Comments on: Comments on 17086

Post number 17086

joeclark — Sun, 12 May 2002 17:49:12 -0800

Lines & Splines goes the way of hot-metal type Andy Crewdson shuts down Lines & Splines. Beyond the stated reasons, speculation as to why would of course be as improper as any use of Arial.

By: tepidmonkey

tepidmonkey — Sun, 12 May 2002 18:18:00 -0800

What a shame this is. Lines & Splines was one of the most asthetically pleasing websites about type ever to have been. Plus, the content was always worth reading?it does indeed make you wonder exactly why Crewdson has shut the site down. (Perhaps he was just tired of it?) At least he ?[has] some ideas for new things? in the future.

By: tepidmonkey

tepidmonkey — Sun, 12 May 2002 18:18:53 -0800

Pardon the question marks in that comment; they were ment to be a dash in the first place and quotation marks in the last two instances.

By: fuq

fuq — Sun, 12 May 2002 18:24:08 -0800

By: jragon

jragon — Sun, 12 May 2002 18:58:20 -0800

I knew Andy Crewdson when I attended Pyle Middle School in Maryland over 10 years ago. And even with that really close connection, I have no idea why the site went down.

By: Su

Su — Sun, 12 May 2002 19:06:03 -0800

I like Arial, for web use. Helvetica just looks funny; I can spot it immediately. So there. But anyway, exactly why would speculation be improper?

By: silusGROK

silusGROK — Sun, 12 May 2002 19:06:19 -0800

Well, I've been enjoying his site since it opened, and I look forward to what ever he has in store... good luck Andy, you rock!

By: darukaru

darukaru — Sun, 12 May 2002 19:17:20 -0800

Aside from needing a change of pace, for a number of reasons the format of the site no longer suits me very well. So he's tired and moving on. Hey, it happens. Good luck and Godspeed.

By: will

will — Sun, 12 May 2002 19:26:38 -0800

It's a shame because L&S really was a dandy site, but if this will free Andy up for something new then I'm optimistic. Good luck, sir.

By: mkn

mkn — Sun, 12 May 2002 20:02:59 -0800

Weird... I saw this eariler today through randomwebsite -- then again, I was sitting hitting random sites for nearly an hour, so I was bound to hit it. Too bad though :\ I'm not much of a font/typography person, but that site made me want to be.

By: ewwgene

ewwgene — Sun, 12 May 2002 20:28:17 -0800

As an addict for type design, im sad to see his wonderful site go. I hope he brings us something just as exciting in the future.

By: Monk

Monk — Sun, 12 May 2002 23:42:22 -0800

Good luck on your next adventure, Andy. Anyone have any sites to help fill the void? Microsoft's Typography news page isn't bad for links, but it doesn't have any editorial content.

By: Su

Su — Mon, 13 May 2002 00:06:23 -0800

Speculation is such an ugly word. As for alternates, there's the rest of the previous link, Typographer.com, U&Lc at the ITC web site, and Thinkbox, by Typebox. They each have their high points, but I haven't seen any of them get some of the sometimes-scary detail that Andy gave.

By: dmo

dmo — Mon, 13 May 2002 00:35:05 -0800

The next issue of Print feature this essay on typography weblogs. Lots o' links.

By: Su

Su — Mon, 13 May 2002 00:36:11 -0800

Whoops. Typographer.com, is uh...obviously located at www.typographer.com.

By: dmo

dmo — Mon, 13 May 2002 00:46:08 -0800

The next issue of Print feature this essay on typography weblogs. Lots o' links.

By: luriete

luriete — Mon, 13 May 2002 09:26:29 -0800

And the author of that particular essay, as well as some MeFi members and various type designers, can be joined at this current amusement, a sort of waylay until the return of L&S or something like it: typographica.blogspot.com

By: itchyrobot

itchyrobot — Mon, 13 May 2002 10:04:55 -0800

I wouldn't be surprised if that article was one of the reasons that L&S was closed, although Crewdson has been talking about other projects for a while. It's a pretty self serving article (the very first link is to the author's own ~~four~~ five weblogs) and focuses more on typoblog authors than what they are saying. The article itself claims that Crewdson hates publicity, but it's being published in Print, which is probably one of the most widely circulated design magazines. Hell, what kind of article uses the work "Flashturbation" and the phrase "Georgia and Verdana, natch?" Oh, and no matter what this article claims, textism is not a "typoblog." Textism rarely mentions type (and, in my opinion, it uses type pretty poorly too, just look at that header image). Yeah.

