How I came up with such brilliance!:
Well, I know it's not freakin' rocket science here, but it did make me chuckle.
I was born in Cuba in 1971, grew up in the "Revolution", lucky me. Anyways, I must have drawn this image of Che about a hundred times when I lived in Cuba, starting around age 3. It's everywhere, so it's what I drew, along with tanks, guns, and missiles, cause that's what was on t.v. there. American kids draw superheroes and cartoons instead. Che was my Mickey Mouse.

I figured after all this time, I could do one more drawing of Che, kind of coming full circle after having left Cuba and "making it" in Capitalist U.S. I thought maybe I had some license to mess with the image since it has so much to do with my biography. A lot of this was lost on people that don't know me I guess. But if one where to read the story inside you would have learned a lot about my background which helps put the image in some context.

How I came up with the idea:
My family that is still in Cuba just got access to the internet, e-mail, etc. They are just learning about these i-pods, tech gear, brands, etc. So I've started gettting e-mails from them requesting things like memory sticks, i-pods, things with brand names, etc. Years ago I would get letters from them asking for medicine or food. So, the idea that Cuba is slowly changing into a capitalist society is what came of this communication with my family back on the island. And this image was the result.

Another thing that has bugged me over the years is all these people with Che t-shirts and the whole Che cult. People that have no clue what a cold blooded killer Che was and how many people's lives were ruined by the Cuban revolution (Not well to do folks, but artists, musicians, poets, homosexuals, or anyone that had individual ideas and expressed them.)

So, people here in the U.S. that are all underground and hipster and "original" with the Che gear and that all wear the same brands and listen to their i-pods annoy me. They try to act all rebel and counterculture but they're all fitting in in their own way. I think this image worked for me as a criticism of such an attitude as well.

I am very well aware that doing anything with "Che" is the biggest cli-"Che" ever. I went ahead with it because I figured it would tick off some people and, if anyone knew me, they would realize that I just like to do that sometimes. I feel some designers, artists, etc. put up these rules, "oh you can't do that, gotta do it this way, must be super original always", it's a very American, western way to look at things. It's not the way I grew up making imagery, we take one thing, do something to it, do something to it again. Go to any country in Latin America and you'll see this kind of stuff, artists commenting on culture, on each other, a dialogue, which I think doesn't happen in the U.S. as much.

Well, that's it for now. I'm not much of a chat room person but I registered here, I'll check back and answer any questions you guys have. It's great to talk about art, design, type, very smart stuff. Not so crazy when the thing goes off the topic.

Oh, and the machine gun cat is just freakin' awesome.

Thanks for all the comments.

Edel

Edel,

It's nice to hear from the man himself! Thanks for taking the time to respond to our little amateur wrestling match.

Your work in your write-up is beautiful by-the-way.

I feel some designers, artists, etc. put up these rules, “oh you can’t do that, gotta do it this way, must be super original always”, it’s a very American, western way to look at things. It’s not the way I grew up making imagery, we take one thing, do something to it, do something to it again. Go to any country in Latin America and you’ll see this kind of stuff, artists commenting on culture, on each other, a dialogue, which I think doesn’t happen in the U.S. as much.

The cover makes more sense with your exposition. Thanks for taking the time to explain. My original post was a bit (just a little) of a knee-jerk reaction, but, in my own defense, I'm just out of school, and am trying to challenge myself to think more about design, instead of just concentrating on what it looks like.

It didn't seem to take long to (de)evolve into an ideological pile-up, and I admit, I havn't had a chance to read your article yet. But I will (especially now) after your response and the aforementioned Cuban American Pundits link. It's always good to have an insiders view of goings-on abroad.

Thx again,

Eric

Totally bitchin! Welcome.

...how many people’s lives were ruined by the Cuban revolution (Not well to do folks, but artists, musicians, poets, homosexuals, or anyone that had individual ideas and expressed them.

Thankfully my favorite trumpet player, Arturo Sandoval (probably the best all-around on the planet) was able to escape. I played trumpet professionally for a time, but unfortunately (for me) he often goes beyond what I can comprehend. Oddly, when I saw him at the local perfoming art center, his piano playing blew me completely away.

Oops, there I go branching off again.
; )

Hey, does anyone sense that cat boy is backing down, come on man, Bring It On!!

Well, anyways, glad I was able to clear some things up. As you can see from my work inside the magazine, the cover is not necessarily typical of what I do. It was me taking another road and commenting a bit. Inside there is something similar I guess, Mao in an Yves Saint Laurent tunic for a story on the New China for TIME magazine. Most of my work are portraits and musicians or theater drawings, plus some conceptual stuff.

Where I kind of wondered if you were a student or just "out of school" is when you mentioned in the original post that it might have made more sense without the i-pods and Nike logo. Then what do you have, Che? What does that say? nothing. You might need to go back to that school my man. Round 1: Señor Rodriguez. I kid, I kid.

The only reason for that is that the image of Che is so synonymous WITH capitalism now, I had questioned the other two elements were necessary to convey the meaning. I think it would say loads, BECAUSE it was on the cover of CA and NOT on a fashion T, the target audience would understand.

Is that completely off base?

Nice Posts Edel! Cheers! I hope you stick around & give us the benefit of your perspective on things besides your cover too.

Eric, I think the audience of CA mostly needs and is interested in graphic messages that are 'powerful' ( bludeoning). CA is about mass communication! I can't blame them. And your idea strikes me as too subtle. Also, it assumes that the audience reads the 'Che' part of the image in the same way you do. So yes, I think you are off base. Sorry. Just my idea about it.

On the other hand I don't think the meaning of the cover is clear or precise despite it's strength. It can be read too many ways. That's not important to CA because it's a funny image & works with their theme so what it means precisely isn't important. It's strong! It's graphic! And sometimes having an image that can be read many ways is a good thing. It maintains it interest longer. Especially if it's that worn out Che again.

Regarding the meaning of the cover: Edel's explanation make 100% sense. However if you or I read the image a different way then that's valid too.

To me it just looks like an homage to strange power of brands.

RE: Not so crazy when the thing goes off the topic.

Where was that in your opinion? I still don't have the slightest idea where you would draw that line. Drawing the line at abuse is one thing ( It sounds like there has been some & thats bad ) but right now we have no working definition of a 'topic'. I am not clear getting one is a good idea at all.

Yeah, American TV rocks. Everybody knows that.
Oh, and Typophile is a killer chatroom.

hhp

i just wanted to write "i find it pretty cliché to use che on such a cover, it has been done a thousand times and most people wont understand anyway" - but there you go, all wrong.

thanks for your explanations, i gained interesting insight. i think its important to be able to cite in an intelligent way, but at the same time, using che is "wrong" in my view in nearly every case. but with your biography, its good.

It isn't so much the art of communication if You need the story of the designers life to get it, is it?

ƒ

With 115 replies, it seems to have induced a lot of communication around here.

Doesn't this prove that without context, it is only art? I'll second the "thank yous" for sharing the story behind the cover.

Crumbs, the thread has been intercepted. Our cover is blown!

Edel, what can I say? I'm thrilled you joined the party and hope you stick around. So my theory of you having the image stashed somewhere was not true, was it? Come on, you can tell us. Nothing wrong about recycling stuff, you know. ; )

Tiffany: that's the idea, it's a magazine cover, not fine arts. But then again what's the difference between fine arts and graphic design? The patron?

PS: Why am I the only one to think the cat sucks? I can't stand it, Eric. I had to say that, please don't hate me! It's disturbing! I love cats!

RE: fine arts and graphic design? The patron?

It's only in the last hundred years that you could assert that I think. And not too strongly I would argue. The idea that a difference exists that is meaningful seems increasingly spurious to me. You can be as slavish or independant as you like in either field. There is nothing inherently pure obout fine arts & nothing inherently dirty about graphic design or applied arts.

RE: "only art".

What do you mean? Only that without context it's only decoration? Or do you mean that Edel's explanation is the *true* way of reading the image since thats what he says he intended? I don't mean to suggest that you intended either reading of your statement - just that I cannot tell what you mean. Kinda like Edel's cover. It can be taken so many ways.

RE: Killer chatroom

I laughed out loud. But in truth I have no idea what you mean for sure either.

It must be vague cloudy wispy language day today.

Whoosh!

Well, I love cats too, and a cat with an uzi is just plain funny.

Let me try to answer some things here. Not a chat room pro so bear with me. I'll start from the last post.

No, I didn't have the image stashed somewhere. I actually haven't done anything with the straight Che image since I was a kid. This is why I thought, for a biographical story about me, my work, and another on Cuban design in the same issue, this image made sense. I have drawn Che posters in the background of drawings I did when I've traveled to Cuba to visit family, etc. Some of those have been published.

I think some of the problem is that people see the image on the site here and may not realize that it's meant to be seen, as Eric first saw it, at the Newsstand at Barnes and Noble or Borders or at a library. Or in your mailbox if you subscribe to CA. You look at it, makes you wonder what it's about, you look inside for a credit or info, and you might go ahead and read the inside stuff.

I think part of the problem is that the original question assumes that this image was done for a bunch of type and design geeks like ourselves that spend the weekend on a chatroom discussing the intricacies of serifs. I didn't do it for those folks alone.

When you start working for magazines you realize that what the publisher wants is their stories to be read and their magazines to be purchased by as large an audience as possible. So, I wanted Joe Schmo at the Barnes and Noble to be looking around and go "hey, it's Che, and i-pod, and nike", funny, what the hell is this, etc.

I like to communicate to a lot of different people. My dad never got past the sixth grade but there's nothing like the feeling when I show him something and he gets it, laughs, asks questions, etc. This is who the world is made up of, not type geeks. If if works for them too, then great, but I'm not going to shelf an image because the art police might come after me.

About Fredo's comment: I don't think you need my life story to "get it". I've had plenty of people e-mail or have a reaction without knowing much about me. And there was a lot of talk about it here before I came into the picture. I thought my info would just help people learn more about it.

I tried to give some info for anyone that looked at the magazine. On the contents page there is a title, caption and credit. It reads:

Cover: "Brand CAChé". "A wired Cuban generation seeks the status of our logo culture as we seek the rebel status of theirs"

With those few chosen words I tried to describe a couple of ways that the image can be read, which was my intent, for it to be read in several ways. I guess some people have trouble with that. My background is in Painting and fine art so reading something 100 ways is what I was taught to do.

One person that seems to be on the money on a lot of this is Eben Sorkin:

He says "To me it just looks like an homage to strange power of brands." Bingo, that's what I was after. That's why it's called "Brand CA-Ché" How they're all a brand, Che, i-pod, nike, even CA, and how people just get hypnotized by them. Ad agencies throw around the term "brand cache" all the time. How to make your brand sing, blah, blah. And when I go to Cuba, Che is treated the same way. The one place you think would honor him has him plastered on watches, cigars, lighters, on and on.

And on Eben's comment about going off topic, I meant the abusive stuff or things that I read 3 or 4 times and can't understand. I think this is a conversation, it should go all over the place, about music, tv, culture. I was just once on an illustrator's chat thing, there was a great intellectual subject at hand and somebody just came in and derailed the whole thing into a conversation about troubles he was having with his family. So, it got me off the chat rooms for a while. Rather be working instead.

thanks, Edel

I think Typophile is more than just a chatroom.

> an uzi

I think you need to watch a lot more TV.

> This is who the world is made up of, not type geeks.

That's very true. Certainly any good designer (which is not at all the same thing as a good artist) knows that, and takes it to heart. But that doesn't mean a good designer should ignore his conscience outright, and it certainly doesn't mean a good person has to actually like what the deluded masses do. And certainly, there's way too much non-type talk on Typophile. In fact almost any other cover of any other magazine is worth discussing more than this, since it would probably have more type -and more interesting type- on it.

hhp

Thank you, lore.
And Edel, wait 'till you see our Mondays.

hhp

I guess I have some respect for the "deluded masses". People like my parents that get their asses up everyday, go drive a truck or work at some sweatshop rather than sit in front of a mac and tickle type. I think they count, and they're not deluded.

And I don't think I've ignored my conscience. My conscience tells me to comment on this stuff that's in my head, and I can't do that without working with imagery that someone might think is just "unoriginal".

If you want to discuss "another cover, of any other magazine", how about this week's TIME. Sorry, no type on it. And it's great because it has no type, the "masses" will love it. E.R.

Working hard doesn't equate to being deluded. In fact in most of
the world it's the other way around. Your parents don't read CA.

And when you see people working in a sweatshop, instead of blindly
applauding their grit you might instead look for the source of their
misery, and hopefully consider a world where their lives aren't
locked into making goddam Nike trainers for their masters.

BTW, I have no reason to believe you ignore your conscience.
Just don't look down on others who also don't, but arrive at
different conclusions and actions. Your TV is lying to you.

> And it’s great because it has no type, the “masses” will love it.

http://www.themicrofoundry.com/ss_uniglyph1.html

Time magazine sucks too.

hhp

Yes, my parents don't read CA. My freakin' point is that they or someone like them might be at a bookstore, see an image on a cover that connects with them, stop, read, look and learn something they might not know.

And don't give me any lectures on what I need to do about sweatshops. You don't know a damn thing about me, my family, how many hours they and I have put in at sweatshops making crap for you. I applaud their grit because they worked their ass off their whole lives, they're proud of their work and they'd do it all over again if they had to. Do you think people in Latin America go on about their "masters". I think you are deluded. They have a job, it feeds their family, they take pride in it. Do you actually know any of these people? I do.

I don't look down on anyone who disagrees with me or my work, I have no clue what you're talking about. My TV is lying to me? what is this?

And TIME magazine doesn't suck. If just saying things suck is what goes for dialogue around here then I might be heading out soon. I think hhp and I just don't have many things in common. Probably who I was trying to bug with my CA cover anyways.

I wish you wouldn't get all personal here but if that's where you want to go then I'm right there with you.

E.R.

I don't think we're using "sweatshop" in the same way. The people I'm talking about, which having traveled a good deal I know well enough, would kill to be you. As for Latin America, it's been leaning very strongly to the left for a few years now. Do you read the BBC? For anything besides Irish issues, it's really your best bet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4916270.stm

Or if you want a "design" perspective, get yourself some copies of the Argentine magazine tipoGrafica, where anti-imperialistic sentiment is firmly entwined in the content. Yes, we're different, not least because we listen to different people. I would simply urge you to consider who you're really listening to, backstage.

But really, as you said above, you think you've "made it". So I have to think that the only chance you have of changing your mind is via a person you trust personally. Clearly I cannot be that person. Which does not mean we should treat each other impersonally.

hhp

Well, I've traveled a good deal too. But traveling a good deal is not the same as living somewhere.

I think you lean left politically, and I believe a lot of your comments come from there. I respect that, I've had plenty of civil conversations with communists in Cuba, some in my own family.

I am not a right winger by far, I'm very liberal, I just think that there are so many apologists for communist tyrants. Tyranny is tyranny whether it's right or left wing. I know everything about what's going on in Latin America, don't need to check out the BBC. I'm Latin, I watch Spanish T.V., and read papers, left and right, it's all well covered. It's not being spoon fed to me, they present all sides, etc. And what's going on is more dicators taking over, through "democratic" means. Basically, Latin Americans are all freaked out by Bush so they're reacting to it and getting nationalistic. Now Chavez wants to be president for life in Venezuela, like Castro. I say to all leftists, what would you think of having Bush as president for life. Tyranny is tyranny, left or right.

I don't know who you think I "listen" to backstage. And this whole I "made it" thing was in "quotes" for a reason, it was tongue in cheek. But I do believe everyone in my family who has left Cuba has made it. I came by boat, my cousins have risked their lives on inner tubes for a week floating out at sea, some have died. Do you think this is a casual thing? It's the biggest decision we've had to make to leave our homeland, our grandparents, our sisters, our kids. And why have we left? Because it's suffocating to live there. I don't see Americans or Europeans getting on rafts to float somewhere else. Something must be right then. It's called freedom and opportunity, something that those born in free countries just take for granted all too often.

Thanks for the insightful comments. I look forward to treating one another with respect. You commie!

yes, that was a joke.

E.R.

this exhibition at the v&a may be of some interest.

I did not say I was annoyed by the use of an image which has become ubiquitous. My displeasement comes (and will always come) from what can be called a "scapegoat" syndrome. Evil acting is not partial, but this does not mean being "liberal" or addressing a problem by firing against a single individual solves anything. It leads only to a growing resentment.

Surely Edel was aiming his cover design to a specific audience, and he was addressing something he considered important. But what does it mean "an homage to strange power of brands"? If he's sure his criticism went through, then he succeeded. I'm not the qualified audience to understand this. I may know poverty as we had in Italy in the early 20th century (part of my grandfathers were farmers and very poor) but I barely know who Che Guevara was, so I think it's not essential I get this particular message.

