infantile sub-constructivist cliche.

you should check out 'henry 4-the dream master'. not as good as the first three, but there's some inventive deaths.

So you like it, eh Graham?

love it.

She can do no wrong. Her book altered my perception of design forever. Subjectively: Not always in line with her stuff. Objectively: Home Run!

I agree with the MJ analogy - well said.

I agree. I dont have her book, but it is going to be my next design book purchase. If you don't have it, this article will make you want it.

It's interesting that she took this route — the Henry 5 poster seems like a Wolfgang Weingart-on-quaaludes approach. Is Scher attempting a sort of retro-post-modernism?

I saw this poster the other day at the train station and just assumed that she had still been doing these posters. It's so very "her." In lieu of artistic rationalization and subjective critique, the poster simply does its job: it gets noticed. I've always loved her work and appreciate the frankness and honesty with which she speaks about design and the design business.

>In lieu of artistic rationalization and subjective critique,

>the poster simply does its job: it gets noticed.

and that's enough?

>and that's enough?

Graham, I know how little Scher's work means to you, but her contributions to the design profession are invaluable. Whether she is simply regurgitating the sub-constructivist style you refer to is definitely up for discussion. What I think she has done very well, is apply constructivist principles to the 20th and now 21st century. To me that's no small feat, give those same principles and guidelines to other designers and they will turn out shit, Scher has been able to add her own voice to that "style." I think she is an amazing designer and has a certain I don't know what that makes her work even more special.

You still in NY? 'Cause I'll go over there and fight you on this one... of course I wouldn't, you would probably kick my ass.

and that's enough?

Ok, a somewhat fair comment. But, given the state of Broadway and mass theater communication in NY, getting noticed is a major part of the job. I could blur my vision and do a quick side to side along all the show adverts in the station but I could not miss that big-ass 5. The fact that it looks nothing like a traditional Shakespeare presentation is also in its favor, as it hopefully will broaden the audience for the show.

After the success of the first round of Public work, it was amazing to see how many other shows began copying the look. I thought Chicago might have been done by Scher, except it didn't have any of her characteristic type play, only the blocky wood type. It was done by Spot Design, who also did the Rent work. The NYTimes arts&leisure section is now filled with play and musical ads using big wood-style type but without any of the skill that Scher employs.

Scher has been criticized a lot for her reliance on retro typography. What always impressed me, though, is her ability to make it look current and not simply a cheap revival or homage.

Thanks to Jonathon Russell for the scan of the Scher painting! Carry on.

i'm a lover, not a fighter.

the 'and that's enough?' comment was to do with the idea of 'doing the job'-many things will get noticed, but it doesn't make them worth noticing.

as for scher's work, i don't see anything but borrowing from iconic design of the last hundred years-from constructivism to fluxus to dutch design of the eighties. it doesn't seem to have any voice, to me, and certainly doesn't transcend it's influences; it's more in the realms of pastiche. applying principles from one era to another is a wonderful way of working, but i don't see that in her work. it more reminds me of the kind of work one might make in the first flush of inspiration upon seeing the originals for the first time.

certainly i ne sais quoi makes it special.

sorry jonsel-i posted my last one before i saw yours.

i tried to find paul elliman's poster for one of the henry plays-unfortunately i can't, but that's one hooha of a poster. i'll keep looking.

jonsel wrote:

After the success of the first round of Public work, it was amazing to see how many other shows began copying the look. I thought Chicago might have been done by Scher, except it didn't have any of her characteristic type play, only the blocky wood type. It was done by Spot Design, who also did the Rent work. The NYTimes arts&leisure section is now filled with play and musical ads using big wood-style type but without any of the skill that Scher employs.

Scher has been criticized a lot for her reliance on retro typography. What always impressed me, though, is her ability to make it look current and not simply a cheap revival or homage.

Small anecdote:

Back in our formative years, we used to do work for CBS Records/Sony Music Creative Services. Our friends from those days used to speak of the department's wood type reference collection that everyone (including Ms. Scher) made stat copies of before their departure. This was pre-Jonathan Hoefler/post Rob Roy Kelly.

Equally as useful as a copy of your boss' rolodex.

the department's wood type reference collection

I'd kill to have that collection.

I'd design in an infantile sub-constructivist cliche style to have that collection.

I'd design in an infantile sub-constructivist cliche style to have that collection.