By: itchyrobot

itchyrobot — Mon, 13 May 2002 12:45:54 -0800

sorry, that third part shoud read: Hell, what kind of article uses the word "Flashturbation" and the phrase "Georgia and Verdana, natch?

By: joeclark

joeclark — Mon, 13 May 2002 15:08:02 -0800

What kind of article uses such terminology? A well-written article, I assume. And when I wrote the piece (last summer!), Textism was heavily typographical. And as the story explained, Dean Allen was a professional book designer before he decamped for France. Although one assumes he became a tad campier once arriving in France. And if you want a version without links, may I suggest the print Print? Note to others who can't read simple English: Crewdson wouldn't be interviewed for the Print piece. By that time, he was at least consistent in his psychological dualism (run a public Web site, won't talk about it).

By: Su

Su — Mon, 13 May 2002 15:50:18 -0800

Exactly how does running a public web site and not talking about it constitute psychological dualism, or is it that you're also a psychologist(wow!), and just so good that you can figure out someone's particular neuroses from a bunch of text that has near nothing to do with them personally?

By: rodii

rodii — Mon, 13 May 2002 16:29:18 -0800

It seems plausible to me that someone would want to contribute something on the web without having a lot of attention focused on them personally. It's not like Andy was breaking any laws or abusing the public trust. Why not respect his privacy? Oh, I forgot, you're Joe Clark.

By: joeclark

joeclark — Mon, 13 May 2002 19:55:46 -0800

The kooky thing, Su and rodii, is that A. Crewdson had promoted himself and his site in interviews before. Then he stopped. Now he's stopped the site. Everyone has a right to change his or her mind. Everyone in public view can expect to have such decisions commented on. If you don't want to get blogged (or written about in magazines), don't post. But I'm sure you're just the gentlest people, Su and rodii, and you're just trying to be helpful here.

By: Su

Su — Mon, 13 May 2002 21:20:49 -0800

I think it's cute how you've repeatedly responded to people's comments, without actually saying anything about what they said. Further, you've circumspectly declined to comment on me calling you out for speculating, which this very post, written by you^** calls inappropriate, and also questioning your specious psychological evaluation(maybe he just didn't want to talk to you), Itchyrobot calling the article self-serving, and Rodii effectively calling you an egomaniac. While you defend yourself on a minor point by saying the article was written last summer, I have been unable to find any such date reference on that page, other than that it's being published in Print sometime in 2002, and that the page was updated ten days ago. And while you did all this dancing, you managed to work in another self-compliment re: the article being well-written. Yes, people are allowed to change their minds, as you said. And yes, their actions can be commented upon. Commentary, however, is not nearly the same thing as speculation. I'll pass on providing dictionary links; it's just demeaning. ^**We'll add here that contradiction isnt the same thing as changing your mind, either. But yes, I am gentle and helpful. The only thing I'm trying to help with here, is pointing out a pompous ass. Sometimes, that particular activity can't be handled gently, though. As neither I nor Matt are interested in flamewars, I'm done with this.

By: joeclark

joeclark — Tue, 14 May 2002 05:06:48 -0800

Finally! We get rid of Su. In any event, the publishing deal was that Print had first rights. So I waited till I had the magazine in my hands before I uploaded the article. Only some of my print-publication articles carry authored-on dates in their Web versions. As for the rest of the allegations, I can't be bothered. I will go so far as to point out again that making public remarks about other public remarks hardly constitutes an invasion of privacy-- certainly a curious allegation from someone posting to a public site. If you don't want to get talked about, don't post. Now's your big chance.

By: itchyrobot

itchyrobot — Tue, 14 May 2002 09:39:44 -0800

After purchasing the print version of Print I discovered that the article is slightly different (e.g. no instances of the word "natch" could be found). It's true that since the article was written over a year ago it may no longer be completely accurate which may have contributed to my issues with it. I can't say that I have ever consistently read Textism since I try to avoid the truly pompous. Looking back at past Textism posts, Allen does seem to mention type more than he currently does, but I would hardly call it a "typeblog." Certainly no more of a typeblog than Kottke or xBlog. I don't think that this is about an invasion of privacy, but more about an excess of publicity. This is pure speculation since I don't personally know Crewdson. Let me just give you one example of why I felt it to be self serving. The article contains this sentence: "I managed to conduct an E-mail interview for one of my Weblogs in 2000." This is conveniently linked to an online version of the interview. You would think that the hypertext link would be made with the words "E-mail interview" or at least "E-mail interview for one of my Weblogs", but instead it links with "one of my Weblogs." It seems that you are obsessed with the fact that you have these weblogs instead of what they contain (which coincidentaly seems to be the exact opposite of Crewdson's approach).