Whatever message Edel cared about, the important is if it's received with an openly critical attitude by people who should get it. Visual suggestions rely largely on their context, but if a cliché helps, welcome.

Interesting that even a reformed revolutionary isn't allowed into an exhibition of "Che as icon". Here's the Guardian's take on it: Sorry Gerry. You're just not the right sort for Che's V&A party.

Trisha Ziff, the curator of Che Guevara: revolutionary & icon at the Victoria & Albert Museum

... submitted her guest list, which included Mr Adams, a personal friend with whom she had worked on exhibitions in the past. She then received an email from Shaun Cole, acting head of the contemporary programme at the V&A, who told her all guests had been approved "except Gerry Adams, who is not relevant or appropriate". Ms Ziff, already unhappy that the museum had removed much of the text accompanying and explaining the images, which has now been posted on the website instead, said: "I was gobsmacked. Inviting Gerry was not a stunt and it never occurred to me there would be a problem."

She and Mr Adams wondered if Guevara would also have been barred, had he still been alive.

The explanation from the museum seemed to be that various fashion models had been invited to another exhibition opening at the same time, and one wouldn't want them bumping into the "irrelevant" and "inappropriate" Mr Adams.

Meanwhile the museum shop will be selling copies of all the featured Che images, a Che-branded lip balm, a Che finger puppet, a Che chocolate cigar, a Che doll, a Che cigar box, Che T-shirts, Che stickers, Che neon signs and Che badges. Whether Che's works Guerrilla Warfare, El socialismo y el hombre en Cuba and Critical Notes on Political Economy will be available at the shop is not currently known by this author.

My comment was meant not as any sort of criticism. Everything communicates, art or otherwise, you can't not communicate. Even without Mr. Rodriguez's explanation it reads as a statement about capitalism. However, given the explanation the context helps me now view it from his eyes.

The first time I met Laurence, at the TypeCon98 "ice-breaker" party,
he was wearing a Che shirt. A real one. I didn't know who he was, but
I remember approaching him with a "nice shirt", and moving on, for
the moment. It's great to see the spirit is still alive, my friend.

hhp

That's what I meant. I appreciate a lot Laurence's story.

I think this discussion validates what John Hudson tried to say when he questioned whether visual language can truly be considered "communication". All what we have read and wrote here seems to prove pictures 'per se' are precious but are not enough detailed to truly communicate concepts.
People seem to be always more prone to follow the easy route instead of considering the various facets of an historical fact by getting into it.

Music and visual language communicate things that words can't.

I prefer the abstraction of those mediums…

peace

I think many people have come to think of image as being more important than what it stands for. What matters too much to some is being chic. Are we becoming a more shallow world? Probably true for the more "sophisticated consumer"--after all, isn't a designer logo required to be prominently displayed on our clothing to be truly chic?. Real people who have real struggles each day for basic needs don't have this luxury.
There is type on things but mostly branding. Edel showed a Time magazine cover and said it had no type on it. We have become so accustomed to the icons of our modern era that we no-longer consider the letters T-I-M-E in succession as a word. Type and letter forms are also visual images. Communication happens either way. It rarely is the intended message though. That is why graphic design is much harder than it is given credit for (if done well). Perhaps if we consider that the job of a magazine cover is simply to get someone to open it instead of getting the total meaning of the written story, we can find a bit more success in what we see done every day but still strive to do more when given the chance.

ChrisL

Paul, abstraction is actually why I prefer text faces to display ones.

On the other hand, I don't hold things like photography in
high regard, at least not in the way it's usually seen/used.

hhp

When you say that about a text face are you referring to its primary goal being functionality?

Mediums for expression just are, it's the pieces that either resonate or not.

I love novels, but I have also thought much about the power of words.

Perhaps the pen wields the sword…

peace

I mean that the text font sphere is non-literal, subconscious.
That said, no font can be pure text or pure display.

hhp

Chris! Laurence, Sweet Posts.

quote - I mean that the text font sphere is non-literal, subconscious.

Since text faces are addressing the subconscious it seems like an anthropological approach would make sense. Claude Levi-Strauss or perhaps Jung…

Does this make any sense?

peace

To me what seems to make most sense in the sphere of text face design
is to learn to let go: not to ignore what we [think we] know, but to come
to terms with the fact that A System Can Never Understand Itself, and
as a result that Control is largely illusional.

hhp

"On the other hand, I don’t hold things like photography in
high regard, at least not in the way it’s usually seen/used."

Can you explain this a bit, please, Mr. hrant? Maybe i'm dim, but I don't think I see what you're getting at? What i've always loves about photographs is that there's often more there than the photographer can see when he or she takes the picture.

Hrant - Are you actually trying to tell me it's a lot like life?

:)

I can't believe it…

peace

The worst part of a capitalist society is that it makes you concentrate on results, instead of process.

But that can be avoided…

peace

That could also be seen as one obvious difference between design and art. The design must have a clear idea of what it wants, and it must work. A typeface is not interesting 'in theory' as much as in action. Art doesn't have to 'work' in that sense. But as Tiffany wrote, that doesn't mean it won't communicate.

ƒ

"Music and visual language communicate things that words can’t.
I prefer the abstraction of those mediums…"

Paul, I think you have not read the thread I mentioned. it's here:
http://typophile.com/node/8733
It's not just an intellectual thing. In fact, I think both verbal and nonverbal have the power to obscurate or enlighten, they are means.
The discussion in that thread was about the possibility of communicating complex ideas.

It's emblematic you name music, since music seems a good example: while music per se can touch our deepest corners (in many ways), it's only in pop music elaborate ideas start to be conveyed through verbal language as well. This, depending on the use, can reinforce or weaken the emotional facet, but nonetheless lyrics articulate meaning, a thing which is not possible in classical or instrumental.

By saying this I'm not even remotely implying analytical thought is, or should be considered something superior to mythic, symbolic or poetic one. In fact, poetry could be the best example: it's part of "the arts", but according on how you use it, you could convey meaning the most effectively, because you can be partly analytical as well.
In the end, it's all about a "common language", a language of communion.

I see no difference between design or art or music and life itself.

I love Hrant's last comment, what is true when he stares into the microcosm of a text face is true everythwere. That is the power of microcosmic observation. All of sudden a text face becomes alchemic.

No offense, but I find the theories on this board more interesting than the typefaces themselves. I am interested in journeys.

I am paranoid about words, yet my tongue is not still…

peace

Well, glad this image was able to create this long, strange trip. Nice ideas, some fly right on over my head, but, you know, not a type "expert" over here. As Sorkin says it gets "real vague cloudy wispy language" around here sometimes. Did you know there's a whole other group redesigning existing ampersands! That's real passion! Typophile is the perfect title for this place, it's fun.

So, I hate to bring it back to the real world. I have a question that I've always wondered about since college, when all my professors were 60's, Che lovin', hippies. The question is, how does a designer, whose passion is to communicate and to do that freely, square those beliefs with the support of Che, the Cuban Revolution, Castro, etc., who stay in power through outright censorship, control of the media, propaganda, etc. And don't tell me that the West does the same thing, and that I just don't know it. That's the canned answer.

Regardless of what the west does, how can a designer who thrives on the free flow of ideas, such as the one's in this post, support a dictatorship with such passion. Maybe hrant or the fellow with the Che shirt can help me out. This is not a post about type, I know, but the group is subtitled "anything goes". If you'd like to talk ampersands, well, you know where to go.

thanks, Edel

> That’s the canned answer.

Ah.
Well then it seems that first you'd need to open your mind. There are so many things that confuse your simplistic take on "communication". Complex, paradoxical, human things like the benefits of freedom from choice, the nefarious origins of free compulsory public education, the succubus that is free speech, that throw any western moral minimalism straight out the window in the mind of any free-thinking human being.

Here's a clue from my end though: I'm not a commie, I'm a monarchist.

--

If you find the time, and would like the perspective of a generally highly-regarded type designer, please read Eric Gill's (short) "Essay on Typography". Gill was very concerned with the dignity of man, as opposed to how fast he can chow down how many pizzas while watching how many football games.

To paraphrase the Roman Senate: Give them pizza, and give them
football, and they will not revolt. And this empire is imploding too.

hhp

Edel, I have spent a lot of years talking to people of differing political opinions, including on this forum. I am struck that people are amazingly impervious to facts when it comes to politics. Politics is a realm where people are vulnerable to particularly irrational thinking. 'Are you on the side of the good guys?' seems to be the main question.

If it were more rational people would be asking 'What social problems are to be solved?' and 'What are the best solutions?' The question of parties and personalities would come after you have some answers to those questions. But unfortunately, that's not the way it is.

Symbolic posturing, as you satirize in your 'Che' picture, seems to be the most pervasive form of political communication.

Nigella: I enjoy looking at photos, and I take a lot of them myself. But there's an aspect to photography, arguably its central aspect, that's a myth: its alleged ability to "capture the moment", to reflect Life, or whatnot, which is completely a self-validating modern illusion. If you look to the early discourse concerning the "existential fallacy" of photography, before the time when it started making enough money for enough people that people started thinking "well, OK, what the hell", you will find some lucid arguments of why this particular technology is essentially entertainment. When we try to get closer to Life by increasing CCD resolution for example, we're entirely missing the point.

You could say that photography is too Modernist to really be humanly relevant.

hhp

Funny, you must be reading my mind, I'm sitting here chowing on a pizza and watching a football game. France 0 Switzerland 0. Great game, and great pizza.

Don't think I got an answer though, still wondering why you thought he was wearing such a "great shirt". Grew up around folks with such lofty language and ideals. Saw them really destroy a homeland and drive the human will for life and fun to the ground. So, yes, give me pizza and football, such joy. Gooooooaaaaaal!!

er

The shirt was great because he meant it. If you can't/won't die for a good cause, it's still better than ignoring it, and certainly better than apologism for treating your fellow humans like dirt. Nevermind actually voting for a war criminal for president. Or really, voting at all in such a rigged system.

The posers you complain about do exist, but they're really no different than the ones brought up to think "nuke 'em"! Among the affluent masses, politics is subject to fashion just like anything else, and different people go different directions. But alongside those peons there exist truly concerned people, and ignoring that is a self-serving, weak escape from personal responsability.

--

I'm not reading your mind, I'm describing what I see around me,
of which you're more a part than I am. On the other hand, I was
thinking of the football with the funny ball, so luckily for you
you're not at the heart of it.

When you watch Brazil play, think of their slums, and what kinds
of things have caused them to exist and persist... y ¡buen provecho!

hhp

"The posers you complain about do exist, but they’re really no different than the ones brought up to think “nuke ‘em”! Among the affluent masses, politics is subject to fashion just like anything else, and different people go different directions."

This is what I was trying to say. That, in the end, it's all just the same. I could have done a blank cover, or an Ampersand with earphones! But this is how I thought it would best be said.

I still feel that an attempt at democracy and people speaking out is the best we can do. You say they vote for a war criminal, yet you forget the other half that didn't.

And I also watch the football with the funny ball. Now really, in your argument about the masses is there such a difference between the two. It's still a bunch of folks sitting around watching a ball. You will tell me that soccer fans are just a higher being. You make distinctions that just benefit what you like. The round ball is good. The BBC is great, except for the Irish stories. Again, it's all the same.

When I watch Brazil play, yes, I think of the slums, and what causes them. But I grew up in a slum and something caused that too, called Communism. What slum did you grow up in exactly?
There's a whole world of slums, and making a living drawing type or writing stuff in a discussion group ain't doing a damn thing to solve them. So, I guess I'm realistic. Either join in and work for what you're so passionate about or just go about working for the man. But don't work for the man and wax poetically about the struggle. Join it.

And I like pictures.

I'm your alter ego, but hey, we can talk.

er

er

Hrant - You're right on the money (capitalist expression) about photography. I was a photojournalist for ten years and I know it's easier to mislead - intentionally or not - with pictures than with words. Until recently people found pictures more trustworthy than words, but digital has killed the illusion of photography's credibility. It used to be very easy to deify or demonize with one picture. I'm not so sure of that anymore.

Hrant's observation that the empire is crumbling is something I've felt for a long time.

Entropy is inevitable.

I look forward to the day that this empire breaks into smaller entities and California (or parts thereof) can be self-governing.

In the meantime I try to avoid prison, especially one of my own making…

peace

Now I get it, everyone here is from California! All makes sense now.

er

You mean you're not? Moderator… :)

peace

CA vague LI cloudy FOR wispy NIA language

Ah. C'mon. We don't have to agree but we do need to get along. And, no, we aren't all from California.

CA vague LI cloudy FOR wispy NIA language

In some kind of genius way I can't access does that make sense?
(from CA)

I have to say I can't remember what I "meant" by wearing the T-shirt. Even if it was an attempt to provoke, I certainly didn't and don't intend to "communicate" by wearing certain clothes.

Of course people interpret T-shirts in various ways, whether there's text on them or not. Those interpretations are sometimes interesting, often manipulable, occasionally dangerous. In this case, one would be forgiven for thinking I was a supporter of the Cuban Revolution. I'd heard, probably from the Guardian, about directors of French companies being barred from the USA if their company supplied spare parts to Cuban x-ray machines, and that pissed me off. I'd also heard, probably from Michael Moore, about the Cuban health service being far better than the USA's, and that pissed me off too. The American embarrassments of the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis seemed, inexcusably, to explain their isolation of Cuba. So I had a few things to talk about over a drink if someone approached me because of the shirt. But I was also well aware that I wasn't being particularly daring wearing the shirt. For a start, Massachusetts is not Miami. And the police normally let people wear stuff like that: getting arrested is unlikely. The biggest risk was probably that I might be thought of as silly.

Perhaps a couple of years before TypeCon 98, I'd turned up to the Royal Courts of Justices on the Strand to hear Helen Steel and David Morris (the McLibel two) defend themselves against McDonalds. I wore a shirt that said "It's time for all honest citizens to turn to crime". I rather liked the idea of the juxtaposition and thought I was being a bit daring. In the event... I felt like a teenage jerk and never wore the shirt again.

During the "smart sanctions" bombing of Iraq (1991-2003), bearing in mind a Jesus-themed T-shirt of Easter 1999, I told a friend I was thinking of having a T-shirt made up in that style but depicting Saddam Hussein instead of Che or Jesus. If asked, I'd perhaps have made some comment about supporting neither Saddam's murderous regime nor Clinton's. It could have inspired some interesting debates in pubs. But there would have been serious risks: my favourite café in Cardiff was run by a lovely Iraqi man (who was later to tell me that everyone in Baghdad was waiting eagerly for the Americans to arrive). Some other Iraqis, who helped me out when I urgently needed a car stored for a week, had several edgy rottweilers on their semi in Rumney. Provoking such people is not big or clever. The friend, who might himself have been interested in wearing a Gerry Adams themed shirt, strongly advised against the Saddam shirt.

After that I mostly lost interest in clothing that can easily be (mis)interpreted politically, apart from wearing a long black leather coat to ATypI in Leipzig. I checked with Adam Twardoch whether he thought it likely that it would be interpreted as a Nazi symbol. He reassured me it would not – however he still takes some pleasure in reminding me of my ridiculous outfit at that conference. Sadly I don't think it inspired any debates to rival those where the rehabilitation of blackletter is discussed.

Edited to change "interpreted" to "(mis)interpreted"

I look forward to the day that this empire breaks into smaller entities and California (or parts thereof) can be self-governing.

Viva Cascadia!

I fully intend on moving there once they gain their independence.

Viva Cascadia!

A wonderful concept, but their flag sucks.
; )

"It is not just a simple game. It is a weapon of the revolution" Che Guevara
Just to tie football and images of Che.

"Ah. C’mon. We don’t have to agree but we do need to get along."

It was a joke. Do I need to say something was a joke all the time around here or put in one of these :) silly things. California is a nice place, full of great people, who deserve their well earned independence. A place that picks a former body builder movie star as its leader should be an example for the entire world to follow. :) that, was a joke.

"CA vague LI cloudy FOR wispy NIA language
In some kind of genius way I can’t access does that make sense?"

Just mixing something Sorkin said before with CALIFORNIA. No genius, just messing. In Spanish there's a word, "joder", which is to joke, poke fun, because you like somebody. There's a lack of humor around here, so I'm just trying to lighten some of the existential talk.

lorp, thanks for the long explanation on the shirt, I'm sure everybody that wears one of those has a story. There's just a lot that people that wear these things need to know about what their unofficially backing. The free education in Cuba is not free. You work in the morning, on a field, picking potatoes, not for Cubans, but to export to Europe, then you go to school in the afternoon. They barely feed the students. The free health care is there if you can get a foreigner to send you the medicine you need and have a car to take you to Havana. The doctor that decides he's had enough can't leave the country, because the government owns your education. You know, because it was given to you for free. Marriages are split because one leaves and the doctor wife is forced to stay behind. I'd rather own my own education and do with it as I please, go to any country I choose.