The collection was misplaced during the move from Black Rock (CBS) to the ATT Building (Sony). It was eventually found and I had a chance to see it a few years ago.

At this point, nothing too different from Mr. Hoefler's Champion face or some of the Solo X fonts available from Dover publishing. The most distinctive font that I noticed in my quick glance was a super-heavy gothic.

As jonsel pointed out, it's Ms. Scher's talent that makes the font, not the other way 'round.

To graham, I would like to suggest that part of Ms. Scher's influence is her role in the design culture of New York City. Her personality, clear writing style and work on behalf of the AIGA extend beyond to those she's never met -- like myself. I understand your criticism and even agree with you in many instances. But in the larger picture, aren't designers part of the overall business and visual culture that goes beyond the stylistic?

oooo... I feel a larger issue coming on!

>But in the larger picture, aren't designers part of the overall business and visual culture that goes beyond the stylistic?

I'll bite.

Yes.

>But in the larger picture, aren't designers part of the overall business and visual culture that goes beyond the stylistic?

Assuming you think the answer is yes, could you elaborate?

As for the poster, It only SUGGESTS constructivism. What's the typeface? It looks contemporary, not like anything from that era. I think it's pretty good, but not nearly as compelling or conceptual as the other two (the older ones).

The excerpt from her book made me want to read the whole thing, though I don't necessarily aggree with some of the things she was saying, especially the "style vs. content" part. When the face of design changes, it becomes too easy for some people to say that current designers are "selling a style." To me it says that the person isn't looking hard enough. Even if clients are choosing designers based on their "look", that isnt the fault of the designer. Im sure that in the 1950's, people like Paul Rand were hired for their style as well.

> Assuming you think the answer is yes, could you elaborate?

Yes. Had to take care of some back-end stuff.

The question being "should design be part of the overall business rather than being a simple facelift"? Of course yes. Does it happen all the time? Of course not. Design, whether people (i.e. clients) know it or not, accept it or not, the moment they ask us to do something — even a little $0.50 off coupon — for their business, at that exact point, it becomes part of their business, heck, even part of their lives. The influence or effect we have on their business is up to us: do we want to make this pretty and get on with our merry ways? Or do we really want to understand our client's problem and collaborate with them to better their business? Either way you are having an effect on their business.

I'll say this too, there is nothing wrong with being a beautician — making things look pretty is not that easy. Not everybody with a computer can make things look good. Let's take for example our subject at hand (yes, Paula's poster), give the same assignement, the same fonts, the same color restrictions to 5 designers and only a few could make something beautifully designed. I think there is a big market and need for designers who are there only to make things look great and shiny and leave the "big-picture" projects for other designers. Not everything needs a concept and strategic marketing bullshit behind it to be effective.

The last word? Yes, in my opinion, design plays a major role in the overall business plan of our clients beyond stylistic concerns. And we are always underpaid.

Armin -- beautiful. Well put.

I remember reading something by critic Roger Lipsey (possibly in "An Art of Our Own - The Spiritual in 20th Cent. Art") where he makes the distinction between the Studio and the Marketplace. Both have their requirements, both affect the other, etc.

While I am the first to jump in and formally analyze the aesthetic elements of colleagues (otherwise known as trash talkin' over drinks), my most important design lessons came from learning the back stories of well known projects. By knowing the social intercourse, the ethics of business, even how someone worded a simple memo; one can develop as a designer in the grown up's world.

Stomping around the desk, bitching and moaning about how the friggin' client wanted the logo bigger is self-indulgent bullshit (by the way, I do it all the time). Working out a solution where the client's business is changed and they don't even notice the size of the logo is harder -- and rare.

Form making is fashion. Some love what you do; some hate it. In the long run, it don't make no difference. As long as you're pushing yourself in the Studio, you're making progress.

In the Marketplace, if your work enhances an image, brings in more money, stops the killing of baby seals, etc.; then you get that warm feeling of changing the world around you. And who knows... someone refers you to someone else... and pretty soon you're having a meeting with Wendy Carlos (long story, lots of cat hair).

There are enough well known young design turks out there with pride in their unhireability. Their career imbalance emphasizes the myth of capital "A" Art over the ability to work with people. In the other extreme live the Branding Trolls -- and we've certainly spent enough time talking about them.

