Missed opportunity to analyse your response to a design
If there's something wrong with the design of this poster then why is no one saying so? Clearly it is aimed at a particular community evidenced by its use of easy visual gimmickry but if it worked then by definition it was a successful design, your subjective response to it is irrelevant. You are a designer and not an artist, you do not have the luxury of subjective appreciation in deciding the successful or otherwise in design.
This is important I think, are you designing for you or the client?
You may not yet be a professional but the designer who created that poster had a client to please and only one opinion in that relationship matters.
I share all the sentiments expressed in their loathing of the work but you better get used to it because even before the advent of the accursed unison of the Apple Mac and Adobe people thought they could do it themselves and we were similarly surrounded by shit.
Have a serious discussion, don't gossip there isn't the time.
Call me stuck up but anyone who uses Papyrus, especially in a headline, is NOT a designer, at least not in the professional sense. Whilst it's true that the poster worked in that it caught my attention, I was attracted to it with a design eye. The majority of people would just accept it, but I was pointing out from a design perspective how bad it is.
It's likely the poster was designed at a printers, possibly as a bundle deal perhaps, hence the awful heavy outerglow and bad type. I don't see a poster that was designed by a designer following discussions and meeting with a client, I see something that was knocked up in Photoshop by someone who can find ther way around Photoshop.
You've raised a good point about discussing, not gossiping, but is there really any point in discussing why it's bad when it's so obvious to those with a trained eye?
You're right to dispute the merits of the poster as a pice of design, I am similarly repulsed by it however design for designers and design for everyone else is not the same thing.
My reason behind discussing why its bad is more to do with not falling into the trap of subjectivity as a means of analysis and opinion. I see and read it all the time in the design press and it smacks of smugness.
Like and dislike are fair but good and bad should be subject to academic rigour. Our failing to do this as designers means that all but the very few get a seat at the top table, example: the CEO of Interbrand Europe went to Law School. Another example: Martin Sorrell was an accountant.
We're not taken seriously outside our industry and that should be something we are ashamed of so we should start seriously and apply more than instinct and emotion to our assessments. Start with a joke but contextualise with rigour.
I don't think it's a subjective response so much as received wisdom; the design community en masse dislike the fonts in question but it would appear that a larger community love them to bits so you have a point there.
Me? Hate 'em but avoid slagging them off as I don't want to sound pompous.
The original poster did its job in a way; it made people look at it; it imparted information where, when, etc. - but it didn't suggest what the 'Health Fair' was actually going to be about. Suggested to me more of a Christmas Fair - home-made crafts and greenery. The customer is always right in the end - and maybe they wanted to use that particular font and 'image' but the poster didn't (possibly) convey what the 'Fair' was really about.
BTW - many printers have 'real' designers working for them - so no disparaging remarks!!