And the police won't arrest you in Miami for wearing a Che shirt. They, like the Iraqis you mentioned, might just suggest it's not the smartest thing to walk around in one. You'd be surprised how many Iraqis, Cubans, and many of those "opressed" love America. With all its problems, its still a better option for them.

er

Destroying other countries is certainly a great way to bring in cheap labor.

US Citizenship Question: Which president freed the slaves?
Best Reply: Is that a trick question?

hhp

There’s a lack of humor around here

That may be, but I have several good laughs reading the posts in the different forums today. I think the group may be improving in that regard.

Edel. The "Ah c'mon" was me being a little sarcastic too. No, you don't need to be clear. There is a lot of negativity running around here lately and I am having a little trouble with it. I don't feel like I was mean. I was just asking, and since you say you were just joking then there isn't a problem. Not that there was a problem in the first place.

Which country freed Hrant?
Best Reply: USA

Which country directly witnessed the genocide of Hrant's people, driving them off their ancestral land (something you didn't suffer, in fact you gained back yours - be grateful, not snide) but now helps the guilty country cover it up? Which country helped the country where Hrant grew up become unsuitable for college education, causing him leave? Which country did Hrant adore as he was growing up, until he actually did grow up and saw what had really been happening, and what was going to keep happening more and faster? And which country is Hrant dreaming of leaving, if only that country would stop destroying the countries Hrant would want to move to? Your country is great for you. It kills and rapes for you. But it's not great for the rest of the world, including many who move to your country (who for some mysterious reason never get fully integrated). For millions of immigrants it's merely a lesser evil, and furthermore an evil that helped cause the evil back home.

hhp

Can any country free you?

Thoreau freed himself, as did Bohumil Hrabal, Naguib Mahfouz, Li Po and countless others over time…

peace

Tyranny is an equal opportunity employer and has been for all of history. I often hear great praise heaped on my ancestral countryman Alexander the Great. They say he brought "civilization" to the world he conquered. That is a nice romantic notion a couple of thousand years after the fact. He was a bully and a marauder who conquered the world--meaning he was responsible for lots of killing while bringing "culture" as a gift to those he plundered. How was Alexander any better than the Ottoman Turks years later who conquered and enslaved Greece? No better, no worse. I am Greek and have heard many stories from my grandparents of Turkish tyranny heaped upon Greece. I will bet that there were similar stories during Alexander's time about him as well.
There have been villains from every corner of the world. For every villain killed, another rises to fill the void. Every power from the Egyptians enslaving their neighbors at the time of the Pharaohs to the Greeks, Romans, Turks, English, Spaniards, French, Dutch, Russians, and Americans have done deeds most foul. There is no place on this earth where a border can be drawn that does not contain their fair share of evil. This is half the nature of humanity. Thankfully, there is a good part in all as well. The duel between both parts of human nature is endless and timeless. Draw your borders. Blame whatever country or government you wish. That does not solve a thing for more than a moment. Both the problem and the solution rests within each of us. The blame-game is fruitless guilt dumping. Do something positive.

ChrisL

I'm with you ChrisL. All external kingdoms are suspect…

peace

Chris,I agree there is plenty of blame to go around--and also praise, by the way.

There is a saying 'blaming keeps people helpless.' What I reject is the 'victim mentality' that gets stuck on blaming others, and fails to take responsibility and organize with like-minded people to try to create a better world.

ps. I just voted in the Virginia primary. :-)

"ps. I just voted in the Virginia primary. :-)"

Me too!

ChrisL

Aight. What is "victim mentality" to some might be a reality to others. Even if people really do understand and are informed it is more polite to not assume.

Edel: Part of what I was saying was that I was not backing anybody, unofficially or otherwise. I wanted to talk to Americans about Cuba – that's the main reason I wore the shirt. I'd love to have to bumped into you, for example.

A couple of things you seemed to misinterpret.

And the police won’t arrest you in Miami for wearing a Che shirt. They, like the Iraqis you mentioned, might just suggest it’s not the smartest thing to walk around in one. You’d be surprised how many Iraqis, Cubans, and many of those “opressed” love America.

I meant the police in Massachusetts and the Miami Cubans as two separate groups, but never mind. When I mentioned the Baghdadis eagerly awaiting the Americans, I meant with open arms, not as a Bushian "bring ’em on!"

>What is “victim mentality” to some might be a reality to others.

I don't know if the term "victim mentality" is precisely defined, but it is often used in both psychology and sociology to describe an outlook of passivity and fixation on blaming.

It is a real phenomenon, and not healthy and not helpful. It is also easy to slip into. One of the sites I just found googling on the term explained it using the ideas of the famous psychologist Victor Frankl. When Frankl was in a Nazi concentration camp he found the key to survival in rejecting a victim mentality, even though he was certainly a victim. Suffering is a very real part of life, and some of us are dealt immensely tougher hands than others. But how we respond to our situation is in every case partly our decision--that is what Frankl emphasized.

Tiffany, I don't think it is impolite to bring this issue up. I think it is an important issue. How much any individual suffers from a 'victim' mentality is up to them to search their own soul and decide. It is not my call, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was making any personal judgment, which I am not doing.

I do note, however, that a lot of political venom is spit out on typophile in blaming, and very little energy in discussion of positive alternatives. Your discussion of EULAs is a good example of a healthier way: positively trying to make a difference, rather than just grumbling about 'the man' 'the establishment' 'the system' etc, etc.

I am just suggesting that a fixation on blame is not a very healthy or productive thing. I'll leave it at that.

It's very easy to be utopian when you're not threatened.
And it's downright beneficial when you're the oppressor.

--

I would never tell a Jew not to blame the Nazis for the Holocaust.

hhp

That *was* an incredibly useful & thoughtful & smart thing to do. ( Creating the EULA thread ).

Rather than create an incredibly long thread that has for the most part stopped talking about the subject initially presented or it's immediate ( & legitimate) tangents - perhaps it is time to create a new thread...

>“ps. I just voted in the Virginia primary. :-)”
>Me too!

That's just wonderful. I get a lump in my throat. thanks.

Also, I think it would be easier to understand hrant's point of view if there were more details, what is your ancestral homeland?
Everyone here has been very detailed in their discussions, seems like it would shed some light. Or are details all bourgeoisie and you'd rather wax poetically about the abstract struggle against the abstract powers that be. Without detail I just keep thinking you grew up in some suburb in California and the toughest gig you slaved at was a part time at the Micky D. Just trying to understand the source of your beef.

thanks, er

New here. What's the EULA? If you set something else up, maybe I'll go there. It has nothing to do with ampersands, does it?
Although, I think I may be done soon. This has been good, thanks all, I may be back with type queries in the future. You're a bunch of talented, smart, passionate folks I can count on to tell me what you really think.

er

Hrant, I've been made more aware of your story, apologies for the Micky D snark, sometimes you just don't know who's a poser on the web. In the end, we probably have a lot more in common than we think.

er

Edel, I actually tend to talk too much about myself. When I seem
cagey it's often because I want to spare people the agony of hearing
it all over yet again.

What I really should do is have a FAQ that I can just refer to! :-)
In fact I've already thought of a cool domain for it: hhpov.com
Because that's really all it is, or can be.

hhp

hhp,
Yep, I understand what you mean about repeating the stories all over again. People are interested, cause they're curious, and you want to inform, but one feels like one might be exploiting the matter sometimes.

I just met too many people through my college years that talked endlessly about struggles but grew up in a suburb, go to the Starbucks for their lattes, on and on, so I just roll my eyes a little too quickly when I see someone talking about the man.

My point with the cover was that I had this one place to say something. The magazine was doing two stories, one on my work and another on Cuban design. I had a feeling the Cuban design story was going to praise the Revolution, how wonderful it was for poster design, blah, blah. It went over the top with praise for the whole system, as many writers tend to do with the Revolution. And the glorious Che propaganda posters inside the magazine just added to it. So, I, having a different opinion because of my childhood, felt I needed to counter the impression all of that would give. In the end, I don't think the writer of the Cuba story was too thrilled with my work because it went against his premise, but the editors went with it, probably for balance.

If, say, they were to call you to do a feature on your work, and you knew there was another large story inside that would praise the greatness of America, with images of Jasper Johns' flags, Norman Rockwell paintings, and detailed studies of the design of the Constitution, might you not be tempted to do a cover with your take on the letters WE THE PEOPLE?

er

Timd:
re: Rorschach.
Dear old Walter has retired. Needed a facelift. Hrm.

Hrant:
re: Freedom from Choice
Excellent piece of Devo-lyric there. Ya dig?
re: FAQ
As in Frequently Answered Questions? One for You and one for Popper perhaps.

Can You whacky kids guess whose birthday it is today by the way?

ƒ

Many Happy Returns Che
Tim

Thread takes another turn:)

{edit: okay I assumed it was Fredo's birthday and Che is unlikely to have a happy return}

Fredo,
If it is you, have a happy Birthday!

ChrisL

Not meeee but Cheeee.

ƒ

Paul wrote:
"I see no difference between design or art or music and life itself."

Sorry, Paul. I can't see what this statement means, as a comment to what I said in my post. Could you tell me more?

Hrant wrote:
"It’s very easy to be utopian when you’re not threatened.
And it’s downright beneficial when you’re the oppressor."

I don't think William's opinion is utopical. Why do you think it is? Considering themselves victimized will not show threateners anything but a reflection of their own rage, or banal egoism. I'm not saying injustice should be encouraged, but Gandhi's legacy is very less talked about than Hitler's. Should we continue this way?

I appreciate William Bergson and Chris' posts. The essence of such a discussion does not ignore or deny the value of personal struggle, misery and difficulty. Ask how do we learn to love, instead. This is not utopical, Hrant. I admire what you do, but not the form of your talk.

Happy BD, Che.

> Frequently Answered Questions

Hey, I can use that!

--

Claudio, it's utopical to expect somebody* who is being threatened not to defend
himself. In fact it is inhuman. Maybe you believe that defense and attack can be
totally separated? Not so, they're like Yin/Yang.

* Or a people.

hhp

>it’s utopical to expect somebody* who is being threatened not to defend himself. In fact it is inhuman. Maybe you believe that defense and attack can be totally separated? Not so, they’re like Yin/Yang.

With all due respect, is this not a perfect rationalization for what America is doing, they feel threatened, and they're attacking.

er

"Though he is seen by some as a hero, opponents of Guevara, including some Cuban exiles, think of him as a killer and terrorist. They point to what they see as the less savory aspects of Guevara's life, taking the viewpoint that he was enthusiastic about executing opponents of the Cuban Revolution. Some of Guevara's writing is cited as evidence of this tendency, as quoted in an article by Álvaro Vargas Llosa. For example, in his "Message to the Tricontinental", he writes of "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine."

Happy Birthday Che

er

> they feel threatened

Yeah, it's on TV after all, so it must be true!

--

And what is worse, a killer of individuals who admits it, or
killers of peoples who act like they're doing them a favor?

As I said in another thread, there is the darkness in all of
us, and it comes out due mostly to circumstances beyond
our control. But we're still all human, and most of all we
need to see the darkness as human.

hhp

And here's the reality on the ground concerning people
who bring up Gandhi, and the healthy business of slavery:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5079590.stm

BTW Claudio, Gandhi isn't brought up in the States (and hence the West*) for a number of reasons. One is that peace is bad for business; another is that the powers that be have nothing to gain politically from reminding people of him, unlike Hitler, who is a dream-boat, highly-leveraged symbol of the mythical "enemy".

* Especially in Italy, which until very recently was a
puppet regime, and still is highly servile to the empire.

hhp

> they feel threatened
>Yeah, it’s on TV after all, so it must be true!

It wasn't on t.v. for me, it was in front of me. It might have been on T.V. in C A L I F O R N I A. And I felt threatened.

But, you're right, I forgot, this is all part of the vast conspiracy put together by the powers that be to take over all the world's resources. Idiots that can't run relief supplies after a hurricane or get their approval rating past 35% . You give them a lot of credit. It's not conspiracy, it's just incompetency. I know, the incompetency IS part of the plan.

er

The world is like color. Contrast is necessary.

The question is how do you balance the color?

The answer is forged by our experiences and personalities.

I like that.

peace

Either join in and work for what you’re so passionate about or just go about working for the man. But don’t work for the man and wax poetically about the struggle. Join it.

Edel, I know we citizens of the USA are all ignorant bores and whiners (joke), but there are actually people here who do a tremendous amount of good work and are extremely involved in political struggle. You just don't happen to hear about it because we talk about type most of the time. Occasionally our politics will come out in a discussion, and that is something I enjoy. I enjoy reading your point of view, but hate hearing your assumptions about mine or those of anyone else here (even *gasp* hrant).

I liked your cover because that particular image of Che is definitely a "brand" removed from the reality of who Che was and what he believed. The Nike swoosh and the iPod earbugs are equally removed from the reality of the production of shoes and personal electronics.

I disliked your cover because of what isn't clear. What's lost, unfortunately, is the difference between Che, the person, and Nike/iPod, the corporations. It's not just that a different political philosophy is represented (communism vs. capitalism) but also the unfortunate juxtoposition of individual/corporation that evokes a particular political issue in the U.S.; the increasing trend toward assigning the rights of individuals to corporations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Personhood

>It’s not conspiracy, it’s just incompetency.

Incompentence predominates as a cause of bad results with Bush. But he also has had bad policies. The combination of bad policies pursued with gross incompetence has made me fear for my country. I remember the Cuban missle crisis, the Viet Nam war. I wasn't worried then. Now, I'm worried.

"Especially in Italy, which until very recently was a
puppet regime, and still is highly servile to the empire."

Puppet Regime? Puppet of whom exactly and servile to which empire? You can say what you want about Berlusconi or Prodi but to use this kind of terminology in relation to Italy (or France or Germany for that matter) is superficial and far fetched to say the least. What exactly do you think qualifies Italy as a puppet regime and which Italian policies do you think demonstrate Italy is servile to THE empire (whatever that means). You can't be serious hrant, I'm not beeing patriotic here (god knows I was deliriously happy to see Berlusconi's back) but I hadn't heard this sort of discourse (puppet regime, servile to the empire) for a long time. As far as I'm concerned it sounds as melodramatic as a Mexican (or a Brazilian) soap opera!

Bush: Don't blame the puppet. They can always make new ones.

Lore, I'm concerned most of all with reality, not formal accuracy. Maybe I used "puppet regime" in an extreme way. But to me it's as factual as facts get that Italy is heading in the same direction as the rest of Europe (and doing so faster than average) the same place Canada has been for a while: a province of the empire.

hhp

Kristin,
I don't know if it's clear, but I am a citizen of the USA, and I know there are people involved in political struggle here. My remark was specifically about hrant and not the type group at all. He just seems so passionate and negative about America, and doesn't seem to find solutions within this system, such as you may, that I thought his energy would be more useful elsewhere, or at least that he shouldn't continue contributing to a system he detests so much. Besides, I think he can take it.

So, you liked my cover and you disliked my cover? Then I did my job.

>"What’s lost, unfortunately, is the difference between Che, the person, and Nike/iPod, the corporations."

My point is that, at this point, there is no difference, and I was trying to educate people about that fact, those who may not know. Cuba, is a Capitalist country. The currency is the Dollar, profit is key, they have all sorts of corrupt deals with European countries. Say, Italy runs a paper company in Cuba, pays the government $20,000 a year per worker, and the government pays the worker $200. My cousin is an accountant and has to hide these things from the employees at the factory. So, when you talk about abusive labor tactics, Nike, Che, and I-pod are all in the same boat. And, like Hrant, I'm trying to get people to open their minds. It may have come out of the blue for some because the design community is not aware of this stuff, Che is just an idolized pretty icon, but I thought my additions would jar some people into asking some questions.

The other thing around here, which may come out in things I say, is that I see a very elitist attitude as type being the only solution to everything. Things such as drawing a person is just wrong, etc. etc. I am an illustrator, and an art director. I use pictures, drawings, and type. Such absolutism about type being of higher intellectual and spiritual value bugs me, so I may make fun of it once in a while. I find a long discussion about what font is used in e-mail funny. No disrespect, it's just funny to me in the grand scheme. And if you don't see the inherent comedy in that then you've been looking at type for too long, laugh at yourselves once in a while.

thanks, er

>I’m concerned most of all with reality, not formal accuracy.

Wow.

Cuba, is a Capitalist country. The currency is the Dollar, profit is key,

Ok, that's interesting. I see the Che image as more reflective of the man, Che Guavara, than you do, Edel! I honestly don't equate Che Guavara, who died in 1967 with the Cuba of today. My guess is that most U.S.-Americans (referring to us born and bred 'mericans) see the image as an historical artifact (like similar images of Santino, Marti or Abe Lincolnfor that matter). Are you saying Cubans see Che as iconic of today's Cuba? That's a very different read.

The other thing around here, which may come out in things I say, is that I see a very elitist attitude as type being the only solution to everything.