Let's consider Ms. Scher as an example of a well-balanced designer, satisfying both the Studio and the Marketplace. Yes there are pieces which I prefer over others, but the overall development and self-integrity is a great example. And she sure gets to work with some fab clients.

Probably the best thing about her book isn't the design porn (a.k.a. the pictures) -- it's the monologue and self-analysis of the text. The projects take on the cumulative effect of experiences with which to understand the world. Zen and the Art of Client Maintenance? Now that's an accomplishment!

...time for bed.

Here's my Paula Scher story.

I was in San Fran at the HOW conference. I'd been a website designer for a little less than a decade at the time, but this was my first large design gathering.

Predictably, I signed up for all the web-related talks. One day I went to see Lynda Weinman talk about usability, but I read the schedule wrong and was a full presenter early.

This take-no-shit New Yorker gets on stage, gives the lighting people a hard time, and starts going through her portfolio.

Being online as long as I had, there really wasn't anyone who I considered to be a mentor/hero/whatever not because I thought I was so frickin' great, but because almost nobody had been doing it as long as I have.

Here was a designer with experience spanning several of my own career-lengths, and whose work and ideas were interesting. Awesome.

Plus she wanted to talk about clients, whereas most designers I've met only want to talk about other designers (like what, um, we're doing right now) and the Work - unless they're complaining about clients (and how come we don't talk about audiences more often?)

I could go on, but she made a big impact on me that day. In contrast, Lynda's "where to put the damned navigation menu" type talk was underwhelming.

Postscript: So for a month or so I was feeling like web was new and naive and that design was old and venerable. Then I was clued into the fact that something like 97% of all graphic designers are alive today. So I got over that pretty quick.

forgetting for a moment the clumsy square peg-round hole stylistic inelegance of the poster, and taking into consideration (a) the author and (b) (good point, day) the audience, i was wondering;

what do you feel about the 'henry 5' title? the play is, after all, called 'henry v', and 'henry the fifth' or 'henry the 5th' is how this would be rendered these days, so what is 'henry 5' and why?

any thoughts?

Ms. Scher's sensitive history with homage aside, i would certainly hope that either of the following two icons were implied:

Chanel award winner

icon of american art

The Henry 5 poster is tedious.

What's the typeface? It looks contemporary, not like anything from that era.

It's none other than Hoefler's Gotham!

As far as 5 vs. V, it would be nice to know who made that decision, the designer or the committee. A huge 5 is waay more noticable than a huge V, and I'm assuming the idea was to not have any of the typical old-fashioned Shakespeare clichés while at the same time bring up associations with current events — esp. with the quote, but as a whole I think the composition seems pretty chaotic and violent. Which is a good thing in this case!

>i would certainly hope that either of the following two icons were implied

As opposed to the Herbert Matter/Swatch poster parody issue, I think this poster does not intend to imitate/parody from any of the two samples you mentioned Eric. A big-ass 5 is a big-ass 5 no matter how you look at it, I think the similarities end there.

>The Henry 5 poster is tedious.

The last way I would classify the Henry poster is as tedious. Is it tedious because the big-ass 5 has been done before? Is it tedious because of its obvious ties to constructivism? Because that poster is great — it has energy, it has rhythm, it has color and most importantly (and most surely) it invokes a reaction from the people. Even if that reaction is "Isnt' that supposed to be a V instead of a 5?"

>Even if that reaction is "Isnt' that supposed to be a V instead of a 5?"

well, my reaction was more like oh they've done a 5 instead of a v because they think people are stupid and won't understand a v and oh well here's yet another example of having monkey dung for brains.

maybe i'll watch 'the godfather the 2nd' tonight.

> maybe i'll watch 'the godfather the 2nd' tonight.

Oh, pipe it, tomato boy!

>maybe i'll watch 'the godfather the 2nd' tonight.

Ok, that was actually pretty funny.

Paula Scher: Redo

i actually thought that Graham pretty much represented my general point of view about the poster so i didn't go into detail.

�

vit: The last way I would classify the Henry poster is as tedious. Is it tedious because the big-ass 5 has been done before? Is it tedious because of its obvious ties to constructivism?

It’s tedious because I think it’s Scher doing an impersonation of Scher. I don’t think the style is appropriate, fresh, useful or effective for the play. I find that the retro color choice is unfortunate� particularly the teal overlay which seems to exist for no other reason than to disrupt the only beautiful element of the poster which is the letterform of the five. And the Five is additionally disrupted by �designery’ pin-striping.

