Mash Creative 2010 Calendar


Last week I received this gor­geous Lim­ited Edi­tion A1 cal­en­dar designed by Mash Cre­ative. The posters are printed 2 colour litho on 170gsm cyclus off­set with a 60% cyan shiner to achieve an extra rich black. Each poster
is hand num­bered and signed by the designer. Only 100 were printed and you can pur­chase one exclu­sively from Counter Objects.    

13 Comments on "Mash Creative 2010 Calendar"

  • daos says

    can any­one give a lit­tle feed­back on why exactly this cal­en­dar is so fantastic?

    _why are the months stag­gered in that man­ner?
    _why do they ini­tially run hor­i­zon­tally (jan-feb) only to change direc­tion and con­fuse by con­tin­u­ing ver­ti­cally?
    _why is the title in sec­onds, and what is the rea­son for the chop­ping of text and col­umn slicing?

    clearly it’s a self pro­mo­tional device. but what does it communicate?

  • It doesn’t need to com­mu­ni­cate any­thing. Like you men­tioned it’s a pro­mo­tional cal­en­dar. I’m just attracted to the aes­thet­ics of it. Not really sure what was the think­ing behind the design deci­sions but I also think you might be think­ing a lit­tle to hard about this one. You either like it or you don’t. It’s pretty straightforward.

  • daos says

    yes, aes­thet­i­cally it could be argued to be pleas­ing. hoew­ever, that is merely sur­face. you’re no doubt aware of the mod­ernist tenet of form fol­low­ing func­tion and this piece clearly fol­lows a mod­ernist aes­thetic. so either there is some think­ing behind it, or it’s just a super­fi­cial bor­row­ing of a style with none of the meaning.

    the thing that is most wor­ry­ing though, is pre­cisely the notion of ‘not think­ing too hard’. there is unfor­tu­nately all too much of that and far too lit­tle actual think­ing going on. think­ing is replaced by try­ing to be styl­is­ti­cally trendy which in turn ren­ders the result empty and mean­ing­less. i can’t agree with you that design does not need to com­mu­ni­cate any­thing. that is the role of design, or rather good design. and even if it doesn’t want to com­mu­ni­cate any­thing it does so merely by its existence.

    i’ve looked around and all sources which show this cal­en­dar includ­ing the design­ers’ own site make no attempt to pro­vide any back­ground infor­ma­tion. i’m gen­uinely inter­ested in what’s behind this poster (apart from the wall) and how the design deci­sions were arrived at. my post here is an attempt to gain some info, or at least spark a dis­cus­sion. until any infor­ma­tion comes to light it gets the ben­e­fit of the doubt — i’ll assume the designer actu­ally thought about what he/she was doing.

  • Again, I really think you’re think­ing about this a lit­tle too much. I totally agree that func­tion is just as impor­tant as form but I think this cal­en­dar addresses that through the straight for­ward cal­en­dar. But this is also a design piece so it has two pur­poses and I think it’s suc­ceeds in that area as well. I also think it’s unfair to sug­gest that the designer has not put a lot of thought into the design. You hon­estly have no idea what went into cre­at­ing this poster. Just because it’s a sim­ple design doesn’t mean it was easy to create.

  • At first glance, it makes my eyes rat­tle in my head like two mar­bles in an empty jar. My eyes keep get­ting drawn to the “bro­ken” sen­tence at the top. It took me a lit­tle over 2 min­utes to move pass that. I know that is not a long time but when you’re read­ing or look­ing at some­thing, that is a long time to focus on just one sec­tion. As Anto­nio says, “You either like it or you don’t”. I per­son­ally don’t like it. It’s just my hon­est opin­ion. Don’t hate me. :)

  • Mihai says

    Per­son­ally, I think I like it. It’s bold. Regard­ing the title (I didn’t do the math, but I guess it states the num­ber of sec­onds in a year): if it were writ­ten in a clas­sic type­face, you could’ve eas­illy missed it. But when you strug­gle to read it, then it has caught you atten­tion. (And I don’t think that it’s meant to take you a cou­ple of min­utes to process it, it’s just meant to make stop and try to fig­ure out what it says) :)

  • EMILY says

    The col­umn splices appear to be rem­i­nis­cent of the move­ment of an ana­log time counter; the chop­ping of words is unclear. The float­ing months make me about as angry as a clut­tered un-“cleaned-up” com­puter desk­top. Mod­er­ate applause for the men­tal delay sparked by the text at top.

  • Nate says

    Three cheers for Daos actu­ally demand­ing some expla­na­tions and min­ing for the sub­stance of design decisions.

    A hint: if you ever tell some­one “I think you’re think­ing too hard”, you’re prob­a­bly wrong. Great design rewards curiosity!

  • derek says

    I think they’re tak­ing the grid sys­tem and break­ing it with­out actu­ally break­ing it. Remix­ing it, if you will. A way to com­bine the mod­ernist need to fol­low rules with the post­mod­ernist need to break them. Also, I like Emily’s sug­ges­tion that it looks like and ana­log clock (I guess that explains why it’s in seconds).

  • Cal­en­dar looks very inter­est­ingly, it would be see closer

  • Nice typog­ra­phy work!

  • angez says

    i know its back­dated but.….…
    there’s a dif­fer­ence of 20926seconds. im intrigued!
    sup­posed to have 31536000 sec­onds in a year.
    31556926 is just odd. that 26 seconds?

    thumbs up to daos.
    i like this cal­en­dar for its aes­thet­ics but i don’t feel it’s func­tion­al­ity. my dash­board brings me to a cal­en­dar too, why would i need to turn to my wall for it, n squint to look at the finer print. hmms.

    maybe i’m not good enough to appre­ci­ate it yet =)

  • It seems the page doesn’t dis­play fully with a Motorola Pho­ton 4G. Are other users get­ting the iden­ti­cal trouble ?