I haven't seen that here. I love type and the intricacies of type and love having a place to get together with other people who like type, too. But most of us here are extremely aware that we are a small part of a greater whole and, in general, a part that gets overlooked rather than overpromoted. There are no stars here. Even Matthew Carter, one of the view typographers whose name is known outside the field of typography, is an unpretentious and friendly fellow, as far as I've seen.

Now Tiffany, on the other hand.... (joke)

nahhhh....don't overestimate the influence of "the empire" in Europe.

double post

Edel, the clue to the focus of the forums is in the url, however, I have to agree with you about the thread you picked out.
Che seems to be a demonised pretty icon to some as well, I don't think the design community is any less aware than any other generic group, in fact many designers I know are politically aware and/or active.
Tim

….don’t overestimate the influence of “the empire” in Europe.

You probably know as well as I that we – the Europeans – are dependant on the American dream. If they – the Americans – started to question that concept and started a revolution the world economy would sky dive and the old world with it. Vanity is OK, it's what brings us great design and art, but don't rock the boat, will ya.

ƒ

Edel: To make assumptions is human, to learn from incorrect ones divine.

--

Lore, Fredo is right on. And if you choose to misbehave, you will end up sanctioned, over-thrown, bombed, whatever it takes to get you back in line. That's what a superpower does; and that's why things were better when we had two of them.

hhp

Nations don't speak with one mind and never have. Hell, Families rarely speak with one mind--ever seen a family argument? Most murders in the U.S. are commited on and by family members. How can you expect the globe to dance to the tune of one "empire"? This is just too simplistic and in search of an artificial catagorization of convenience.

ChrisL

Empires are themselves the ones that expect (or least work
towards, which is the real problem) such things, not me.

hhp

Europeans and Americans do not share a common view of the world. I don’t think we even share the same culture and I am inclined to think that Europeans don’t see the world divided between good and evil, or friends and enemies (although you can’t generalize about Europeans). Generally speaking I think Europeans don’t tend to unilateralism or favour policies of coercion in international affairs. They are more inclined to work through international institutions, are less skeptical about international law than Americans and respond to threats in different ways. In fact, unlike hrant, I see the ideological differences between Europe and the States just growing. And this is by no means a recent development (although the end of the cold war or Bosnia or Kossovo could probably be a good starting point). Sorry hrant but you are overestimating the influence of the US in Europe and I think it’s safe to say that we are so not heading in the same direction and I hope I am not just flattering myself when I say that. Of course, you can label everyone "the West", it'll save you time.

How can you expect the globe to dance to the tune of one “empire”?

Like Newt Gingrich and Janet Reno dirty-dancing while a troop of trained chimpanzees in tutus did The Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies around them? Something like that is what I'd expect. But I have been known to be wrong.

"is vanity that bring us great design and art"

Is it?

Sorry, I was just over at the "create your own south park character" thread. I take it all back, you guys are a riot!

Kristin:
"Are you saying Cubans see Che as iconic of today’s Cuba? That’s a very different read."

Yes, Cuba is Che and Che is Cuba, that's the way Cubans see it. In the U.S., or the world, Che has a whole rebel/saviour aura about him. For Cubans he still stands for the Revolution, Communism, and the country all in one, he's the brand. I can't comment on politics in Ireland, the Middle East or China with much authority but I feel with Cuba, Miami, or New York, places I've lived in, I can. About the superiority of type to other media, you can look back through here and see a lot on the subject. I'll probably hang out for a while and start saying the same things about the healing effects of type in due time! I actually do think photography is not real, all fantasy, and that's why I like it, but it's best when it really messes with the head.

Hrant, check out my friend's site, www.jasonfulford.com, could change your mind on photo?

>That’s what a superpower does; and that’s why things were better when we had two of them.

Capitalism won, the struggle is over. China and India, the two largest countries are joining in. Why did it win, because it's the one system that takes human nature into account. Greed, jealousy, ambition are all human. Communism tries to tamp it down and these human traits just sneak through. I saw it in Cuba, it's human nature. Sure, kindness and love are part of human nature too, but what drives many people are other things. If you are a designer, and sell your goods, fonts, whatever, you, are a capitalist. If you do not fully give your money to a state and want to make a profit, you are a capitalist.

Lore: Give me your pov on Kosovo. I thought America did a good thing there. As Europeans watched slaughter of innocents occur in their backyard and talked and talked about it, the U.S. got NATO together and did an honorable thing. I could be wrong, not in Europe, so I'd like to know if my perception is not correct.

er

The little people always think what they've seen in their own lifetimes is what
counts. How easily they ignore that monarchy worked for thousands of years,
and how easily they believe the TV when it tells them that voting works.

The 20th century, the American century, the century of democracy, was the worst in human history. They ignore that. They blindly plough forward, following orders without even realizing it. At least the previous generations knew they were being taken for a ride.

--

Edel, there's an essential difference between capitalism and materialism. Humans are -partly- materialistic, of course. But China for example is not a capitalist system. Capitalism makes materialism the central force of a system, reducing everything to currency, formalizing the bribing of politicians, etc. And in doing so it demotes things like culture, pride in which is huge for the Chinese for example (no matter where they live). Which is not to say that China is purely communist. It should go without saying that no system is pure anyway. Edel, honestly, you're sounding half your age.

hhp

>"Edel, honestly, you’re sounding half your age."

God, thanks! I've always wanted to be seventeen again!

I have respect for you, I will not say what you're sounding like. It's been nice knowing all of you. Good bye.

er

"Little People"

ChrisL

Nice chatting with you.

hhp

How easily they ignore that monarchy worked for thousands of years...

Monarchies, republics and parliamentary democracies have all proven themselves capable of starting major international conflicts. The big difference between them is that monarchies tend to also produce regular civil wars of succession. On the plus side, without the English wars of succession we would be missing about half of Shakespeare's oeuvre, but 'the little people' tended to get killed in rather large numbers.

Yeah, nothing like the 20th century.
And at least in the olden days people didn't vote to kill each other.

hhp

“is vanity that bring us great design and art”

Is it?

On occasion I say Yes. Vanity, poor judgment, absolutely no clue whatsoever is what make people dive into things they would otherwise avoid.

Inexperience only can lead a man into temptation to try cutting a font of type. Had I known the pitfalls of this undertaking I would have stopped even before I began.

— Sem Hartz, on The Emergo Type

We've had major great power conflicts between states on average every fifty years for the past 250 years. It hasn't made any difference at all whether the states involved were monarchies, republics, parliamentary democracies or dictatorships. They have all been involved in the same global competitions for power, resources, territory and influence. The number of people killed in these conflicts, especially in the 20th century, increased because the technologies for killing have improved.

In the same period of time, though, England has not had a single civil war, despite the fact that almost its entire previous history had consisted of regular periods of dynastic, regional and class warfare. What changed in the late 17th century was the role of the monarchy, which became circumscribed by law and most of its powers devolved to parliament.

I sympathise, Hrant, that you live in a country with a particularly debased and corrupt pseudo-democracy, designed by 18th century oligarchs to maintain power in the hands of their class, but this romantic idea you have of monarchy is very naive. It certainly isn't any kind of solution. Monarchies are systems of familial wealth gathering established by violence and maintained by a mixture of mythology (the 'divine right of kings') and repression. It may be frustrating that protesting the actions of your government seems to have so little effect, but it beats having your tongue cut out.

John, here's a current illustration of a typical absolute monarchy, the Nepalese King.

From the 'Wikipedia article':

"In 2001, after his nephew Dipendra purportedly staged a murder suicide, killing most of the royal family, including King Birendra (Dipendra's father, and Gyanendra's brother), Gyanendra became king again.The royal massacre has remained a controversial subject. The official investigation report mentions that Dipendra was drunk and was not able to control himself and yet it claims that within less than half an hour he carried four weapons and fired indiscriminately. Moreover, Dipendra was right handed and the entry wound that killed him was found on his left temple. This has led to speculation as to whether Dipendra was wholly responsible for the killings.

Given these circumstances, some Nepalese have lost the faith they had in the monarch as an incarnation of a god."

I would add that according to a Nepalese, many in the country suspect that the current king himself staged the killing of his brother and family, doing the Hamlet story more thoroughly.

In any event, the new king dissolved parliament and tried to rule since 2001 as an absolute monarch, as Hrant would have it. There was increasing civil war, and in April the King finally gave in to pressure from the rebels, including the 'Maoists', and the international community, including the US and India. Five days ago, the King was stripped of all power by the parliament.

Almost everyone would say that the replacement of the King by a more democratic government, representing the will of the people and ending the civil war was a positive development. And that pressure from India and the US was a good thing.

But not, it would seem, Hrant, who continues with his crackpot reactionary politics in the face of massive historical evidence to the contrary, and the current fact that most of the poorest countries on earth have had some kind of absolute ruler--including Cuba.

Hrant has been repeatedly challenged by a number of people to explain how you can have a good process to change rulers, or remove bad rulers without violence other than by a democractic process. And he doesn't answer but changes the subject to foreign wars (which absolute rulers are equally good or bad at starting), or starts insulting the challenger.

As soon as you ask Hrant to get off wooly generalities like 'the empire', and get specific, he never answers. Now he claims that he focuses on 'reality' as opposed to 'formal accuracy'. In other words, no matter what evidence you give, he has given himself permission to ignore it.

Because Hrant is so intelligent and articulate, I thought, like Edel, that there was some point in discussing politics with with him. But now he has made clear that in principle he will dismiss any facts that don't fit with his version of 'reality'. So I no longer see the point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1237845.s...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/5056280.stm

Tim

In another thread, a while back, I not only explained how a monarchic system could best work, I even detailed how best to transition to it from this farce of a system we're plagued by now. Among other things, my scheme prevents familial succession. Civial war? Coups-d'etat? Who said any system can be perfect? But more than the least bloody (this is not a farm after all, I hope) I for one am looking for the least unfair system.

You can posture and post-rationalize all you want, the fact on the ground is that democracy is simply not working - it's making things worse. "Massive historical ecidence" my finial. Democracy has been made into a hitman for capitalism, a tool for tyrants, which is the only thing it can really ever be, considering human nature. Many of you here blame Bush for our problems (and nevermind that you were previously spewing that "don't blame" hogwash). Ask yourselves why he might be the biggest proponent of democracy in history (remembering that he's not some sort of visionary). It's not Bush talking, it's rampant capitalism, which benefits by democracy's power to replace nationalism with consumerism.

The bottom line is that people are trained to build houses, make pizza, fly airplanes, and not to help decide matters of state. When you ask them to, all you're doing is leveraging their vanity and their lust for material goods to make them better peons.

hhp

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/lifeofants.shtml

Tim

uh oh...the little people are back and there's one that doesn't look very happy at all.

Funny (both).

--

Concerning the on-topic aspect of this thread:
In the end it looks like Edel (who is still reading - again, no mind reading involved) wanted to convey his particular view that Cuba is in fact a capitalistic system. One basis he leverages is the aggregate of views and perceptions of his particular community, including that Che = Cuba. But "CA" stands for "Communication Arts", not "Cuban Americans". Exiled Caribbean bourgeoisie not exactly being the main target of CA magazine, I think that the most common interpretation of his illustration would in fact be somewhat opposed to his goal, namely that capitalism goes as far as co-opting anti-capitalistic people and symbols to sell more stuff.

Ergo: this effort is art, not good design - not good communication.

We're back to the topic- the graphic left me cold.

Now…

As long as people cannot calmly discuss things then no matter what the power structure is or who is in power the human race is in for more of the same. But I already knew that.

The pen wields the sword…

peace

Hrant I just found here (second page) what you evidently refer to as "explaining how a monarchy could best work."

You ask, "How do we get a least-unfair system, that's efficient, and not corrupt?"

And you answer, "There really is only one answer: one person with authority, intelligence and a good heart. No single person can be perfect, but more than one cook causes grief."

Your prescription for getting that person in: Voting!!! Whoa, what happened to the anti-democrat?

As for 'how a monarchy could best work' the only thing you say is "The monarch is of course free to implement a parliament, get advisors, or anything he/she wants." Your main point seems to be that checks and balances are foolish and the single ruler must be free to "do anything he/she wants."

As to getting rid of the monarch, "You do it the old fashioned way. Physically depose him." Then you assure us that "it will be swift and overt."

So how do we know that autocracy, without checks and balances, is economically and morally better, against historical evidence? Your assurance without a single real historical example. How do we know that wars of succession will not happen, unlike happened repeatedly in the past? Your assurance, with not a single historical example or argument.

Come up with some real examples, and be willing to learn from 'formal accuracy' about the facts. That's a precondition of genuine dialogue, rather than parallel monologue polemics.

I suspect that type designer ( or a illo-cover designer) is in a position to speak with only just so much authority on politics/history/government. Including me.

That said; my view is that no matter the system it can be benign (or not) but that contrary to Hrant's assertion it was not democracy but rather *industry* that allowed both a huge increase in populations ( via mechanised farming, longer food storage and transportation, and medicine) and a huge increase in our ability to kill via Machine guns, Bombs and Aircraft in the 20th century. I see nothing in a 'golden past' that suggests that monarchy was better in terms of the frequency of wars. The difference is population size + killing power.

On the other hand I agree with Hrant to this extent: The US (like every other nation in history) is content only with governments ( democratic or otherwise ) who meet it's capitalistic/economic demands. Calling for democracy is as often as not a way to call for a regime we can better negotiate with. Democracies inconvinient to us often get invened in.

Bemoaning the desire for consumer goods is easy for us. And no doubt the carrot that a 'system' or society can wield via consumer goods is very strong. But to me it isn't the power of these goods to shape politics that matters so much as the imapct of these goods on the environment that matters. Political ideology be damned; it seems to me that ecological sustainability is the real goal to worry about.

But what do I know? Not nearly enough. That much I am sure of.

I checked back because I had a suspicion there is really only one little person here. I was right. Thanks everybody for standing tall, it just takes too much of my time to reply to personal insults. I am too busy eating pizza, watching football, and making money so I can pay taxes for my government to kill for me.

If my work is art, it communicates, if it makes you feel cold, then it communicates, if it says that "capitalism goes as far as co-opting anti-capitalistic people and symbols to sell more stuff", it communicates. Maybe it's not clear, I have problems with all of it, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, and Monarchism. I just chuckle that there are still people out there saying "long live the queen"! Take the cotton out of your ears and listen to what I have been trying to say, that all of these systems are, in the end, the same thing. And typography is literally the tool for all of them.

Back to work

er

William, it's simply that a last act of voting seems
like the least unfair way of getting rid of voting.
It's a transition, a form of detox if you will.

But there's no real point arguing with you.
I just wish you were as passionate about type.

--

Eben, I'm not suggesting monarchy has generally been implemented properly in the past (although I don't think it was worse than what we have now). But I do think it has been done properly on occasion (like in Jordan) and most of all that: it can be done properly; and that it's simply the least unfair system (when done right).

The reason it's hard to accept that democracy sucks isn't some mythical formal Proof, it's that it's hard to admit that one's teachers were wrong. I feel lucky that I've had many conflicting teachers, that I'm an ideological mongrel.

Case in point: When he bothers to discuss type, William regularly refers to his uncle Lieberman. Who is that guy? Had anybody here heard of him before he brought him up? So he's published a book. So has Saddaam. When we were talking about the definition of "sort", he insisted it meant only alphabetic ones, because that's what his uncle said; this in spite of the dozens and dozens of type books everybody else has read that make no such distinction. I mean, there's nothing wrong with William, he's just human, and believes people he's emotionally attached to. It's just that when all these people come form the same fold, you'll naturally have trouble accepting concepts outside of that fold. You really have to throw yourself at people you disagree with, sort of sophistically assimilate their stance, love them, hate them, love your own, hate your own, to hope to become truly wise.

> But what do I know? Not nearly enough. That much I am sure of.

Good. I feel the same way.
This precludes meddling in affairs of state.

What would you think of a pizza cook coming
to Typophile and telling us how best to kern,
just because his mother told him he could be
anything he dreamed of, in an instant? Don't
get me started with this culture of telling
peons "anything is possible if you dream it",
"this is the land of opportunity", etc. Jeezus.

> If my work is art, it communicates

If your work mainly communicates something close to the opposite
of what you intended, then you did a poor job as a communicator.

You want a critique of your work? Pay attention to the concensus
among people who spend enough time in a passionate, technical
but poorly-paying field, because they are the thinkers.
As opposed to the chatters.

> Thanks everybody for standing tall

What in blazes are you coping about.

(Something else you've learned from US television: demonization.)

hhp

We almost came together on the Kings of Jordan, I really admire them. Then you brought it down hill again with the "peons". And the "chat", which you've mentioned close to 10 times already. I am new to this, and interested, and you should welcome me. I originally called it a "chat" room because I don't know any better. Is this a "discussion" group, a "room for the chosen", a "club". Tell me what it is rather than make fun of me for not being the technically savviest kid in the room.