If they would have gotten somebody else to do a Scher that they would have gotten a better product.

The idea that something like Shakespeare needs to be sexed up is patently offensive. If you're forced to make the play say something other than exactly what it is then you better do it in a new and exciting way rather than slapping a large number on the thing and pulling a quote across it. Secondly, “red letter 5” is not the title of the play. If you can't pull off your signature style with aplomb and grace then why use it?

Vit: A big-ass 5 is a big-ass 5 no matter how you look at it, I think the similarities end there.

Do you think anyone is going to use the number 7 in a media campaign without having to have knowledge or contention with the popular movie title? Scher is at the elite end of her field and it is her responsibility as a designer to be aware of other uses of the images that she’s referring to iconographically. Both of those examples I provided are very public and exquisitely beautiful uses of large letter form.

"And what have kings, that privates have not too,

Save ceremony . . ." William Shakespeare, Henry V

maybe i'll watch 'the godfather the 2nd' tonight.

Actually movie poster often use roman numerals to indicate "2" (or 3, or 4, etc.). If they can do that, why can't the reverse work?

The idea that something like Shakespeare needs to be sexed up is patently offensive.

I agree. The poster made me feel that the play was a moderized version or the story. If this is the case, I'd say it was appropriate.

>Actually movie poster often use roman numerals to

>indicate "2" (or 3, or 4, etc.). If they can do that, why

>can't the reverse work?

i'll knock it on the head now because i'm being a bit of a pedantic git-however . . .

we don't call our royalty henry 5, elizabeth 1 etc. we just don't. either it's the roman numerals or henry the fifth, or 5th.

movies are different to royalty. movies are more important.

that's all.

but i could be wrong.

Looking at the poster again, I think it IS pretty compelling.

The best thing is the Barbara Kruger-style quote. Scher seems to be comparing the character to "George 2". For someone like myself who hasn't seen nor read the play, it's very intriguing. I'd definetely be more likely to see it now.

Also, I love the fact that the poster is all type and no imagery.

Graham--you are actually never wrong. At least as far as I can tell.

Re the poster: I was surprised to see the big 5--I felt that it was deriviative of the Chanel ads and I also feel, despite the Demuth painting, which I think was the first to feature the big 5, that there are lots of other derivations of this icon. But, like Graham, I too can be wrong.

What I think provoked me the most was the feeling like the poster didn't make my heart pound. I agree with Eric, I felt that it was a piece of Paula's iconographic repetoire resurfacing. I am such a big Paula fan (especially of the recent signage and the amazing paintings at the Cooper Hewitt), I guess I always anticipate that my knees will go a bit weak when I see her work.

But that is a tough bar to constantly reach. Unfair of me to constantly expect it, I fear.

Question: is it wrong to have such high expectations of our personal and cultural heroes?

>The best thing is the Barbara Kruger-style quote.

hmmmm...is this a passive-aggressive way of suggesting that there is another bit of borrowing going on?

> The best thing is the Barbara Kruger-style quote.

Ok, I'm getting tired of defending the poster, I wish Paula would just come in and clear all this up. It's nothing like Barbara Kruger — hers are white futura extra bold on red backgrounds and... ah, screw it. I like the poster, some people don't. And that's cool.

Eric, thanks for the extra bits of thinking. Saying something is tedious and leaving it at that is tedious itself. Now, I know where you are coming from and I hear ya!

Peace.

Queen Bee

ok, so maybe it does look a little bit like kruger's [art]work.

late to the discussion, but here goes.

I think the poster is dynamic, but not ground-breaking. It speaks in an unban voice that feels true to the NY city stage.

As to the design references, it clearly does pick up on a number of prior work and styles, including Weingart and Kruger's work. But non-designers are never going to see that. Does that matter? No. For some reason, I'm not as bothered by the homage as other design "borrowing". For example, Saul Bass' disected body sillouhette being used in countless permeations from Spike Jones to a recent Japanese movie absolutely infuriates me. In those cases, the fact that the general public doesn't see the homage makes it a crime. But that's not the case here with this poster. Regardless of the influences, the poster is original for its context.

