I'm sure I saw thi sfont somewhere, and being a font afficionado, it's itching me to know it's name.
For those who wonderwhat the hell this is ...it's an elektronic music project, I'm not very keen on their music tho.
sorry to argue with you, but it turns out to be Chank's Fonts Crusti:
Don't worry, not afraid of an argument. I said this is not a font but a mess because it is just a shameless deformation of some Garamond faces. If you want to call it a typeface thats fine with me. But it aint.
I serously doubt that you're affraid of an argument. As any font afficionado I know, you gotta be pretty intelligent person. However, I think you kinda act like you're the only person who has the right to have an opinion - in fact, whether this IS a typeface or not - is not a matter of opinions. If respected typefoundry like Chanks SELLS it - beats me, I think it's a typeface. I'm willing to be excused by the author of the typeface I will mention below:
but how do you call this - a shamelles deformation of some Fraktur typefaces? Yet, it's still on Abstract Fonts - and if I may quote you: "Relax, it's just a font".
I'm willing to end this, as I really hate to start flamewars, despite the fact that I sense some pretty ...bruised ego in here (and it's not mine).
PS. I have nothing against the cats. Really.
It is quite simple. You have your opinion - and the right to that opinion - and I have mine. I understand you consider a deformation of an existing typeface a new design, a new typeface, OK. I don't. To me a design is a new creation. Not something that borrows something, reshapes it with some filters and then claims it to be original.
Understand me well my friend, my point is not so much the reshaping - deforming - distorting someting existing. That is quite usual nowadays. My point is that one should not claim the design ownership and claim it is something new if it could not have been made without using an existing design - in this case the Garamond.
And again, if one does something like that to me it is not OK but, OK. Yet at least give the credits. If Chank just had mumbled something like "based on ..." he would have been fair and honest. Now only those that know about typography see that we have another case of borrowing.
So, respecting your opinion - like Voltaire told us to - I still don't consider this a font design. I still consider it a shamefull deformation of the Garamond.
And, indeed, this happens all the time. Your example like the fraktur after a termite attack is only one of many. May I shout MANY? My opinion about those is the same. Cheap effordless copying with a messy result.
That said, welcome aboard. Members with an outspoken opinion are more than welcome. Otherwise we just end up with "what is this". Nevertheless don't let's get to much preoccupied with this, after all, ... it is just a font ... right? There are things happening in this world we are living in that are much more worth to worry about. Agree?
i was giving you a chance to reply first.. no kkatfight... good... :)
i have to agree with Ivan's point of you being quick at scoffing some fonts, font styles, or design ideas.
i definitely agree with KKat that the "enhanced" designs should always contain a credit for it to be ok. Of course, "enhanced" is a highly subjective matter and that is where we should be more supportive/understanding of others' creative ideas (nudge, nudge, kkat :) )
I work with printed magazine, where we respect traditional, commercial, high-quality type. However, features like "10 Rebels" come up and call for a dirty, deformed, mis-hinted and oddly spaced, termite-eaten typeface to save me 2 hours of creating those effects myself.
However, that bypasses me acquiring the, often commercial, base font. And as kkat says, if the author and the original are not credited, that is unacceptable...
Yep. That' is all OK. But is it also OK that I consider these "enhanced" things ... ¿enhanced? ... an abuse to typography?
Yep. As long as it is OK for anyone to LIKE those "enhancements".
Register and/or login to access this feature.