But, since you have problems with some of my critique of typography, I don't think you'd like me here anyways. Well, this is not a monarchy for the chosen such as yourself, it's a democracy sir, and I'll continue stay here among the thinkers, in the land of opportunity, trying to learn what I can so I can make my dreams come true.

er

William, it’s simply that a last act of voting seems like the least unfair way of getting rid of voting.

In GK Chesterton's wonderful satire The Napolean of Notting Hill, the ruler is chosen randomly from among the population, because the civil service has determined that the result is the same as voting.

OK, now I can stop with the "chat" jibes. :->

But I don't have a problem with you saying that typography is not everything, or the best thing about communication; I also don't have a problem when you say that type design is not a huge factor in society. But really, neither is design as a whole. Artists and graphic designers have this thing for thinking they can change the world, with their manifestos and and flowery conference openings. They can't. And your cover doesn't really have more effect than the typography inside, overall. Illustration, photography, etc. work their magic in the conscious realm, while things like text fonts, and text itself, do so mostly in the subconscious. So we're really in the same boat in terms of power... and at least type designers know they're powerless! :-/

Lastly: there's no way I would like you to leave.
In fact I'd go as far as saying: please stay.

hhp

>hhp-"You want a critique of your work? Pay attention to the >concensus among people who spend enough time in a passionate, >technical but poorly-paying field, because they are the thinkers.

The consensus is in your head. There is no freakin' "consensus" that, as you think, my work sucks. But, of course, they are all peons. Here you go:

I love it. Subtlety is pleasant when you get it, but for most people who are on the go, ya gotta hit ‘em over the head.
—fontplayer

I enjoy it. The Che symbolizing the used-to-be radical sixties folks now greying boomers with SUVs their iPods and sneakers :-) It is just plain fun, enjoy!
—ChrisL

It isn’t about what Che really was, it was about the perception 60s youth had of him as a rebel. The youth of the 60s also misunderstood Eastern religions and philosophies as well but knew how to chant Om as they toked up. As a member of 60s youth, I was as guilty as the rest in my misconceptions at the time.
—ChrisL

The only reason I don’t roll my eyes completely at the CA cover is the similarity of the Che image’s common appearance and the Apple iPod ad campaign.
—Chris Rugen

I think they are be purposefully redundant. In other words I read it as a statement about how over-materialistic we are today. So much so that even something which can stand for something more than simple marketing is now being reduced to another tool to market to the masses.
—Tiffany

i liked it, i think, because it wasn’t about che at all but rather a juxtaposition of mostly meaningless symbols — though symbols that people continually adopt as an expression of their values.
—ben millen

the cool thing is that it inspired a discussion like this, which would indicate that it was a success on some level.
—ben millen

Without having read the article, the image suggests shifting trends in the use of graphic design, exposing an ideological clash between Cuba’s political past and their impending future in the global marketplace. It’s not about a Cuban relationship to Apple, or Nike per se, but the effects of consumerism as a whole on the present design culture. Using multiple corporate elements helps convey this meaning (if you accept that Apple and Nike represent consumerism as a whole). I dont think I would’ve made that connection as swiftly had it been just an image of Che without the other symbols
—Graphic Fuzz

I think showing the Nike swoosh AND the earbuds hints at consumer excess as well as the perceived “need” to be trendy.
—BruceS63

the swoosh, the iconic earbuds & che are all now ubiquitous parts of pop culture no matter when where or why they came from to begin with. Don’t like it? - too bad & too late. So really, they are a kind of pop trifecta. The superimposition of two white marks over che gives the impression of complete pop saturation - or corruption - depending on where you stand. Anything less would fail to beat us senseless.
—Eben Sorkin

I suppose the length of discussion* and readers of the dialogue validate the design to a degree.
—timd

"Some animals are more equall than other animals"

"Who has the counch?"

ChrisL

hhp,
Man, all I have to say is I like a king and you hand over the keys, thanks, you almost made me cry.... almost.

er

I didn't say there was as concensus that your work sucks. But don't pick
and choose just the good stuff. That's a US news broadcast, not reality.

hhp

Louis XVI
Henry VIII
Caligula
Etc.

Nobleman one and all.

ChrisL

>"But really, neither is design as a whole. Artists and graphic >designers have this thing for thinking they can change the world, >with their manifestos and and flowery conference openings. They >can’t. And your cover doesn’t really have more effect than the >typography inside, overall.

yes, agreed 100%. Maybe when I critiqued type it came off as me thinking art or design is better. It's not, We're all just decorating.

We can't make a big "difference". And my beef is with those, and there may be a few in the "favorite music" thread, that wear the i-pods, design the logos, and go on about the struggle against the man. People which I have met many times. Again, it is not meant at everybody here people. Just some that enjoy the fruits of a system yet constantly bash it.

er

Chris Lozos
Eben Sorkin
Fredrik Andersson
Etc.

All more qualified to run the US more than
anybody who will ever actually be elected.

> We’re all just decorating.

No, that's not the term I'd use. Try to make a text typeface (one that
other people would pay for and use) then you might see something else.

> some that enjoy the fruits of a system yet constantly bash it.

And then there's those who enjoy the fruits of
other countries yet constantly bomb them.

hhp

hhp,
By your words I thought you meant there was a consensus that it was bad so I was trying to show otherwise. Everyone, hear ye, hear ye, there's plenty of stuff about how sucky it is too!

But, really, I'm done with it, so keep talking about politics in general or, whoever is in charge of this "chat", end the thread. No more about the image. And please tell me what I should call this place.

thanks, er

> No more about the image.

Nobody gets to decide that. There are no keys. There are moderators, but they
don't freeze threads with no good reason. And your productivity-impacting urge
to keep checking back here is not a good reason. I did warn you about our Mondays.
I guess I should've elaborated about the rest of the week... month... year.

This is not a digital illustration - learn to relinquish the control.

hhp

hhp,
By all means, knock yourself out, It's just embarassing to talk about it for me after two hundred and something posts.

And, for clarity, just one more, it wasn't digital, got the old hands all nice and dirty (shocking!), I don't work "digitally", I relinquish control every day.

er

ChrisL

BTW Laurence, I suddenly remembered there's a
handy archival shot of your gestapo trenchcoat:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=12970936&size=o _
And I think I have a better photo stashed somewhere,
from when the three of us were fooling around those
gargantuan pencils in that strange public park.
Leipzig is so so amazing. I actually stayed there
another two nights after the conference, walking
around almost the whole time, I liked it so much.
It totally made up for the... light, shall we say,
conference that year.

Oh, and really, Adam shouldn't talk. On his way to the
gala dinner he was dressed like a... I dunno, you tell me!
http://flickr.com/photos/adamt/20202942/

hhp

"That’s what a superpower does; and that’s why things were better when we had two of them."

Things were better when we had two of them? Is this another example of being about reality rather than formal accuracy or whatever?

fearful symmetry?
William Blake 1757-1827: 'The Tiger' (1794)

Tim

Hrant, my friend, I missed you, this is too much fun!

"Try to make a text typeface (one that other people would pay for and use) then you might see something else."

Try to make a drawing (that otherr people would pay for and publish) and you might see something else too. And about all your subconscious type talk: I spend much of my time looking at drips and shapes and abstractions, so the subconscious is not a domain of text type alone.

Another thing, does the world absolutely need more text type? Is all of it not a complete luxury at this point? I would say the same about illustration, paintings, and imagery in general. I'm just in touch with how much of a luxury all of it is, and I love it. You bring it to such a high state and end up sounding like a fine artist most of the time who thinks he'll change the world through his work. Besides designers, the world could care less if all text type was in helvetica I think. Where I come from most people communicate by just writing things down or hand painted signs and it seems to work just fine. Let me know, I'm really just here to learn. I have a great respect for type, as you do, but we differ on the reasons I think.

And for the fifth time, enlighten me with what I should call this place. Or do you want to keep treating me like the American kids did in third grade? Just laughing because I didn't speak the language.

er

>And for the fifth time, enlighten me with what I should call this place

Forum neatly covers it I think.
Tim

Aaahh! thanks, Tim!

> does the world absolutely need more text type?

Absolutely need? No. Would it benefit? Yes.

Text type is definitely not only a problem of 'decoration'. It is also a problem of readability. The challenge of readable type has been regularly renewed by continually changing technology--both printing technology and how type is produced.

For example, in the changeover to digital type, most of the classic designs--which had meanwhile been put into photo type--were initially too light. This mistake is still being corrected.

And now we have the challenge of relatively low resolution screen type (eg 96 dpi vs 2700 dpi for print). That is why people are interested in what others use for e-mail. Basically all screen type is bad--not as readable as print--and the question is how to make it better. People are looking for clues. And Microsoft has invested a lot in developing the new Clear Type technology and fonts for screen.

Also on the aesthetic side, I don't think the word 'decoration' quite captures what is going on. A typeface is like a 'voice' of the printed word. If you have a beautiful voice delivering a message, like a great actor, it is going to emotionally color it in a better way, even though you are not conscious of the voice, but rather are consciously focusing on the message. So for different purposes you want different type faces, just as different voices in song or acting.

By the way, I think Hrant and are in close agreement about this!

Edel, a lot more than type is a luxury. But making a new text type is
a lot less "luxurious" than making a display type, or an illustration.

Text type is in a "high state" exactly because it's not fine art. And almost none of us do it to change the world (although some of my own type does have a "political" angle - but that's extremely rare in the field). Mostly we do it because we enjoy it. In spite of everything. But that doesn't make it art - as long as the point is to serve others, and not merely express.

In everything a person does, he strikes a balance between
pleasing himself and accomodating society. Each of strikes a
different balance, depending on so many things, including
much that's completely out of our hands.

Everything in Helvetica?! NOW you can leave. ;-)

And we were thinking Vignelli needs retraining:
http://typophile.com/node/19950

Yeah, and what William said. (Except for "all screen type is bad",
which I think does contain a truth, but is misleading overall.)

hhp

Don't get so uppity Señor Rodriguez.

When someone has taken the time to study something long enough to realize it's full of mystery you should appreciate that.

Like a moth to a flame you declare this thread bores you and then return.

There didn't seem to be a lot of subconscious thought going on in your cover. Pretty overt I would say.

It might as well have been an ad for Apple or Nike. Go ahead. Think Different…

Man, as usual I'm the one in the room saying the wrong thing. Always happens at parties too. Cutler is usually so poetic, got all street on me now!

No disrespect meant. Sometimes, the best way to get good answers is to question people.

>Like a moth to a flame you declare this thread bores you and then return.
The thread doesn't bore me, It's just personally embarrassing to keep endlessly talking about my work, me, me, me! My parents would scold me. Interested in other things it's brought up, maybe that wasn't clear. See, type doesn't clear anything up, it's just about the darn language.

I pretty much agree with all that you have to say. I don't know if it has been made clear. I am both an illustrator and designer. I work with type all the time, on magazine redesigns, posters, etc. I have to make all these decisions about legibility and poetry and "voice". None of this is new to me guys.

My point is that the beautiful voices are not only the domain of type, there is illustration, and photo, etc. And when Paul and Hrant start talking about text type it tends to sound very elitist. It's what turned me off to "fine" arts.

I agree, that "Vignelli" guy is nuts, and I wouldn't even write to my in-laws in helvetica. The more type the better, so many moods, voices, etc. But, you have to ask yourselves sometimes, as I do about myself, who is noticing?

I've sat there with my family, who are not highly educated, as well as with highly educated editors and writers. Pointed out the kerning, the poetry of the text type, on and on. People don't see it. I know, it's in their subconscious, but we're putting a lot of our faith in that subconscious aren't we? So, sometimes, I start wondering if we're just preaching to the choir.

er

And sometimes even the choir switch off, you should search out some of the legibility and readability threads – try repeating some of that to a client (or parent), but it really isn't elitist just passionate and ultimately a lot more use than some fine arts.
Tim

"as long as the point is to serve others, and not merely express."
"In everything a person does, he strikes a balance between pleasing himself and accomodating society."

Hrant, how can you make these very good statements that I agree with and call society "little people" and "peons" at the same time. Just wondering, that's all.

er

> it tends to sound very elitist.

I think you're confusing "elitist" with "esoteric".

> who is noticing?

The interesting paradox with text type is that the reader actually shouldn't notice anything (unless he happens to be type-conscious, then he's basically cursed with the bane of awareness, and can no longer really read. :-). The reason is that if he does, the content suffers (and type, or really any design, is primarily about servitude, at least to me). This doesn't mean different text fonts are all the same however - because:

> we’re putting a lot of our faith in that subconscious aren’t we?

I tend to think we don't put enough faith in it, especially in the West.
Things here tend to be so literal and in-your-face, it's demeaning as the
human animals that we are. Subtlety, ambiguity, the gray - those are
what really count I think.

hhp

>I think you’re confusing “elitist” with “esoteric”

And Paul said I was uppity. You're right, None of us are elitist or uppity, we're all just esoteric:

a. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult.
b. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.

Still trying to figure out this damn language.

E.R.

I think the image is graphically (optical-grammatically) as accomplished as any text type. It relies on a well-considered juxtaposition of white and black (notan).

Additionally it relies on a strategic fusion / friction of iconic images. That is, it relies on, or exploits, the friction of images with a huge store of tacit, ambiant, positive and negative associational baggage: political, socio-cultural, ideological. This is what it does. It exploits these things in a primitive pre 'conceptually-fixed' state.

That makes it at once iconoclastic, unsettling, and engagingly satirical. A hoot and and an outrage. My / my generation's allegences then and now are interrogated. I am asked: what happened?

I am not told what to think, because the image is not a front for a readily circumscribable message. I am just presented with a stark juxtaposition. My baggage relative to these iconic markers is the echo chamber or amplifier for the interference pattern set in motion by a simple juxtaposition. I am asked to consider the meaning for me of these iconic things and I am asked to consider the meaning of their co-inherence in one image. If I have no baggage the image passes me by and I pass it by. If I interrogate it, it interrogates me.

The image acts. It has a place.

Well Cutler, forgive me just one more about my damn work:

I just wanted it to be a mirror, that's all.

and enne_son got it.

er

> enne_son got it.

Wait, so because he likes your work he's not elitist or esoteric?
I'll have you know, Peter is our mage of esoterica.

hhp

hhp,
Well, we've decided no one here is elitist haven't we. He is esoteric, as I've determined we all are. Anybody that says "tacit" and "ambiant" is. maybe I need to get over the language thing.

But he also said it was a "hoot". That's not esoteric. I don't think you'd ever use that word. :)))

er

Some like it, some don't. Sounds pretty normal to me.

peace

I have not followed this thread and I'm not going to read
it all through, but that cover is utter cliche crap. It's exactly
what 16 year olds do for their art GCSE every summer.

As I've said before, I've always wanted to be seventeen, or sixteen, all over again. You got it too!

I mean, really, for me to get utter cliche crap on the cover of Communication Arts has to be a some brilliant sort of coup, don't you think? Hrant, do you catch what I'm saying here.

er

quote - I mean, really, for me to get utter cliche crap on the cover of Communication Arts has to be a some brilliant sort of coup, don’t you think?

It's right up there with Castro. :)

I congratulate you on getting the cover, and I mean that sincerely.

peace

The thing is, what's not cliche about it is unknowable without your textual elaboration. SO/HOWEVER: if a reader thinks one thing upon seeing the cover, but realizes it means something else (and like I said, nearly the opposite) upon actually reading something inside the magazine, that could be seen as a nice bit of communicative playfulness. Some people though won't appreciate the opposition between what played a part in getting them to buy the magazine versus the views of the person who created it. On the other hand, it's nice to expose people to views in spite of themselves.

And I'm not sure what caused CA to go with that cover.
The reasons could just as likely be good or bad.

hhp

Does this horse have 9 lives?
: )

On the cliche factor.

The first time this visual idea was done I believe was when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, in spring of 2004. There was a sickening picture of an Iraqi prisoner, hooded, with fake electric wires used to mentally torture him. Some wit put the ipod earphones instead, and the posters appeared around NYC. Brilliant.

Now reusing the same idea could be stale, but I think the quite different context that Edel has used gives the idea enough freshness to be interesting and thought provoking, as this thread shows.

I think Cutler is coming around!

To some degree you have to understand me. I can be straight up, heartfelt, mean what I say, etc. Which are aspects of this thing, the changing Cuba, Capitalism coopting things, graying boomer, etc.. There are many reads, like a mirror, you see a reflection, or you look past it.

But I can also be a deviant. And to just imagine the illustration/design intelligentsia, of which there are some out there folks, open their mailbox, and get THIS thing. I mean it's priceless. I have other illustrator friends that did covers for their stories and bent over backwards to do the most original thing ever. I would have loved to have seen some esoteric design and illustration world faces when they got this. I couldn't see them, so I looked for chat rooms or "forums" instead. And I grew to like you!