BUT! I totally agree w/ graham's objection to it reading as "five" vs. the more correct "fifth". This is, after all, classic English literature. Shakespearean, formal literature at that. At the very least, it should be held true to the name of the work. You can change the settings, adapt the roles, add music, whatever you want. But the name and its syntax should be sacred. It should read 5th.

>But the name and its syntax should be sacred.

Nothing is sacred Tan...

except chocolate.

Part of the problem, I'm guessing, is because so much of the poster seems really familiar, especially to designers like us who know so much about our visual culture already. However, I doubt Paula really cares how we all react to it, and that's the important part — I think the poster is supposed to seem familiar to the average New Yorker (who wouldn't necessarily be able to explain why), but at the same time seem like something's a bit off (but they probably couldn't pinpoint exactly why, either). The play is about a war, after all, and the sort of misguided attitudes that cause a war to be fought. I think if we all step back and look at this with fresh (i.e. non-designer) eyes, we could see that there's a lot more going on here than we're giving Paula credit for.

Oh yeah, ditto what Tan said! Except for the sacred part — the thing that makes Shakespeare so great is that the plays can be transported to any time or situation without losing any of their power or impact. Sacred schmacred! :P

but guys, the beauty of Shakespeare is its use of the English language. If you violate the thing that makes it what it is, then what's the damn point?

you can't disrespect and honor something equally at the same time.

and dammit, I meant Spike Lee....a thousand pardons.

Malcolm 10th.

...

"Henry V" is the title of a piece of art. For that reason, it is sacred. Just because it's a familiar part of our culture doesn't make it common. arbitrarily changing it is sad.

I preferreth OS IX to OS 10th

A piece on the language of Shakespeare.

There's irony here. Shakespeare's plays came before formalized grammatical text. His work taught language as much as it entertained the common public. The Sher poster publicizes a Shakespearean play, produced for a public theater, yet is grammatically inaccurate.

It's not that I'm a staunch Shakespearean purist or some shit like that. In fact, my favorite adaptations are the Kurosawa versions of King Lear (Ran) and MacBeth (Throne of Blood), where everything's set in feudal Japan. Not a single English word spoken, either. Amazing, amazing movies. Rent it if you haven't seen it.

> Shakespeare's plays came before formalized grammatical text.

I meant text-books. But text'll work too I guess...

> Question: is it wrong to have such high expectations of our personal and cultural heroes?

Hell no, otherwise they start slacking off and resting on their laurels. They (whoever) have come this far because all this time everybody's been pampering them and showering them with praise, so just when they think they have it made that's when they start reusing old formulas and stop challenging themselves, so it's up to us — the clamoring public — to keep asking for more.

>The best thing is the Barbara Kruger-style quote.

>hmmmm...is this a passive-aggressive way of suggesting that there is another bit of borrowing going on?

>Ok, I'm getting tired of defending the poster

Hey, I wasnt being sarcastic, i really think that IS the best part of it. I didnt mean to imply that she ripped it off. Maybe "inspiried by"...?

My point was that she was not just making a timely war reference, she's sneaking in some very subtle political insight. The constructivist style is totally appropriate, as this is a common vernacular for "propaganda".

Saul Bass' disected body sillouhette being used in countless permeations from Spike Jones to a recent Japanese movie absolutely infuriates me.

Me too. Meanwhile, naming a tv network "spike tv" is grounds for a lawsuit.

But it does have a "th" to the 5, albeit quite small...at about two o'clock to the curve of the 5. isn't that a "th"? So it's at least phonetic, not that that's really all that important. Personally I don't see what the big deal is with it being an Arabic numeral rather than Roman. Perhaps...in these times of great geopolitical strife, the choice to use an Arabic numeral was a gesture of cultural expansiveness and inclusiveness, an "anti-Westernization" if you will.

Now that is obviously hooey. My point being only that the phrasing on this poster is not going to put the slightest chink in the sacredity (sic--I made it up) of Shakespeare, or his language. Are the legacy and value of Shakespeare's work really so tenuous? I do not believe so. The value of Shakespeare seems much more in the continual relevance, meaning, and emotion that we can find in the work through use (ie reading and performing) and revitalization. Reinterpretation (visual, dramatic, etc) is necessary to the sustenance of that meaning and value. No art, and no understanding of art, is static. That's more usually known as dogma, academia, textbooks, and Cliff's Notes. And no statement that art Has To be preserved according to a single interpretation has ever stood the test of time. As I believe Def Leppard put it best: "Only time will tell if we can stand the test of time."

