Twitter Flickr Tumblr Pinterest

Mash Creative 2010 Calendar

mash-creative-2010-calendar.jpg 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 ?