For the record, my work was on their cover in 2004 Illustration Annual as well, something they chose out of the many submissions, just a very pretty piece of art. So I just wanted to have some "communicative playfulness" with this one instead.

er

One thing's for sure, if it caused this much discussion anywhere else, even accumulatively, it did as much as you could ask of an image.

more esoterica: once the author has supplied a textual elaboration the cliché rich droppings stops smelling (i.e., stop doing their work)

Am I losing the cowboy? I can't tell! Hrant? er

I resent that. I'm the one from Phoenix!

peace

>I mean, really, for me to get utter cliche crap on the cover of Communication Arts has to be a some brilliant sort of coup, don’t you think?
>It’s right up there with Castro. :)

"HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!"

>"Does this horse have 9 lives?: )"

What does it take to get on that damn "HOTTEST" list anyways?

The "What are you listening to" thread is hot on our trails folks. Come on, let's get it to 300 :) Show'em what you got. Post the name of your cat, delicious recipe, whatever! Anybody got a good chili recipe out there? I mean, that's a good 40 extra posts.

Or maybe we could stop, but can-we-contain-ourselves?!!!! :)

er

"What does it take to get on that damn “HOTTEST” list anyways?"

This thread was already on that list. After being on it a few days, threads are removed from it to give other threads a chance. Otherwise, only old threads would be there. Besides, this one has kind of run its course and is beginning to repeat itself. Just think of it as having gone into syndication but off the major networks :-)

ChrisL

Thanks Chris,

I was just messing there, you're always the voice of reason and clarity around here anyways. It's been great getting to know you, in a digital way. Great logo there by the way, and love the thing you did with the i-pod too.
Yes, this is going in circles, I look forward to joining some of the other type talk at some point. Difficult though, always a little intimidated by the real type pros. Hrant, Cutler, and Sorkin will swiftly cut me down to size in one of those threads.

er

For your info, Edel, I am not a type designer and don't want to be. I came here to research the smallest component of what I use in my designs, the glyph.

That's how I started anyway…

My main passion is music, design is my career.

peace

I was trying to imagine how this would look with a rainbow wig like that guy in the end-zone. I didn't know how to do that in a two color gif.

Better watch that first step fontplayer - it's a long way to the bottom… :)

peace

Thanks! I'll link over to the Southern Baptist Convention, should get us over the 500 mark!

Why stop there? ; )

I thought I was controversial! you're nuts! I'm getting out of here, good luck man. er

Your kerning is appalling. :)

Edit - much better job at kerning but I don't know about that pink…

peace

So, that was over the top? (darn!)

"I thought I was controversial! you’re nuts! I’m getting out of here, good luck man. "

By this I meant the kerning too! We are on Typophile, they're watching.

No, keep the homophobic AND make it pink — Now, there's a "concept"! Not so easy is it? ;) I'm still getting out, you're screwed either way. er

Making good "utter cliche crap" takes years and years of study! stick to making the good stuff. er

I’m still getting out, you’re screwed either way

I've been known to be controversial, but this was just meant as a joke. But some people are still probably sensitive about my previous indescretions, so I'm going with delirious.

fontplayer, a tool of the man. :)

Dennis, some of your "jokes" have been found, previously, by other typophiles as humorless. I'm glad you changed that one. Let's continue to self-edit when we know we should.

fontplayer, a tool of the man.

I'm all for "power to the people" except the people tend to suck. As soon as you give 'em power, they screw it up 100% of the time.

Let’s continue to self-edit when we know we should.

I was hoping it could be taken in good-humor, especially when I have wrongly been called that myself, but when a controversial person thought it was too controversial, I knew I had to change it.

Kind of like the time I was visiting a rodeo in N. Texas, and lightning was 360 degrees around, and the guy from Oklahoma in front of me said "I don't like the looks of this!", I started to worry.
; )

See Eric, they're watching! It's just like 1984 around here.

And, for the record, Miss Tiffany, Che was HOMOPHOBIC. No need to censor the truth.

I love The Bee Gees pre-disco work. The voices are like flutes. I Started A Joke is one of the saddest songs ever written. In fact their first Greatest Hits collection holds a place of high regard in my modest record collection.

Neil Schon was a very good guitarist. Probably still is.

Britney Spears? Basically I have no idea since I don't listen to pop radio. I'm sure I probably wouldn't like it but haven't paid attention.

Celine Dion - once again wouldn't really know about the music. I'm the AD for the print campaign of her show in Vegas so she has been very good to me…
In fact I love her!

I'm sure you know how to spell but the context of that last one was too hard to pass up… :)

Seriously check out the early Bee Gees. It's wonderful…

peace

> What the hell you going around inciting cops for?

It's just so goddam fun. Next time you're in LA let's hook up and we'll go for a run. But I'm not stupid, it's all about the limits; I never challenged the guys in Beirut with the klashins (not even when I had one too, which was admittedly pretty rare though). Or you could say it's sort of poetic justice. Or hey, maybe it's just communication: I'm telling them I think they're IDIOTS. Just make sure you're in public. One time I had a friend running his camcorder.

BTW, my best line, when seeing them use three patrol cars and a helicopter to book a poor drunk sap: "Do you **** think you have enough people here?" Result: they followed me and gave me a ticket for a defective brake light (serves me right for exercising my free speech, gol'dangit*), but it was so worth it: you can't BUY that kind of story.

* Remember Ice-T: "Freedom of speech - just watch what you say."

hhp

I made a flyer for one of the early Ice-T shows. I went and got a copy of Soldier of Fortune magazine and had Uzis, AR-15s, guns flying all over the place.

He was pleased as punch.

peace

Celine Dion - once again wouldn’t really know about the music.

When I heard her hold her own with Andreas Bocelli at the Grammy's a couple years ago (I think the song was called "A Prayer"), when the goose bumps were over I had to rearrange my thinking.

One good long-hair story, circa 1970: I was in a restaurant in Paso Robles with a friend and an old lady (70 or so) who had picked us up hitch-hiking. Some red-necks at the counter kept whistling at us, and laughing. When we got up to leave about 6 of them got up and followed us out, and surrounded us. We figured they wanted to kick our butts, but as I was estimating our chances, the old lady pulls out a 38 revolver and says to them, "Don't you boys have something better to do?" - Oddly enough, they apparently all had something better to do, and we went on our way.

I have others, but many of them would incriminate me in some fashion or other.

Cutler,
I love the Bee Gees, Cuba in the 70's, the Bee Gees was America to us! I came here for the Bee Gees! Just figured they're a punch line so I threw it out there.

And you do the print work for Celine Dion? God, what we do for a buck! I feel for you. My sister wanted to give me something for my birthday, and she said I would just love it! Opened the thing and it was a Celine Dion CD. It said how much she actually pays attention to me, but I love her anyways.

The thing about the cops is that they suck everywhere so to make judgments on a country because of the police doesn't say much. I got stopped on a highway by an African-American cop the other day because my wife turned on the map light! We had the baby in the backseat, cars whizzing by and the guy just kept being a ----, asking where I'm coming from, where I'm going, on and on. Just guys using the little power they have. If I had to deal with drunks, and all sorts of delinquents all the time I might turn into a ---- too, or a bigger ----!

ER

I enjoy working on Celine. Many opportunites to stretch my skills.

I feel very lucky that design is not the closest thing to my heart. That makes it a perfect career.

I've already tried turning what I love into money, didn't work for me…

peace

>It’s just so goddam fun. Next time you’re in LA let’s hook up and we’ll go for a run.

Hrant,
I spent a lot of my teenage years with a bunch of friends and "business associates" of my father, who were from Lebanon, so I KNOW how crazy you guys can be. I won't go into it because one thing my dad taught me is to not talk about Lebanon with Lebanese. He also mentioned not to talk about politics, so I don't know how I've gone on so long here with you!

I can say that before we'd go over to our friends' place we'd always fill up on our own food because your food was strange. My dad couldn't put any of that stuff in him. I've grown up and now I love all of it. My dad's still friends with the guys but won't touch their food.

Oh, and I also picked up some handy self defense techniques from one of the shifty fellows.

ER

Cool.

Oh, raw liver with onions and bits of lard... yummmmmmmmm.

hhp

Man, that's vile, we wouldn't even touch the freakin' stuffed grape leaves! Cubans gotta have everything cooked. My dad would just look, stare, and ask why they had to put rice in a damn leaf?

ER

I like grape leaves with rice. But then again I love Unagi, Tako and Tekka-don. :^)

Aahhh, we're finally bonding over weird foreign food, ain't America great.

ER

You don't like dolma? Freak…

One of the best things about living in LA is the massive amount of immigrants and the food they bring with them.

I also live right next to Jose Marti Plaza where they hold the Afro-Cuban Festival every year. They put down parque flooring in the park and there is some mean dancing going down…

peace

Taking this way off topic, there is a local writer, William Nour, who had a wonderful story in the Journal Mizna a collection of Arab American writing. In his story called, "Dine Alone, Die Alone," he explains that the trouble the Arabs have had over the centuries resulted from the way they keep inviting people in for food. This obviously leads to invasion and foreign occupation. He imagined a giant Arab restaurant with signed pictures on the wall: "Loved the hummous," from Attila. "The grape leaves were superb," from Constantine.... I heard William read it in public and the audience loved it. Alas, it is not online.

Kristin, you will need to work a lot harder than that to take this thread off topic :)
Tim

Amateur!

ER

LOL!

A preist, a rabbi and an imam walk into a bar....

…BONG! It was an iron bar
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
Tim

This thread and a dead horse walk into a bar...

The bartender says "Deja Vu...I could swear we've beaten that horse before."

There is no need to get vicious… :)

peace

Do you guys know how many typographers does it take to change a bulb?

Actually, the only gardening we do involves some rather hardy hedera.

But anyway, do tell.

hhp

A whole world needs saving and you ----- are still here? This is like the freakin' corner shop now. Scram! get outta here! Store's closed! Go talk about what typoholics you are!

ER

Hey! How's it going in here?

LOL

I suppose the good thing is that everyone here on this thread is here on this thread voluntarily and that there is no obligatory membership that gets all this in their email box.

Still, why do this to Typophile? Remember what TYPO-L turned into? Cross-word puzzles for a bunch of good old boys sitting around in the village gathering hole.

Gerald

"Am I the only Liberal anti-Communist in the room?"

Nope.

Hrant wrote:
"As I said in another thread, there is the darkness in all of
us, and it comes out due mostly to circumstances beyond
our control. But we’re still all human, and most of all we
need to see the darkness as human."

"Darkness" and "beyond our control"...
Written this way it leaves me with a taste of negative fatalism and the temptation to consider mostly conglomerates instead of the single individual. "What injured us".
Now, I'm surely not implying you should "follow" a pre-ordained doctrine ("Darkness" is necessarily one side of free will), I'm just questioning how resentment can ever be useful. Since nature is paradoxical, people assume faith is irrational. It surely is, as it's just "followed" like an ideology, or expected to work like magic. People find many forms of slavery, no matter how painful, ultimately reassuring. But this is sinister. What do you do when your intellect stops working? What do you do when your perception of sense is suppressed? What's the use of talking?
Even William Burroughs realized talking abstractly is often pretty useful, shortly before he died, in his book "Last Words".

Gandhi was unfortunately exploited in an advertising campaign of Italian Telecom. Something like "what kind of world would be if he could have had the communicating tools we have today"?
What is, truly, progress?

Hey guys, the party's moved! It's over here now!:

http://typophile.com/node/20761?from=50&comments_per_page=50

ER

For fuckssake, grow up, Edel. You are the one taking your silly "me vs typophile" overthere, making sure everyone knows about your parent's background and how great they are despite of that ( and why shouldn't they?). In my view all you've done since you entered here is defending yourself like you were on some sort of trial.

And who told you I think you don't have a "thick skin"? All this talk about victims and then you come with your "oh, I thought it was a honourable thing to bomb kossovo" crap.
That really made me SICK. Since when bombing a country is a honourable thing to do?

As I said overthere: you have been criticised. So what? Take it on the chin and move on, no need to take your cv everywhere you go. And no need to go all "oh well, you might think my work is crap but I am on the CA cover, what about you?"

You said you were bored when you came across an illustrator that was talking about his family problems. I don't get bored when people talk about personal stuff on forums, just please don't use them to make you look interesting and to justify everything you say: this is attention seeking behaviour.

Know what? I really had to tell you that: you sound spiteful. Sorry!

> Since when bombing a country is a honourable thing to do?

When it stops genocide.

Damn shame that's only the case when it's a fringe benefit.

After all, all genocides are equally bad, but
some genocides are more equal than others, eh?

hhp

How many Jews were brutally killed or burned in cremation chambers before the US woke up and did the "honourable" thing?
Are you going to tell me the US didn't know what was going on in Auschwitz way before 1945? And isn't it true that the US woke up only after Pearl Harbour? Did it avoid a genocide? No, it didn't. Between saying that it was a solution and saying that it was a "honourable" thing to do there's a BIG difference. It's the "honour" thing I'm having a problem with, all that it implies and the way it was put in the context of Kossovo: "Europeans were just talking and talking while watching a bloodbath in their backyard but then we came and did the honourable thing", that's the sort of stuff that make me want to puke.

L O R E

The posting guidelines do say to "Be prepared for some lively banter"

>“me vs typophile”

actually, it's me vs. hipocrisy

>"like you were on some sort of trial"

Read this thread, some have said I should be more more irate, I've actually tempered my comments.

>“oh, I thought it was an honourable thing to bomb kossovo” crap."

I was actually sincerely asking for your point of view when I asked that, and I wanted it, but you were too busy being indignant to try and inform.

>“oh well, you might think my work is crap but I am on the CA cover, what about you?”

hmmm..., don't think I ever said that. Are quotes something you just throw around, or is that what's just been in your head for a while?

">please don’t use forums to make you look interesting and to justify everything you say: this is attention seeking behaviour."

May I ask, what the heck does Hrant, yourself and many other people here do if not the above? Have you actually read some of the things people say in all these threads. But of course, you love it when they call attention to themselves, especially if you agree with them. You looove them!

>"you sound spiteful. Sorry!"

I've had my views way before I came to this place so I don't need to be spiteful towards anyone in particular. Many designers, not you perhaps, have views about the public that I disagree with and I'll talk about it here or anywhere, because I feel like it.

You sound petty. Oh, and jealous. And again, I don't think I'm alone. Sorry!

ER

>“Europeans were just talking and talking while watching a bloodbath in their backyard but then we came and did the honourable thing”, that’s the sort of stuff that make me want to puke.

Why, because it's true? What did Italy do?

The US had a shameful record in the WW II holocaust, but relatively honorable one in the Bosnia wars. Both Europe and the US were far too late in intervening, and yes bombing. Europe was worse.

Should the US have stayed out and let the genocide proceed further? You are ducking the hard question.

In my opinion, vilification of the US is a cheap substitute for thinking about the complexities and difficulties of using power responsibly and effectively. Neither the motives nor the results of US policies are simple and uni-dimensional. This is even true with our current pathetic excuse for a president.

… so it comes as no surprise that studies show fishing is good for the family…

peace

William,

At the risk of using more of my "attention seeking behaviour" by posting my feelings and opinions, I want to thank you for hanging out and not making me feel like I'm all alone on this stuff.

ER

It is always interesting how some people can be so bent in some direction that they even actually read things backwards, or take it wrong.

Anyway, I don't have much problem with anything you say. Especially since you warned us you are a liberal. So immediately I don't expect you to be too accurate.
; ) - wink)

For the record, since I keep being put "on trial" about my statements from long ago, here is my actual post on Kosovo. Notice the last sentence, where I actually freakin' state that I may be wrong, and seek a different opinion, since I get all my information from the TV that lies to me. Never did get an answer:

"Lore: Give me your pov on Kosovo. I thought America did a good thing there. As Europeans watched slaughter of innocents occur in their backyard and talked and talked about it, the U.S. got NATO together and did an honorable thing. I could be wrong, not in Europe, so I’d like to know if my perception is not correct."

ER

> You are ducking the hard question.

Quite the other way around, William.

hhp

>"Especially since you warned us you are a liberal"

Not sure what I am. Libertarian, Liberal, Independent, and Fiscal Conservative, if you can put all those in a bottle and shake it up then something like that.

ER

if you can put all those in a bottle and shake it up then something like that.

Hey, throw in some goofy and mischievous and I'm with you!

>"Quite the other way around, William."

hhp,
I will write in the form of questions so as to not offend. Do you think that the fact that we have presidents that change all the time, new congresses, etc. affect why we have dealt with genocides in different ways throughout the years? Or do you think this is all controlled by the same folks all the time in the background as a master plan?
In my opinion, both the U.S. and Europe should have done something in Rwanda, and they didn't. Why? because they're black and in Africa, and no one cares. So, yes, there have been many screw ups throughout the years, and many times it's been convenient to ignore genocide. It's still happening in the Congo, Sudan, and many other places.

er

>"Hey, throw in some goofy and mischievous and I’m with you!"