Hold on, I've got more...

...I also really don't see what the problem is with Scher borrowing from earlier sources or especially from her own earlier work. Is the issue what she's borrowed--doesn't seem to be--or rather that she has borrowed at all? It seems very unrealistic to expect (whether or not we have the right (?!!) "to have such high expectations of our personal and cultural heroes") Paula Scher specifically not to draw on the work of contructivists or whomever she chooses. It is, quite simply, what she does, and does very well. Quoting, referencing, homage, copying, stealing, whatver you want to call it (for reference, this discussion about the Open for Business posterhas some relation to the issue)--these are legitimate modes of design. I suppose I should qualify that by saying it's just my opinion, but it seems pretty obvious how rampant and historically grounded these practices are (for better/worse depending on the skill of the thief). Are we to say that it's out of bounds for Sagmeister to use colored acetate overlays or bold black-and-white, or for Massimo Vignelli to use his five typefaces again, or Jennifer Sterling (where did she go, by the way?) to use small type because it's "doing an impersonation" of their own work? Who, exactly, are we to make these demands? And don't tell me we're designers and that gives us the right to uphold standards and whatnot---not unless you're writing the checks to Paula.

I see nothing wrong with being influenced by one's predecessors, or stealing wholesale from them. The great ones all do it. Plus it's not as if Scher is trying to get away with anything sneaky or even terribly subtle. Originality (again, opinion mio) is not a strong criteria to hold to as a means of evaluation. If it were, any designer who used a preexisting typeface could be dismissed as a rip-off artist simply for relying on the history and associations of Typography in their work. This is where a overvaluation of originality leads to.

Finally, I see no Barbara Kruger at all. Wrong colors, no Futura, angled type, too many words overall, plus Kruger is hardly the one to originate the large pull-quote, if we're to be so concerned with originality.

The weakness with the poster itself is, as Andrew almost touched on, it tells us nothing about the play's theme of war--it only tells us the title. It lacks a conceptual thrust, some semantic or symbollic manipulation that adds 2 and 2 and makes ... wait for it ... 5.

This has been a great discussion, and I've only got a few things to add, I hope without too much bias.

First, this issue of a designer "copying" him- or herself can be looked at in another way, can't it? The Public Theater is only one of Paula's clients. One of her responsibilities to any of these clients is to make their stuff "look like it comes from the same place." This is why the Public Theater went to Paula to design all of it in the first place, and this is why she tries to provide visual continuity from campaign to campaign. (Actually she varies the graphic look more than I ever would.)

Second, the Shakespeare in the Park stuff, which happens every year, is a further subset within the overall Public Theater work. Paula has done it for many years, and it's always all type and (at producer George Wolfe's request) very straightforward: no clever metaphoric twists, just the facts as big as you can make them. Shakespeare in the Park is free, and it's a summer tradition to New Yorkers. They show up for a great night in the park whether it's a comedy or tragedy. Communicating the precise nature of the play is secondary to just announcing that it's happening, period, and when, and making sure people notice the posters. There is no other advertising. (Admittedly, this year the big pre-war quote is meant to underline the timely political themes.)

Finally, the poster appears on subway platforms and other public outdoor media. It's a subtle message in a competitive environment, and the name of the game is to get eyeballs. I think Paula picked a 5 rather than a V because it made a more interesting shape and made it as fucking big as she possibly could. Sorry to the purists out there.

In reading over what I've written above, I find it interesting that it's all about tactics and strategy rather than about the development of a designer's personal vision. We're all concerned about the latter, and love to talk about it at SU, but often it's the former that sets the direction for the work we end up doing. I've always admired Paula's ability to reconcile the two.

>It seems very unrealistic to expect (whether or not we have the right (?!!) "to have such high expectations of our personal and cultural heroes")

It's neither a right nor an obligation. I, personally, have high expectations (and don't necesarily need to have them met) of designers I look up to... that's why I look up to them. I'm not sure what my point is. I'm usually more on target in the mornings... hold on, I better get a sip of that starbucks.

>And don't tell me we're designers and that gives us the right to uphold standards and whatnot

Dude c'mon, if not us, who? Shakespeare?

sod.

there is a 'th'. it reads '5th'. thanks sam. very much.

sorry debbie. i was wrong.

i won't do it again. promise.

