« Marching? Again? | Main | Sad News »
Tis the Season
An unrepentant bookstore browser–I am fascinated by the
variety of design contained within my preferred section. Given the predilections of the LS community, I thought I might offer the beginnings of an open-ended cultcrit/tHEORY/osophy bookdesign awards list; seeing as how something as inane and omnipresent as design can only be properly approached by something equally anodyne and saturated. Also, we like lists.
Fellow fetishists are encouraged to add their own accolades or critique as needed:
Lifetime achievement award for general excellence – Verso – pretty
much all good here, wo es war, Phronesis, cosmetically enhancing Baudrillard’s
late hackery (Screened Out, anyone?) …. but
Most notable exception to said excellence: The fauxtidian radical thinkers
series, I was really embarrassed when I saw this, luckily their selections have
been solid, and the second round wisely went Futuristic – still hideous, but less
offensive.
Most consistent offender: Continuum – esp. the 101 ‘impacts’ shit
with the block letters
Most unforgivable effort: Being and Event – Continuum – just a
massive disappointment – looks like an overwrought beach novel.
Janus award – Stanford –
(Archetypal ugly: LL's Typography – two colors locked in a gruesome
deathmatch, but who will win? My money is on ‘corpse grey’)
Most unfortunate redesign –
Best Use of Artificial Color: Zone
Books
Unclear on the Concept:
Most delightful exception to a largely comedic history: The October
series from MIT – not that that crowd would expect any less, but still, very
nice.
Most forgivably over-designed readers: Routledge
Most unforgivably over-dramatic readers: Blackwell
Most readable typeface: MIT, Stanford
Most absurdly small typeface:
Most elegant layout of text/chapters: MIT, Continuum
Box-of-chocolates typeface: Verso
By Squibb | January 30, 2007 in Banality | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/7694373
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tis the Season:
Comments
Seeing Quasha's rocks above, but also because it's true, I do find Station Hill just appropriately severe.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 30, 2007 10:31:43 AM
Most absurdly small typeface: Minnesota, Continuum
Dear god is Adorno's Aesthetic Theory (Minnesota) ever punishing in this regard. I understand that it's a tough book to make reader-friendly - and that of course is not really the point - but there must have been something they could've done...
Posted by: CR | Jan 30, 2007 11:21:02 AM
Bleeding edge.
http://www.adamkotsko.com/weblog/2005/03/continuums-changing-minds-series-or.html
Posted by: Anthony Paul Smith | Jan 30, 2007 4:25:07 PM
Gawd, I hadn't even seen that Bataille one - that is fucking absurd. Even worse given that I actually like the vintage continuum colored-shapes routine, aside from their OSHA-inspired dialectic of enlightenment.
Posted by: squibb | Jan 30, 2007 4:47:55 PM
Come the revolution, all books will be in the old red/white Continuum design. None of your capitalist diversity, thank you.
Posted by: voyou | Jan 31, 2007 2:14:00 AM
Gawd, I hadn't even seen that Bataille one - that is fucking absurd
I have always found a good blood-red schwastika on the cover to be a great conversation starter at Starbucks,
Posted by: CR | Jan 31, 2007 2:58:44 AM
I agree with Voyou.
There must be a special room in hell reserved for the person who came up with the "squiggly" covers Stanford puts out. They're beautiful on the inside, though, when they bother to hire a copy-editor.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Jan 31, 2007 10:02:18 AM
In a decent world, everyone would borrow plain hardcovers from their local library.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 31, 2007 11:11:39 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the covers on the Norton editions of Lacan's seminars tend to curl outward? (I pass over in silence the inevitably broken bindings of Verso books.)
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Jan 31, 2007 12:27:05 PM
Penguin classix, beer stained, or old Vintage, Dash or Ray Chandler. Routledge is for chi-chi bathhouse reds; Harper Collins/MIT/Steinferd/Harvard for their ivy league vichy cuzzins
Posted by: Sean McCallahan | Jan 31, 2007 12:41:12 PM
[... McLemee is feeling old...]
Posted by: | Feb 1, 2007 8:31:46 PM
I am thankful that publishers of anti capitalist content,(verso), or publishers of more theoretical books are not known for their "graphic design departments"...what do we have to sell?
as I remember, were'nt the graphic design departments in college where all the third rate art students went after being weeded from Art to art history then to...? (ouch!)
But what about the Foucault action figures?
http://www.theory.org.uk/action.htm
not as popular as the boxing nun I'm sure...
Posted by: nate | Feb 2, 2007 9:33:45 PM
I am thankful that publishers of anti capitalist content,(verso), or publishers of more theoretical books are not known for their "graphic design departments"...what do we have to sell?
as I remember, were'nt the graphic design departments in college where all the third rate art students went after being weeded from Art to art history then to...? (ouch!)
I have to respectfully disagree. I certainly know what you mean, but on the other hand, compared to many other fields that have something to do with the aesthetic, the study, theorization, and practice of design today 1) composes works that believe that the field isn't completely foreclosed or just dribbingly out the last spurts of lifeblood 2) at times addresses actual pragmatical open question of the relationship between politics and art and 3) has an actual effect on currently living human beings (often for ill, sometimes for good).
In short, I'm terrible jealous of those in design and related fields. The stuff that I have to do, because of my training and the demands of my field, feels quite useless, destined for nothing other than search committees and archival storage.
99 percent of design belongs completely, completely to capital, for sure. But that 1 percent, the openness of it, what I wouldn't give to participate in that.
Historically speaking, what about say constructivism, that sort of thing? No appeal to you? It does to me....
Posted by: CR | Feb 2, 2007 10:52:07 PM
Or, to put it another way...
art students went after being weeded from Art to art history then to
Or... you might think of it as being weeded from making stuff that will hang on rich folks walls to making stuff that ordinary folk will use. Of course there's a counter-story, which runs from artistic autonomy to working for Target... But both stories are relevant.
...what do we have to sell?
A better way of life in a competive (rigged) marketplace of ideas.
But surely there are other ways to think about it - the ways that William Morris, Constructivism, etc thought this through. Morris for one thought that the less alienating the conditions of work, the better (designed) the product produced. That design (his limited definition of it) and selling might in fact be antithetically related.
(Please don't think I'm attacking you - not in the least. Just something that it excites me to talk about as I don't often have the chance...)
Posted by: CR | Feb 2, 2007 11:14:52 PM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.