NeXT Logo Presentation by Paul Rand to Steve Jobs [pdf]

Post by tomelders » Sun, Apr 26, 2015, 10:09 AM UTC

skygazer wrote: post #19

tomelders wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, fair enough. I don't think you would be a good designer though. As brutal as that may sound, design is a full contact sport. I'd say the same to you in person.

Your comment fascinates me, as if you feel you can uniquely tease out the objective from what most consider largely subjective. I'm not contesting, just curious for elaboration. Is it designer hubris, like audiophile, or wine tasting hubris, or a reproducible, measurable thing? Are you implying that he'd be a bad consumer as well, because he responds abnormally, and that other laymen would have less appreciation for…

Post by leoc » Sun, Apr 26, 2015, 10:16 AM UTC

jrs99 wrote: post #15

panic wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it objectively bad? Logos are pretty subjective things.

It's as subjective as claiming that Bieber is the greatest musician of all time.

Post by tomelders » Sun, Apr 26, 2015, 10:17 AM UTC

jrs99 wrote: post #16

tomelders wrote: post #8

In the trade we call this "post-rationalisation" and it's worse than worthless, it magically adds value to the worthless. Good design, especially good logo design, is self evident and doesn't need this kind of drivle. Also, it's objectivley a bad logo. Always has been. Always will be. It makes me angrier than it should, but that's why designers design I suppose.

i'll go a step further and say he's never made a good logo. Ever.

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Apr 26, 2015, 11:38 AM UTC

tomelders wrote: post #20

ignoramous wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally feel its a great logo, for just one reason: It stands out, and is instantly identifiable. And I think the "drivle" is excellent, as it gives a window to the way the designer has thought about the design. And I can relate with most of what he has to say. I am sure, with multiple iterations over the current logo (just like what Apple's main logo went through), you'd arrive with something elegant with all t…

On the face of it, you make some good points. Here's why I think you're wrong. I could point out that 'It stands out, and is instantly identifiable' is the weakest of arguments in defence of a design. I could photocopy my arse and stick the words 'Burger King' next to it, set in comic sans. That would tick all the boxes that sentence mandates. But that's as cheap a retort as it was an argument. It's not enough to be…

Post by coldtea » Sun, Apr 26, 2015, 12:32 PM UTC

tomelders wrote: post #13

erikano wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think the logo is nice, I think it looks ok even in small size, I don't think it unbalanced the NeXT machines when it was put on them, I think the colors are cute and the font is sharp.

Well, fair enough. I don't think you would be a good designer though. As brutal as that may sound, design is a full contact sport. I'd say the same to you in person.