What do you think gets me in trouble around here all the time. Most people just don't see it I guess.

ER

What do you think gets me in trouble around here all the time.

I remember as a kid at music camp we used to sneak into the girls cabins and steal their underware and run it up the flagpole. Almost a half-century later, I am only slightly more "grown-up".
: )

William,

>"In my opinion, vilification of the US is a cheap substitute for thinking about the complexities and difficulties of using power responsibly and effectively. Neither the motives nor the results of US policies are simple and uni-dimensional."

For some reason the complexities of U.S. power reminded me of Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men". I know, I watch too much of the TV:

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg?
I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

ER

…responsible dog ownership is incorporating your dog into the community successfully and providing for the needs of your dog…

peace

Thanks Edel. I just need a regular break from my labors, so I go to Typophile, learn and occasionally mouth off on political topics. I once read that one of the greatest threats to civilization is "boredom with established truths", such as the superiority of liberal democracy. That's why I make it a point to answer the haters.

Many people seem to get their jollies by hating and feeling superior to the 'other', and these days the US is a favorite object of the hatred. Obsessive hatred often becomes a substitute for realistic analysis of the issues. Frightening.

I don't like the macho tone and absolutism of the Nicholson character's speech. Reminds me too much of Bush--the character seems to feel that he has no need to think, to do self-criticism, to have in depth understanding before taking a major risk.

One of the earliest discussions of the moral problems of exercising power is the Talmudic discussion of an incident of King Saul. He met with a foreign power, and ignored their insults. As a result they thought he was weak. This emboldened them to start a war against the Israelites, in which many were killed and eventually King Saul himself died. The Talmudic conclusion is something like 'if you start by being kind when you should be cruel, you will end up being cruel when you should be kind.' This is quite contrary to the usual love-and-peace tone of the sages, so it is particularly startling and thought provoking.

> there have been many screw ups

You're not giving the powers that be enough "credit". It's not a bunch random successes and screw-ups, it's a collection of largely predictable manifestations of a central premise. Not some conspiracy by a central fixed cabal of shadowy figures, but simply a result of a decrepit core philosophy.

Case in point: a few years before the Balkan conflict, Azerbaijan carried out mass pogroms (ethnic massacres) of its Armenian population. Now there are almost no Armenians in that country. "Ethnic cleansing". What did the US do? Made sure you didn't even see it much on TV. Why? Caspian oil, baby!

And it has nothing to do with race. Capitalism is not racist, it's not even politically ideological. Capitalism is inherently "even-handed" in whom it enslaves. In Nepal for example (it's pretty ironic that William used that as an example) the US is on the side of Maoist "terrorists". The same in Angola's oil wealthy Cabinda province.

And virtually all aspects of life in the "free West" are simply weapons in the arsenal of Capitalism - if they weren't, they would be phased out. Democracy for example is simply a means to an end. And I do mean End. If voting could work, it would be illegal (and it is in fact shut down when needed). Why do you think the US wanted Palestinians to adopt democratic reforms? Well, the results speak for themselves!

--

It's not that the US is any worse than your average country in the way it treats the world, it's that Americans don't realize/admit that neither is it any better. Furthermore, its superpower status gives it a special responsability of behaving a certain way towards the planet. "Honorable" is not even close to being a suitable adjective.

And Edel, really, don't quote from Hollywood movies, come on.

hhp

Let's be clear, aerial bombardment is never as surgical nor effective as propagandists and apologists might claim, see the Blitz, Dresden, and too many recent examples.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/342324.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/nato_targets/default.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/339313.stm

Tim

hhp,

When I say that Capitalism won, I'm not cheerleading. Just stating reality. It's not just the U.S. that's greedy and corrupt, every other country is, everybody's making deals, on and on. So it's all the same.
Yes the U.S. has a special responsibility to the planet and it fails over and over again, to my dismay. I agree with most of what you said here anyways, so I think we have a lot in common. Except the quoting from Hollywood movies thing. Something tells me, "I'll be back".

ER

It all goes back to what I said long ago and far away, the problem isn't the systems, it is man himself. In our state we can corrupt any system. Period. Not much more to say, but that doesn't mean you all won't realize I am right, as usual, and will keep going on...
; )

Tim, your examples are dated. The bombing in the Kosovo was in the end successful--in combination with the threat of ground force--contrary to the doubters in the press, including the one you cite, who were just wrong.

I don't have any expertise on this stuff, and find bombing morally repugnant in any case. It just that it seems that there are horrible situations in which not doing it seems worse, and that, it seems that Kosovo was one of them. Of course had Europe acted sooner it might not have been needed to stop the genocide.

Currently 'smart bombs' have become more accurate, so I think the issue is now somewhat different. They are more like artillery--such as when they recently were used to kill Al-Zarqawi. They still horribly kill a lot of innocents, but they are far from being like Dresden.

Edel wrote:

"Give me your pov on Kosovo. I thought America did a good thing there.”

William wrote:

"Of course had Europe acted sooner it might not have been needed to stop the genocide."

To me, the problem with asking such statements (is bombing X country right if they are commiting genocide?) is that it seems ignorant of history. My basic response, well, yes, if you are going to ignore reality until it turns into a predictable blood bath, then somebody needs to do something to end the bloodbath.

Tragedies like mass killings in Kosovo don't just appear out of nowhere like a Jack-in-the-box. Deliberate policies led to the dismembership of Yugoslavia, including manipulation by the World Bank and inter-capitalist competition between Germany, France and the U.S. The tragedy resulted from capitalist international infighting and it probably won't be the last time we see such events.

Also, don't forget what the U.S. won in that war: Camp Bondsteel. While Kosovarans are struggling with few resources to rebuild their country, U.S. soldiers are relaxing in one of the most modern and luxurious military installations in the world:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/camp-bondsteel.htm

"The Bondsteel PX offers soldiers the latest CDs, DVDs, electronics, souvenirs, clothing, uniforms and everything to make your stay in Kosovo comfortable. With two stories of merchandise, the PX draws lots of multinational soldiers from throughout Kosovo. Also located at CBS are Burger King, Anthony’s Pizza and a Cappuccino bar."

I wish the U.S. did more with it's skilled tradespeople and humanitarian aid workers rather than sending the military. Our soldiers are trained to kill, not build, and it's absurd to expect them to do so. Meanwhile, thousands of Americans are ready, willing and able to help our their fellow human beings, once a method for doing so is created. I hope we don't wait too long.

> Deliberate policies led to ...

And how did Iraq/Kuwait and Syria/Lebanon end up as enemies, when in the past they were essentially single entities? The Stalinesque partitioning of land at the hands of the West. Take a region and split it up into a small rich coastal country and a large desert continental one, and you've got decades of super-fun strife you can make gobs of money from! Go ahead, bomb us, but please don't say you're fixing something we messed up, and then on top of that expect the world not to rightly hate you for it.

hhp

>Tragedies like mass killings in Kosovo don’t just appear out of nowhere like a Jack-in-the-box. Deliberate policies led to the dismembership of Yugoslavia, including manipulation by the World Bank and inter-capitalist competition between Germany, France and the U.S.

Kristin, I have a problem with ascribing all disorders to the powerful countries, and no responsibility at all to the people who directly messed things up themselves.

Let's start with the 'World Bank'. In the first place nobody gets loans from the IMF (it was not the World Bank but the Fund who was the big actor here) unless they ASK for them. And they only ask for them if they've gotten themselves into debt first. You leave the people in the former Yugoslavia, and especially their leaders completely out of the picture as key causal factors. But in peace time locals and their culture and institutions are in reality are the biggest influence on their fates.

This whole 'its all a conspiracy of the USA' thing is extremely patronizing to other countries, and presumes that we are so much smarter and more powerful than they, that they have nothing to do with their fates. Aside from its insulting and arrogant attitude, it fails to explain why some countries outside the West--such as in Asia--have prospered and others--such as in the Middle East and Africa--have done so much worse. If the USA were manipulating everything rapaciously, they should have controlled and destroyed all of them alike.

I am not saying that the US government hasn't done a lot of stupid and immoral things; it has. The whole 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' thinking has caused one disaster after another. This blundering and badness is one important factor, only one. And it ignores what the US has done right, which is also a lot. Fixating on blaming the US neither captures the reality of complex economic and social causes, nor helps anything.

Almost had me, but lost me with "the Empire is expanding so that our soldiers can eat at Burger King" theory.

ER

Neither Kristin nor any reasonable person thinks in such absolute terms. But avoiding the reality that powerful entities have more say in the world is either ignorant or manipulative, or both. And for some reason it's often accompanied by the avoidance of the human necessity of linking power and responsability...

Your bit about "nobody gets a loan unless he asks for one" sounds just like something a mafia loan shark would say in such a situation. Ask South Americans what they think of your claim. And have you considered that Asia might be doing better than the Middle East because the West has never conquered it? Except for Japan, where btw for some reason gender equality is completely whacked, but the West doesn't mind it there, it only minds it in Iran et alia. You're only fooling people who are already fooled (which means you're wasting your time).

Ascribing blame (not fixating on anything) to the guilty party is a key means
of improving the future. Please don't act like that's some outlandish concept.

hhp

William, I wonder where one gets the data that demonstrates how accurate ‘smart bombs’ are, there are no reliable figures for civilian casualties, and it should be said precious little effort to gather those figures. Even your example demonstrates their failings on the ‘surgical’ front.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5064590.stm

I won’t pursue this as I believe we both find bombing revolting, but I do believe other avenues should have been taken in recent conflicts before resorting to bombing, it seems our governments turn to that option far too easily, I won't go into motive.
Tim

linking power and responsibility

I've always linked responsibility to power. Where much is given much is (and rightly so) required. It is incorrect, imho, to think otherwise.

William, I'm not blaming the U.S. for everything. Why would you jump to that conclusion? Would that be considered patronizing? However, you are correct: it was the IMF not the World Bank. I erred.

The topic was foreign military invasion into a sovereign nation, which is why I confined my comments to the actions of the U.S., France, Germany and the IMF rather than internal Slavic politics.

In addition, I believe that creating huge U.S. airbases like Bonesteel will lead to more problems. The citizens of the U.S. seem oddly complacent about accepting massive disparities in poverty and wealth, but Europe has not been as sanguine over the years. I'm thinking the Kosovars may want a chance at all those VCRs and Big Macs sometime soon.

>The topic was foreign military invasion into a sovereign nation, which is why I confined my comments to the actions of the U.S., France, Germany and the IMF rather than internal Slavic politics.

No, you raised the question of the lead-up to our intervention, and you ignored their part in the mess and war that was there. You only talked about what the NATO countries had done; that's what I think is partronizing. They were killing each other before NATO intervened, and now NATO is keeping the peace. I fail to see how that makes NATO the bad guys here.

I agree with Tiffany that with power comes responsibility. I am just emphasizing that locals have much more power in many ways than outsiders--as has even finally dawned on our Idiot-in-Chief in Iraq.

For example, you say "I’m thinking the Kosovars may want a chance at all those VCRs and Big Macs sometime soon." Hopefully they have better taste. But who is going to bring about their prosperity? Do the members of NATO have all the responsibility to develop their land, and they have no responsibility?

Everybody loves movies and burgers, (or cappuccinos, or ipods, or nikes). That is the problem, look in your closet or fridge. Why should the world be denied the same crap we all have?

ER

> They were killing each other before NATO intervened

Again you skirt the issue of what external power-player precedent actions
led them to that. Like how WWII was largely a result of how the victors
handled Germany after WWI.

And calling a puppet an idiot doesn't get you off the hook.
In fact it helps perpetuate the true problems at the core.

> who is going to bring about their prosperity?

The people who hold the power, as always. The implication of
your stance is that the "locals" are virtually all lazy and stupid.

hhp

>"Again you skirt the issue of what external power-player precedent actions led them to that. Like how WWII was largely a result of how the victors handled Germany after WWI."

How far can we go back? Is there a statute of limitations? For example, should I be blaming Communism in Cuba on Christopher Columbus?

>"Asia might be doing better than the Middle East because the West has never conquered it?"

I thought Britain colonized Hong Kong, India, etc., would that count as Asia?

Also, let's say the "superpower" or the "west" takes blame, yes, they (England, the U.S., France, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal) admit it's all their fault. What next? O.K., so we all change to monarchies. What King should the U.S. pick, do we go back to the British throne? I'm trying to figure out your solution really.

ER

Pick Elvis

ChrisL

Chris,
We're almost at the point of solving the world's problems here, please refrain from jokes.

ER

I don't think he was joking…

peace

"No, you raised the question of the lead-up to our intervention, and you ignored their part in the mess and war that was there."

I *know* you have my point of view ass backwards, William. I'm not sure why you are misreading my posts. This might be a good point to bring up Edel's words:

"How far can we go back? "

On Kosovo, we need to go to a time before the mass killings began. The question is often posted, "Should NATO have intervened once the mass killing occured?" as if NATO and its member countries had no involvement BEFORE the killing occurred. Of course NATO was involved and NATO needs to take responsibility for what it did or did not do. No, William, I'm not blaming NATO for everything. But there is plenty of blame to pass around. NATO was never a disinterested bystander in Yugoslavia.

The Balkans are a warning about future international battles in which capitalist powers compete against each other, rather than the old-fashioned (!) Cold War battles between capitalist and communist nations. It's important we learn some lessons.

"For example, you say “I’m thinking the Kosovars may want a chance at all those VCRs and Big Macs sometime soon.” Hopefully they have better taste. But who is going to bring about their prosperity? Do the members of NATO have all the responsibility to develop their land, and they have no responsibility?"

Again you misunderstand me. I believe Kosovars getting VCRs and Big Macs is a GOOD thing. I want them to prosper. I want them to have access to the same decent housing and opportunities for food and entertainment that U.S. GIs are enjoying at Camp Bonesteel.

The U.S. has created isolated bases of wealth and prosperity in the middle of areas that have been devastated by warfare (Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan). Isn't it logical that at some point the locals are gonna stop peering over the armed parapets at wealth and the good life enjoyed by U.S. troops and take action? Don't they have the right?

Elvis is already King and he is already dead. Already being King, he needs no war of succession to get started; already dead, he can't start wars and he doesn't have to worry about the "Burnham Woods come to Duncnane" thing and the blood bath that kind of stuff brings.
The best choice would actually be the "King of Comedy" Groucho Marx. He is already king, already dead, and already very funny--something we can't say about any other king or president in history for that matter.

ChrisL

If we're going this route, why not a queen?

For that matter, maximize the entertainment value by choosing someone whose reputation wouldn't be screwed up by indiscretion. Like Anna Nicole. And keep the reality show. Then we'd all finally get our money's worth for our cable connection.

Who wouldn't want to watch her meet with the Iran's government officials?

Kristen, I'm sorry if I am misreading you, but what did I misread?

I never said that you thought Kosovars prospering was bad. I said that you did not make clear that it was to a great extent their own responsibility to do the work to prosper. Of course NATO should do what it can to create a stable framework for them to do that. But I thought that is what they are trying to do. I think our armed intervention and peace keeping now gives them a shot at building a better life. Do you think that once the civil war started we shouldn't have intervened? What do you suggest we do now? Withdraw? What do you suggest they do?

>international battles in which capitalist powers compete against each other

You still seem to me to be putting all causation on the 'Capitalist' powers, and nothing on the locals. You still don't assign any blame to the locals, like Milosovic, except to say that 'there is blame enough to go around'.

You seem to be saying--correct me if I'm wrong--that the world's problems are a simply a byproduct of capitalist powers competing. I think this leaves out a critcal factor: lot of the problems are because poor countries have rotten governments that keep them poor.

The problems of the rich countries--and indeed not so rich ones like China is how to deal with these rotten states, like North Korea. It is not actually an easy problem.

The point I have been trying to make from my first post here is that the method of starting with blame is a bad way to understand social problems. The first thing is to try to understand the causes. The causes are complex, and only when you start to understand the mix of social conditions, culture, economics can you really see what needs to be changed. Assigning blame is part of this, but only when you understand the bigger picture do you get a realistic picture of who is right and wrong when.

> our armed intervention and peace keeping now
> gives them a shot at building a better life.

Sure, after you ruined it to begin with.

> poor countries have rotten governments that keep them poor.

With many of them propped up by the west.
And at least they're not rotten governments
that make/keep other nations poor...

North Korea?! FYI: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5077984.stm

> The first thing is to try to understand ...

Pure, classic, western formalistic escapism.

> who is right and wrong when.

And you are wrong, right now.

hhp

William, you have a point you want to make, so make it. Stop insisting that I am arguing with you on your point which you want to make. It's not all about you. You don't get to determine what I must say or must not say to remain in this discussion.

"You seem to be saying—correct me if I’m wrong—that the world’s problems are a simply a byproduct of capitalist powers competing."

