I guess MoMA needed something to keep them busy, because they sure as hell aren’t devoting time to accurately representing the contributions women made to art in the twentieth century.

Just warming up for April 1st.

Aw, I was just going to post this! Damn your speedy ways Andreas...

I'd echo the comments already made. Really?

This is mostly for the sake of conversation, but… I wonder what the implications are of the following statement from the announcement:

We have acquired the design act in itself and as we will feature it in different typefaces, we will note each time the specific typeface as if we were indicating the materials that a physical object is made of.

For instance, I've seen some EULAs that explicitly forbid using the font to create work whose primary function is reliant on that specific typeface (e.g. alphabet stamps, monograms, sometimes even logotypes are forbidden). I did a bit of pondering on the topic in relation to the series of glyph t-shirts I designed for MyFonts a while ago.

I rather doubt that many type producers would complain if the MoMA were to highlight their typeface with full credits, but I'm curious about what people think of the comparison between typefaces and other more traditional materials, like oil paint or charcoal.

What disappoints me about this whole thing, particularly this idea of labeling typefaces "as if we were indicating the materials that a physical object is made of", is the missed opportunity to talk about typefaces themselves as having been designed.

We have acquired the design act in itself...

AFAIK, a fellow called named Tomlinson was responsible for the conceptualization ("design act") of the @ symbol (applying the old @ symbol to email addresses), so I don't see how MoMA can acquire it from him, except by unilateral declaration of annexation.

It is the act of curation, not initial creation, that the MoMA curator is appropriating as her own, a power-play for herself and her profession, claiming centre stage for the latest reiteration of the tired old discourse, "But is it art?"

The MOMA article does cite Ray Tomlinson's contributions in the first link in this thread, Nick.

OK, I hadn't read that.
But MOMA's recognition of him doesn't alter my contention that MoMA cannot "acquire" his repurposing.
Unless one agrees with its claim that it's theirs because they said so.

MOMA is recognizing his concept, and cannot own or acquire it.
It's Tomlinson's, and he hasn't sold it to MOMA.

However, I'm not going to engage in this futile discussion any more, because that's the game that the curator is playing, which validates her position, which is meaningless and banal IMHO.

>For instance, I've seen some EULAs that explicitly forbid using the font to create work whose primary function is reliant on that specific typeface (e.g. alphabet stamps, monograms, sometimes even logotypes are forbidden).

I think it's unlikely that any featured typeface designer will object to seeing their @ cast in carbon fiber, concrete or plutonium. But you know they're going to pick totally uninspired set of fonts to reflect the mundane and utilitarian nature of the mark. If they don't pick Helvetica and Lucida Grande I'll be shocked.