Arminito, the question I was asking was "Who, exactly, are we to make these demands?"--I did not mean to imply that we're not responsible for upholding standards in our work---in our OWN work. I'm not willing to go far as to say that just because I admire Sally Designer, that I'm in any way setting standards for her to uphold. Anyway that's convoluted, but it's a question worth untangling, maybe. I have all I can do to suffer how far below my personal standards my own work falls. And I certainly use other designers as benchmarks of these standards (Paula Scher among them), but that means neither that Scher is always without fault, or that I genuflect before her work (as you know). Even Homer nods and all that, as they say.

Oh, ok. I hear ya.

“My point was that she was not just making a timely war reference, she's sneaking in some very subtle political insight. The constructivist style is totally appropriate, as this is a common vernacular for "propaganda".” —David E.

“Now that is obviously hooey. My point being only that the phrasing on this poster is not going to put the slightest chink in the sacredity (sic--I made it up) of Shakespeare, or his language. Are the legacy and value of Shakespeare's work really so tenuous? I do not believe so. The value of Shakespeare seems much more in the continual relevance, meaning, and emotion that we can find in the work through use (ie reading and performing) and revitalization. Reinterpretation (visual, dramatic, etc) is necessary to the sustenance of that meaning and value. No art, and no understanding of art, is static. That's more usually known as dogma, academia, textbooks, and Cliff's Notes. And no statement that art Has To be preserved according to a single interpretation has ever stood the test of time. As I believe Def Leppard put it best: "Only time will tell if we can stand the test of time." - Sam

Sam I think you are missing the point with �stylistic’ choices. The argument levied against the large five is that it is iconographic -not stylistic. Therein lies the culpability to the other imagery.

“Who, exactly, are we to make these demands? And don't tell me we're designers and that gives us the right to uphold standards and whatnot---not unless you're writing the checks to Paula.” -Sam

I think this is a cop-out. We have EVERY right to make these demands. As visual professionals it is our right and obligation to pursue design to its conclusions and to crusade for better work.

There is definitely a nod towards Kruger style visual phrasing either intentional or not. Obscuring the image violently with text is still “culturally owned” by Kruger. For better or worse, that is the case.

The Kruger touchstone along with that particular color palette says to me mid-1980s. The use of constructivism has long been a somewhat cheap nod towards Fascism, and I think that using that visual system as shorthand for war is just no longer inventive or compelling.

“Communicating the precise nature of the play is secondary to just announcing that it's happening, period, and when, and making sure people notice the posters.” -Michael

Eeek.

Re 5 “th” : if type exists in a forest and you can’t read it, does it really exist? I’ll admit to not having seen the �th’ but c’mon�

"Therein lies the culpability to the other imagery."

Culpability scmulpability. There is nothing wrong with referencing icons or styles of the past or of oneself. Whether the 5, or the use of a constructivist style (which I believe was also a charge made against the poster), is iconographic or stylistic, respectively, is not damning to the work.

I do take your point, Eric, that Barbara Kruger has cultural ownership of what she does--I just do not see the image (read Krugeresque photo) that Scher is "violently obscuring with text". Is it smaller than the "th"? And the Futura Bold--�donde?

But more precisely, doesn't Scher also have cultural ownership of a sort? The charge that she's doing an impersonation of her own work (ie her own cultural material) doesn't hold up if one is simply to say that Scher is working within a medium and style (deploying a numerical icon within that style) that she indeed owns. Why can Kruger own something and not Scher?

“Culpability scmulpability. There is nothing wrong with referencing icons or styles of the past or of oneself. Whether the 5, or the use of a constructivist style (which I believe was also a charge made against the poster), is iconographic or stylistic, respectively, is not damning to the work. “

True, none of those things independently means anything. It’s where they pile up on top of each other and in our associations that gives design/art and this poster relevance. I find that the particular phrasing in this work sends mixed and/or dated messages. Therein I don’t find it one of her better pieces of work. For that reason I read it more as Scher riding a Scher look than excelling.

And was that a dig on violently obscuring? The Kruger text serves to bar the viewer from the image and force the audience to confront the printed quip. The letter form that Scher uses is quite beautiful. Removing the viewer from it seems to serve no ready purpose and the tabloidesque overlay doesn’t benefit the message. It’s a nice quote but not necessary for that location.

