oh and the layout, graphically & typographically is a pastiche of the subject in hand. ie: centered

thats brilliant geezer.

hdsy - was gonna say it seemed a bit nathan barley / shoreditch twat, but
(a) i didnt have the balls and.
(b) anth lives round those parts so it makes sense.

V. Barley

couldnt you shorten it?

That font looks like Futura.
———————————————
Use of colours RED and White, is it symbolic?
———————————————
The content goes way over my head.
———————————————
Too long, too many syllables.
———————————————
Why are you writing a manifesto if you're only young?
———————————————
Politics are for unfashionable people.

NWA - Express Yourself would be more apt.

I understand that it's a work in progress so I would suggest:

- Using a different justification or perhaps a smaller text size.
(I used to do a little freelance typesetting so if you'd like me to play around with the formatting, I'd be happy to help).

- And I agree with hdsy: at times it feels too wordy.

Nevertheless, you're a skillful writer and I think it's a really good piece of work.

"bread this at primary level" ?

well in answer to the punctuation, layout, grid structure, typographic justification (re: NB).

its actually suppose to be a pastiche of the subject in hand. you see. lazy journalism, design, content, taste of ones own medicine.

my original plan was to have it on the front cover of eye magazine in a REALLY obscure coded typeface i made up.



everything you see, IS on purpose

not to even question it, as someone has already said, sums this up completely.


its also suppose to be quite pretentious & wordy, seen as the audience

is journalists, politicians, designers, educators etc.. maybe even slightly unacceptable in places.

to be honest, it can only 100% work in the right context, this is certainly not it. i have yet to find that context, but im coming close to it…



this certainly is not and does need justifying as yes there are those apparent 'mistakes'

but im glad that most things have been pointed out.

Looking at this from a critical stand point, and ignoring the artistic language which as you have stated is for effect, my comments are:

Making my own analysis that the concept of this manifesto is the establishment of "heard!sm" is your own branded version of escapism / individualism. This is well done.

You do lead a reasonable narrative in terms of definition of them and us, where people who choose your brand would be someone who's escapism / individualism is defined as someone who is completely in tune with your definition of perfection.

Playing on the obviously aspirations of people who do not want to be associated with being in the masses or manipulated by the media to chose a lifestyle defined by your branding in order to achieve that.

The message is reasonable clear, but some unnecessary parts break the narrative and should be removed, murdoch's name is not required directly for example, paragraph 6 is unnecessary, you do say the same thing about the media "manipulation" 5 or 6 different ways, when the best bits could all be compressed down into 3/4 paragraphs without filler.

You have had your own experiences with the media, including a free paper, so if this information becomes known to the recipient of your manifesto some sections may look like a rant based on your own experiences and will loose impact.