31–40 of 44 posts
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.
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.
My favorite example of "post-rationalization" is the BREATHTAKING Design Strategy behind the new Pepsi logo of the last decade. http://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-... The bit about Pepsi energy fields and globe dynamics is my favorite, but it is all kind of amazing. Edit: By comparison, this NeXT logo document seems pretty tame. Mostly describing the intent behind font choices and getting peo…
Right?
The NeXT logo probably would not be the choice today as it doesn't scale down small enough for favicons, mobile screens and so on. However, nobody really ever got to see a NeXT machine apart from Tim Berners Lee. The web really was 'next' so it all worked out well in the end.
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…
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.
Can you point us to some of your superior logos?
The NeXT logo probably would not be the choice today as it doesn't scale down small enough for favicons, mobile screens and so on. However, nobody really ever got to see a NeXT machine apart from Tim Berners Lee. The web really was 'next' so it all worked out well in the end.
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.
I was willing to entertain the (far-fetched) notion that you actually know what you're talking about, up until that line.
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.
An objectively bad logo would be one that isn't readable, doesn't work at small sizes, doesn't work in black and white, etc. None of these things are true of the NeXT logo.
Personally, I've always been fond of it. I find it striking, timeless, and I enjoy the choice of colours: a choice of four colours brings to mind education/learning/fun, but with a bit more imagination than a classic red, blue, green and yellow (e.g. Google). Each to their own.
I'm very surprised that Paul Rand misses completely that the stripes in IBM symbol resembled how computers printed letters back in the time with matrix printers. There is also a metaphor with the extremely classic paper used for computer business reports (white with blue stripes).
My favorite logo design is Cisco's, that blends San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge with a network analyzer display.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My favorite example of "post-rationalization" is the BREATHTAKING Design Strategy behind the new Pepsi logo of the last decade. http://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-... The bit about Pepsi energy fields and globe dynamics is my favorite, but it is all kind of amazing. Edit: By comparison, this NeXT logo document seems pretty tame. Mostly describing the intent behind font choices and getting peo…
But that Pepsi logo document is obviously satire, in the spirit of "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity". Right?