“Why can Kruger own something and not Scher?”

Why is the sky blue? It’s a mixture of getting there first and/or saying it loudest — the rest is up to the sociologists to figure out.

to everyone:

Thank you for an amazing conversation. I agree with everyone, but here are some facts:

1. The Shakespeare in the Park posters have always been totally typograqphic because in the past they promoted two unrelated, stylistically different productions at the same time. I've always designeed them with "big ass" type and they said things like "Free Will" and "Lust in Central Park". This year, because of NYC budget cuts, the Public could only afford to produce one play, which changed the nature of the poster somewhat.

2. Michael has it right. Though I've changed the type on the Public Theater year by year since 1998, I've tried to maintain some kind of stylistic consistancy other than the logo. What I've tended to do is experiment with different

type faces in Public Theater scale and style. Sometimes it works better than others. The "bad imitation of myself" comment gives me pause. This year I'm designing the entire season with Memphis. I genuinely can't tell if it is terrific or terrible.

2. In 1996, The Public put on Henry V and Timon of Athens. I'm sorry that none of you remember that one because it is a personal favorite of mine. It had a big ass V. I couldn't do the big ass V again so I made a big ass 5.

The production of this Henry V is modern and topical, so the 5 made sense to me. I qualified it with a baby " th". ( Incidently absolutely none of the very serious Shakespeare maven's at the Puiblic Theater had a problem with that so I'm generally surprised at the "5" discussion.)

3. I chose Gotham as the principle face because it just had the best damn "5".

4. George Wolfe had decided to run Henry 5 that summer, as opposed to Much Ado About Nothing, because we were about to invade Iraq, and it was his sly comment about Bush's warmongering. I read the play and found the quote, "we doubt not of a fair and just war," thought it was ironic and stuck it on the poster. George Wolfe loved the quote (Originally I had 5 quotes, but they looked to busy.)

4. It was very difficult to hang onto the scale of the big 5 and have that good quote read legibly over it, so I paneled it. Kruger didn't dawn on me. Also, she never angles her typography.

I liked this poster when I dId it, but don't think it was my best. I'm only as good as my last job. And I'm always trying to get better. Thanks for noticing.

Me yesterday: "I wish Paula would just come in and clear all this up."

Sometimes you get what you wish for.

If that worked... maybe... sure, I'll try... I wish to work at Pentagram.

That. Is what. I'm. Talking. About.

Just saw the tiny "th". Shit. Eating. Crow. For. Lunch.

Arimin, I've been watching this site for a while, and I think you'd fit in very well here at Pentagram. We were hoping to so some t-shirts soon, and perhaps some new business cards, so if you are willing to move yourself to Poland I think we should talk.

...seriously, though, even before Paula showed up this was one of the best threads ever. It has occured to me on several occasions that a Speak-Up critique of a single piece would be interesting. Big time understatement, that. Go team!

72pt wow!

It's so refreshing (and inspiring) to hear a successful designer talk about their work process in such a straightforward way. Thanks for giving us your time, Paula!

Yes, thanks, Paula. Looking forward to seeing it around the city.

And good luck in Poland, Armin--that Mexican charm should serve you well!

Poland will never know what hit them! I'll be like a tropical storm — El Armin!

When Paula Scher describes her work with adjectives like "big ass" you know Speak Up is beginning to influence the design world.

>before Paula showed up this was one of the best threads ever.

Yes Paul, you are right. It has been a great thread, with some incongruences here and there though. But still strong.

Like all here, thanks Paula.

Paula,

you are such a class act.

to make one final point re your: "I'm only as good as my last job. And I'm always trying to get better."

i think everyone above would agree with me that you will continue to influence a great many designers for a long time to come.

Also, that your esteem in our eyes will always be the extraordinary sum of your contribution, and not the result of any particular project.

Nice thread.

Mrs Scher/ Mr Beirut: we're still

patiently waiting around waitin for a Woody interview. Let us know if you can twist his arm for us.

A nice Scher interview (read endorsement) with a QuickTime on Apple's site.

Some strange feeling seized me when I read your comment, guys.
Does guys's post look strange here?
No. So guys, what is the point in your comment?
There always has to be some point.
Nothing personal tho.
regards,
Anderson