You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
elischiff.com
You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#2> Instead, the logo is noteworthy precisely because it has achieved critical acclaim despite, or more accurately, because of its failure to communicate.
That, right there, is a damning indictment of the entire modernist project: communication achieves acclaim because it fails to communicate; art achieves acclaim because it fails to be beautiful; life achieves acclaim because it is sterile.
As an aside, I love the dry tone of the piece, with lines like 'However, not only does the new abstract logo break this entire history, but it adds even more potential readings of the logo' — with a demonstration of how the upside-down new logo looks like a hand flipping the bird. The essay's full of bone-dry commentary like that. It's glorious in its restrained vehemence.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#3IEEE's Spectrum changed to a Cooperesque logo a few months back. I used to like it, but after reading this article, I'm not so sure.
"consistency is more important than cleverness. Consistency is actually really hard to achieve. Cleverness is a cheap commodity."
I hope I can pull a Cooper the next time I am accused of being derivative and lazy.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#4> Instead, the logo is noteworthy precisely because it has achieved critical acclaim despite, or more accurately, because of its failure to communicate. That, right there, is a damning indictment of the entire modernist project: communication achieves acclaim because it fails to communicate; art achieves acclaim because it fails to be beautiful; life achieves acclaim because it is sterile. As an aside, I love the dry…
I think the primary objective of a logo is to be a recognizable symbol for an organization or concept. It's not entirely clear to me that to achieve that objective the logo must fully describe the entity or be some identifiable representation of what that entity does.
For example Apple's logo speaks very little to what it does, and to a greater or lesser extent so do many others including Uber (new and old), Xiaomi, Square and Palantir just to pick a few of the largest startup-style companies in the last few years. Of course the logos come to work as a brand and we identify them with those entities as we get to know the brands.
Under this criteria, isn't the objective of a logo to simply be recognizable? In that case, kind of in a self-fulfilling manner, doesn't even a critical article such as this one make it more successful?
Personally I like the logo, and I found it interesting to hear the logic behind it. Sure it's not to everyone's liking, but is that the point of a logo?
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#5I think there's some valid points in this article, but there's also a valid point that kind of undermines a central thesis to this article:
A logo does not need to tell you what it's for if your first viewing is out of context. In fact, 99% of good logos won't accomplish that task. The point is to be recognizable once you know what it is already, and be pleasant to look at over and over.
Now, whether any of the minimalist logos meet that criteria is up to the user. But judging logos on whether you can tell what they're for out of context is a false criteria.
How would you know the Apple logo is for a computer company out of context? You'd be more apt to guess it was for an orchard or cider company. How would you know the modern Windows logo is for the operating system out of context, and not just a bunch of boxes for a moving company or something.
Ambiguity in logos is not remotely a bad thing. What makes a good logo or bad logo is mostly subjective.
The main objective thing I would damn most of the logos highlighted in the article on is being so derivative that they become tedious.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#6This reminds me of the "SASV" laptop for sale screenshot (ASUS).
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#7> Instead, the logo is noteworthy precisely because it has achieved critical acclaim despite, or more accurately, because of its failure to communicate. That, right there, is a damning indictment of the entire modernist project: communication achieves acclaim because it fails to communicate; art achieves acclaim because it fails to be beautiful; life achieves acclaim because it is sterile. As an aside, I love the dry…
Schiff seems to assume a design must always communicate on first glance. However, a design like this has many chances to make an impression.
The multiplicity of nonsense words the logo could encode is irrelevant to its quality. Having seen and correctly interpreted 'mitp' once, top-down visual priming guarantees you will never again see 'imlji,' 'nnlji,' 'uolp,' or 'oulji.'
It's like those "can yeu raed tihs" memes. Of course you can read it. Especially the second time.
(I do think Cooper's original logo is brilliant, and the MIT Media Lab logos are overly systematized.)
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#8This is basically art and design critique by a pedant.
"B-b-but their actions don't match their words" is the most uninspired of all criticisms. A logo is successful if it generates results, not if it is consistent with whatever principles the critic determines a good logo should adhere to. "You Could Do Almost Anything" is basically the complaint of either unrecognized talent, or the untalented, against the institution for failing to recognize someone whose work follows all the rules, but lacks spirit.
That's what this critique is -- a failure or refusal to see the spirit of the design, and insisting to measure it on a basis that only the author cares for. FFS, the guy drew a bookshelf so he could challenge the designer's intent to portray books on a shelf. Does he think the designer didn't know that a literal application of that principle would result in a broken shelf?
> One should note that there was a time during which HP intentionally made a reversible logo.
Should one note this?
This, for me, betrays the true roots of this critique -- unexamined appreciation for all things old, and refusal to recognize merit in new interpretations or to, even temporarily, suspend judgment. Essentially, he is holding their relative newness against them, and revering the old because he is already familiar with those rules. As if those older elements were not once new, and the designers were not also subject to similar critiques from their contemporaries, based almost solely on the fact that new things do not much resemble old things.
The author's own logo fails many of the standards that he holds for these other logos. Apart from giving the impression of inconsistent widths, owing to chamfered interior corners: the "S" of ES would never be unambiguously scrutable, and this logo would always need to appear beside the author's name in order to make sense.
However, despite the fact that his name needs to appear beside the logo, I cannot think of a more incongruous font to accompany that style than a modern sans serif font. The logo is done in the style of an 80s-90s sci-fi/futuristic movie title, and the name is presented in a mid-century sans serif font. I wonder what the author would think of it if he saw it presented elsewhere.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#9> Instead, the logo is noteworthy precisely because it has achieved critical acclaim despite, or more accurately, because of its failure to communicate. That, right there, is a damning indictment of the entire modernist project: communication achieves acclaim because it fails to communicate; art achieves acclaim because it fails to be beautiful; life achieves acclaim because it is sterile. As an aside, I love the dry…
This author seems to have a very prescriptive stance on what a logo "should be." I see the logo as abstract art. Maybe you don't know that it says MITP or that it vaguely represents books on a shelf until you are told these things, but then you (might) go "oh cool, I can see it now." It achieved critical acclaim because it is clever and ultimately resonated with people, that's it.
I don't see how it "failed" at anything except meeting this author's subjective preferences of what makes a good logo. He even admits, "this became part of the charm of the logo for those in the modern minimalist establishment, for whom ambiguity is a virtue." So, he's free to disagree, but shouldn't act like he's "more correct" for having different values.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#10> Instead, the logo is noteworthy precisely because it has achieved critical acclaim despite, or more accurately, because of its failure to communicate. That, right there, is a damning indictment of the entire modernist project: communication achieves acclaim because it fails to communicate; art achieves acclaim because it fails to be beautiful; life achieves acclaim because it is sterile. As an aside, I love the dry…
It's not an indictment of anything except human nature itself. Recently read about a very good looking guy who married an acid attack victim. It's the human spirit, when you can have anything, you can literally have anything. Perfection itself is a flaw if it's easily attainable, imperfection is worth more.
Easy is boring, hard is in charge. Or some other drivel to match the current trend. Because it's hot! hot! hot!