You are wrong. That is not what I believe nor is it what I said. Would you please stop pretending you have a clue what my political beliefs are? I have no problem with you stating your own position, but pretending you know what my thoughts are is really irritating.

"The point I have been trying to make from my first post here is that the method of starting with blame is a bad way to understand social problems. "

I did not place blame. Not once. Why are you determined to see blame when it is not there?

"You still don’t assign any blame to the locals..."

Didn't you say we shouldn't blame? And then you disagree with me because I do not properly blame the people you blame?

William, seriously, take a break. Re-read my posts without your filter of blame and your erroneous assumptions. Feel free to contact me off line if you need clarification. Nothing good can come of your continued misinterpretation of my statements.

Kristin,
With all due respect, I intently read your posts and at times it is very difficult to figure out what you are trying to say.

And boy, I hope that BBC is always right, because it gets a lot of play around here.

ER

>Stop insisting that I am arguing with you on your point which you want to make. It’s not all about you.

Sorry, I don't take orders, especially when followed by a gratuitious insult. You started your posts on Kosovo above (June 22 1:03 pm) by quoting me and Edel saying our views were "ignorant of history." You may be right or wrong about my ignorance but you were certainly arguing with me.

>I did not place blame. Not once. Why are you determined to see blame when it is not there?

This is what you wrote that I read as blaming:

"Deliberate policies led to the dismembership of Yugoslavia, including manipulation by the World Bank and inter-capitalist competition between Germany, France and the U.S. The tragedy resulted from capitalist international infighting and it probably won’t be the last time we see such events."

If you did not mean to say that the World Bank, and infighting between Germany, France and the US were primarily responsible for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia--that they were primarily to blame (blame=responsibility for a bad thing)--then I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. Though it may not be what you intended to say, I must say that I don't think my reading is a distortion of your text.

>Didn’t you say we shouldn’t blame? And then you disagree with me because I do not properly blame the people you blame?

No, I said we shouldn't start out blaming, but first trying to understand. And I said that after making that effort, assignment of blame would be part of the outcome of an effort at understanding. My problem is with *starting* with blaming before analyzing the multiple causes of a situation.

And I said that in my opinion that after such analysis you would generally find locals have a much larger role in the causality of what happens in their countries and the policies of international powers less of a role than often assigned (though of course an important one). So localities, in my view, deserve much more of the praise or blame for their own fates than much political commentary assigns.

I thought that you were assigning too much responsibility for events to the international powers, but you say I simply repeatedly misread you. I don't know what your views are, then, and I'll leave it at that.

>I’ll leave it at that.

Oh, it never stays "at that", you should know better. Hrant will come in here now and point out the stuff you've overlooked.

But I asked about what happens when the west admits it's all wrong and we move to monarchies. Can I please, please get an answer Hrant? I've been here for over 400 posts now and haven't gotten the answer.

ER

" I don’t know what your views are, then, and I’ll leave it at that."

Thank you.

"No, I said we shouldn’t start out blaming, but first trying to understand. And I said that after making that effort, assignment of blame would be part of the outcome of an effort at understanding. My problem is with *starting* with blaming before analyzing the multiple causes of a situation."

This is our key difference. You think in terms of blame. For me, assigning blame is not a valuable way of looking at the world. It's not something I spend time on.

I try to concentrate on those who make the effort to improve the world. I have been a direct beneficiary of people who decided to help out others in trouble. I only hope I can live up to their examples.

>For me, assigning blame is not a valuable way of looking at the world. It’s not something I spend time on.

So for example you don't spend time on blaming others for misunderstanding you and you don't insult those you blame by saying that they think, "it's all about me." You never wrote any of that, of course. It's all my misunderstanding.

Hey, William, don't beat yourself up over it. Everybody makes mistakes. It's easy to misread posts on the internet.

Hrant, Bush was asked about the poll in your link at a press conference in Vienna:

Q: And if I may, to President Bush, you've got Iran's nuclear program, you've got North Korea, yet, most Europeans consider the United States the biggest threat to global stability. Do you have any regrets about that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: That's absurd. The United States is -- we'll defend ourselves, but at the same time, we're actively working with our partners to spread peace and democracy. So whoever says that is -- it's an absurd statement.

More here.

Kristin:
Hey, look at "little miss blame nobody". You don't blame,huh?, you just drop little links here and there. That's so cute!

You said "Meanwhile, thousands of Americans are ready, willing and able to help out their fellow human beings, once a method for doing so is created. I hope we don’t wait too long."

Here's a clue: If that's how you truly feel you should stop wasting precious time at this "forum" and go work for the methods that already do exist. You can start with Doctors Without Borders or Habitat for Humanity.

ER

We're getting too far into insulting now, maybe we should all back off this thread, after all nobody is going to be convinced enough to change minds.
Have a good weekend.

C'mon Ing-er-land.

Tim

Edel, why assume I don't do these things already?

It's in poor taste to brag about one's volunteer work, but in this case, I don't mind. I'll put my volunteer time up against anybody posting here and I'm sure I come out in the top ten. On average, I have donated over 15 hours a week to non-profit organizations for over 30 years. That's on top of holding down a full time AND a part time job.

Please stop giving me credit for being amazingly clever in slipping in my subversive comments that only you can interpret correctly. I'm not blaming you. I don't know why you won't read what I write without putting your spin on it. I've explained it a couple of times without success and that's my limit.

Your most recent comment seems to be in response to my quote from Bush. How is that blaming anyone? It's Bush expressing what a very common idea in this country. We believe we're spreading peace and democracy and the majority of the world sees something different. It is a breakdown of communication (like we're having here). It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong (see: not blaming). There is a bit of truth and falsehood ON BOTH SIDES. But there is no doubt that communication has failed.

Again, feel free to contact me directly off line if there's a chance we can communicate better.

People. Do you like others to communicate in such harsh tones?

If you can be how you wish others were, you CAN save the world.

But alas, we are lost…

peace

Tim,
If you look back on this thread it has been rather insulting in the past to many people, including myself, so it's not just "now" because I am calling someone on something. Please, really, look back a bit.

I have tried to get everyone to "back off" this thread for quite a while, but it has become everyone's bathroom wall. If you're bored of the kern and glyph talk, come over here, spout your politics, slam people around, place links to your personal politics, etc. So please, go start a political thread somewhere else and deal with those issues somewhere else. The original topic of my work has been covered ad nauseum already.

I apologize if I offend. As I've said, I have a problem with hypocrisy. And I am one of the "blamers", of everyone, including myself.

Have a nice weekend, and I mean that.

ER

quote - And I am one of the “blamers”, of everyone, including myself.

Get rid of everyone and you might be getting somewhere.

I don't have any enemies besides myself, and I can be formidable…

peace

:))) Oh, and a little sense of humor around here wouldn't hurt either :)))

ER

Now that is funny!

peace

O.K., I put my techie hat on and created a new thread, it's really quite a technical achievement for me. Here it is "The world, politics, and typography", please go there for any and all political issues from now on. I think Typophile needs a place to vent or to "not blame" :) :) Here you go:

http://typophile.com/node/20879

ER

God, if I knew it was that easy I would have done this such a long time ago. New folks have joined in and the sparks are a flyin' already! Leave this joint, go HERE, NOW:

http://typophile.com/node/20879

ER

> I have a problem with hypocrisy.

Well, make sure not to really open your eyes then, since
the fact that you're engulfed in it would drive you nuts.

hhp

Hrant, there's a place for politics and personal attacks now, please go here:

http://typophile.com/node/20879

ER

Actually, the only "attack" featured there was an observation
of blissful ignorance... You might even count me as envious.

BTW, something else about type designers: we're loyal, and persistent.

hhp

lol :)
Really, it's nice and cozy over there, they've got snacks, and the thermostat is set just right...

http://typophile.com/node/20879

ER

hhp,
We're the real losers, you know we're the only ones that haven't talked about "what we listen to". Come on, tell me please, what are you listening to? Do you get up on the left, or the right side of the bed? What hair gel do you use? But please tell me here:

http://typophile.com/node/20879

ER

Goa, the side my wife is not on (right for the first ~10 years,
left for the past ~8 months - before marriage, right), none ever.

Oh, and I had to reply here because I didn't want the
post count to remain 2/3-rds the Number of the Beast.

hhp

445/666 is much better. Good work there. Somehow that important distinction had escaped me.

yep, good work on the Beast, thanks man. Now, the "side" of the bed, is it defined when you're looking at it from the front, or is it when you're laying on it? And when you're laying on it, is it face down, or face up?

Laying on the bed, face up, I'm a left side of the bed person. So, clear the bed thing up, and you know where to go! btw, I think I've snagged one over yonder, and I think she wants a "lively discussion", thinks my "bashing of America" is not a good place to start, so you could have a good week ahead over there, go, go!:

http://typophile.com/node/20879

ER

> the “side” of the bed, is it defined ...

You know, I've always wondered about a similar conundrum when it comes to "clockwise" and "counter-clockwise": it really depends whether you're looking at the watch from the top or the bottom. And then there's the issue of which end of a word is the "head" and which is the "tail" - I mean, if a word is a car it's different than if it's a street luger for example. I remember having persistent arguments about this with my classmates when we moved to Palo Alto when I was a kid (although I had even more arguments with classmates when we moved back to Beirut).

But dude, I don't support wittingly off-topic threads.

hhp

yeah, that "clockwise" thing is a bugger too. Speaking of such, 1:15 am on the east, so the left, or the right side, or wherever the wife is not, beckons.
And go! go! now the topic is whether designers are to blame (or not blame) for absolutely everything!:

http://typophile.com/node/20879

ER

>Liberal anti-Communist
Sounds to me as convincing as ‘compassionate conservative’.

I used to like to have a look at typophile, and when I posted something I always tried to be as accurate as possible and choose my words in a respectful way – but what I had to read when I went through this thread and the new one started by Edel got me really worrying. If this reflects in both the style of the language and the content how US citizens see the role of the US in international affairs, then I am really scared.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMHpFbH58iw&mode=related&search=women%27s...

One of my favorite Monty Python scenes. Almost up there with:

LAUNCELOT: We were in the nick of time, you were in great peril.
GALAHAD: I don't think I was.
LAUNCELOT: Yes you were, you were in terrible peril.
GALAHAD: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
LAUNCELOT: No, it's too perilous.
GALAHAD: Look, I'm a knight, I'm supposed to get as much peril as I can.
LAUNCELOT: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on!
GALAHAD: Well, let me have just a little bit of peril?
LAUNCELOT: No, it's unhealthy.
GALAHAD: Bet you're (edited)!
LAUNCELOT: No, I'm not.

Chokchai Longmani, 53, event volunteer

"The king has done so much for us. He's saved the nation from many internal conflicts, like the recent political crisis, so today we're united despite our political differences. He's even helping combat water shortages with his PATENT FOR MAKING ARTIFICIAL RAIN."

Imagine a world where children are taken away from their
mothers so the former can start being brainwashed early
and the latter can make the rich richer.

> PATENT FOR MAKING ARTIFICIAL RAIN.

Yes, a good leader must be dumb. He should be somebody you'd love to have over for dinner, and he wouldn't make you feel like the dumb-arse peon that you are. It doesn't matter if he can't express himself well, or thinks Mexicans speak Mexican. The important thing is that he makes you feel less inadequate. Like a dork in a Hollywood movie.

hhp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J59TNtCkv8&mode=related&search=king%20of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVIF1RcqWdY&mode=related&search=queen%20o...

>"Edel, you’re sounding like a movie. Again."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zroWIN-lS8E&mode=related&search=charlie%2...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n8sCK2PKlQ&mode=related&search=elvis%20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ox1Tore9nw&mode=related&search=elvis%20

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5038686.stm

http://www.noticierodigital.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=93896

More idiocy, this time from http://www.mail.com/ :

hhp

I wish the Cuban people well, and do not wish anything bad to happen to their island.

However, I do also believe that the Communist regime in Cuba, like other Communist regimes, was evil. And, therefore, I find it very sad that people don't react to a picture of Che Guevara in much the same way as they would to one of Adolph Hitler.

What about a picture of most US presidents?

hhp

On paper printed with green and black ink, pictures of U.S. Presidents are avidly sought after.

The United States of America, although imperfect compared to countries like Canada and New Zealand (Sweden might have made this list, but apparently it has totalitarian tendencies, as it must have suppressed support for the U.S. military action in Vietnam, as someone making a documentary couldn't find any books in Swedish taking that position in their libraries) due to the heavy weight of its international responsibilities, is a democratic nation, and the democratic nation on whose military strength the survival of the other democratic countries, and thus the hope for a decent and meaningful future for humanity rests.

So I don't think I agree with what you're getting at, even if it seems as though I've laid it on so thick in the paragraph above that I must be sarcastic.

(EDIT: I had previously added what is below to my post above to avoid a double post. I have moved it now to be part of this post instead to make it clear it was not part of what Hrant was responding to as I typed it.)

@John Hudson:
The bombing within Serbia deliberately targeted the country's civil industrial and communcations infrastructure, despite the fact that this infrastructure was in no way connected with the actions of the Yugoslav army in Kosovo.

Well, it would perhaps motivate the authorities within Serbia to recall their army from Kosovo.

I don't see what the problem is. If members of an ethnic, religious, or linguistic group are discriminated against or oppressed, any responsible democracy is entitled to say that this shall end immediately. Or else.

So, for example, if the problems faced by Christians in Pakistan or Egypt don't end immediately, in this post-9/11 era, when the world's Muslims ought to know they're being held under close, microscopic scrutiny to see if they have any Taliban-like tendencies, the U.S. is fully and entirely within its rights to carry out regime change in those areas.

Essentially, except for voluntary immigrants who have moved to the homeland of a different ethnic group in search of greater economic opportunity, everyone should be free to live in an independent soverign nation of his own cultural group so as to be completely safe from being a minority. 99.99% of the world's people should be part of a majority of at least 95% where they live. And, yes, this applies to the Inuit and the Hawaiians too.

It would be nice if we didn't have to move political boundaries around like this, because sometimes there is violence when governments object, but any other solution involves changing human nature for the better so that people are always nice to each under under circumstances where, in the past, we know this was not guaranteed. If one is really interested in human well-being, one should pursue practical solutions, not dreams that have proven themselves to be idle fantasies again and again.

So, in my opinion, not only is Zionism not racism, Zionism - for everyone, not just Jews - is the only answer to racism.

Democracy is part of the problem.

hhp

quadibloc, why resurrect a seven-year-old nightmare of a Typophile thread with comments that have nothing to do with type?

...I find it very sad that people don't react to a picture of Che Guevara in much the same way as they would to one of Adolph Hitler.

quadibloc, Che Guevara and Adolf Hitler are completely the opposite of each other.

I checked.

"99.99% of the world's people should be part of a majority of at least 95% where they live. And, yes, this applies to the Inuit and the Hawaiians too."

Tribes... gave way.... to Nations... gave way to a World. Worlds anyone? No thanks, Tribes please.

The principle of 'self-determination', unqualified, is a prescription for endless war. Enabling minorities, often substantial minorities, to thrive is essential to a future peaceful world.

And/but it's not just about peace. Life isn't worth living without differences. That's the main idea dominant majorities need to keep in their hearts.

hhp

I approve of tolerance.

But is it possible to ensure that every dominant majority will be tolerant?

If not, then the remaining way to ensure that the victimization of minorities will cease absolutely is to re-organize the map so that no one is in the vulnerable position of being in a minority. When it comes to persecution of minorities, the policy towards it needs to be zero tolerance.

Absolute anything is inhuman[e]. Infinity, zero, perfect... those are all bad for you.

hhp

Cuba has got some awesome vintage automobiles! And a monumental love for the game of Chess!!

I've been to Cuba several times and it is awesome ...once you get off the beaten path.

How do you go without getting fined/arrested when you get back? Do you have a second nationality?

This one US citizen recently got 6 months in jail and a $10K fine for going to her mother's funeral there. On the other hand there are now organized tours from the US to Cuba, but they're US government flights and come with US minders...

hhp

I'm a Canadian citizen up here in Ottawa and can fly direct to Cuba or go thru Hog town if must be ...most any time.

Cuban people are some of the most grooviest, generous, warm awesome people I've ever known ...and crazy creative.

I just happen to love America because it's great in so many ways to list here ...and my family home still stands (five generations later) just outside of Boston ...the greatest city in the world.

How and why my family grabbed some British land up here back-in-day is another story for another time...

I thought you were a US citizen - sorry.

Boston: not for me. Barcelona, now that's a city.

hhp

Barcelona ...rather Gaudí no? Berlin ...now there's a city in transition.

I'm sure Berlin is great. Gaudí however rules (at least in person).

hhp

Gaudi was brilliant ...a natural engineer, a fearless architect and a true socialist.

For all my whiteness of skin, I suspect I'm still a minority – I bought all the Borland products I ever used.