Side note: The new minimalist HP logo looks like the outline of someone's hand flipping you the bird. Once you see it, you will never un-see it.
You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
21–30 of 38 posts
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#22I 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 minim…
> What makes a good logo or bad logo is mostly subjective.
But not entirely. There are some choices that can inherently weaken a design. A logo should be scalable; it should look just as good on a business card as it does on the side of a plane. A color logo should be able to be translated to black & white.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 anyth…
The problem here is that this is taking place in the context of design as a profession . If it doesn't matter what your logo looks like because its meaning will be imbued by history, and if the form of the art isn't important, then why do you need professional logo designers? Why would you want the opinion of an 'expert' if an expert's opinion isn't important? Is the author's opinion an expert opinion? Would you pay…
The thing is, it's all so subjective. This expert does not appreciate Cooper's logo and the minimalist/Bauhaus style in general. He admits that it has received critical acclaim, and clearly many people do appreciate it, undoubtedly some who are considered experts. Who is right? Who is the true expert, the professional? By what metric is that determined? Experts and critics constantly disagree with each other, often vehemently so. They have different values and different goals.
I would probably not pay for this person's opinion because I don't share his values. I like abstract and minimal. I would rather pay for the opinion of someone whose taste I share and/or whose work I admire (in the context of choosing a logo for my business. In general life I like to be exposed to opposing/different perspectives).
Basically I just wish people would generally act less as if they have a claim to what's right or good or truthful, on such subjective matters, because they are really just sharing an opinion. To this author, communicating the brand identity is an important feature of a logo. No matter how many people agree, nor how many textbooks it's written in, nor how much data shows it drives profitability and brand awareness - it still can't be used to say that a logo is objectively wrong or bad.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#24> 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…
>communication achieves acclaim because it fails to communicate I'm not sure that's the point. I think the MITP logo communicates plenty - just not the letters MITP. But then the MITP itself is redundant. Once you know a book is from MITP, you'll know it's from MITP whenever you see the logo. Meanwhile the logo includes a selection of visual puns and allusions - machine rhythms, digital precision and predictability,…
Book recommendations? I really appreciated what you have to say.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#25> 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,…
The Apple logo says nothing about what "Apple" does but... it looks like an apple.
Likewise, the letters H and P say nothing about Hewlett Packard's business. That wasn't the criticism though. It was that the letters were unrecognizable as an "h" and a "p".
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a most pertinent debate to introduce Roger Scruton's most excellent & eminently watchable "Why Beauty Matters"[1] I don't know how much the readership of HN is versed in contemporary American popular culture's obsession with the round rejection of traditional ideas of beauty. I would go as far as to say that the current leitmotif seems to be 'embrace ugliness & dullness' for the sake of it and little else. Th…
Interesting video. You might find this account of a debate (that happened the same year as that BBC doc) interesting as well. Roger participated in it. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/mar/22/national...
I'm not surprised that it's a hatchet job, given that it's _The Guardian_ on a conservative position; but even by their standards, it's kind of low to ask one of the principals of a debate to write an article about that debate!
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#27IEEE'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. http://spectrum.ieee.org/ "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.
As TheOtherHobbes notes elsewhere in this thread, your first impression may have been fair. The Spectrum logo is - at least to me - certainly reminiscent of spectral bands stripped to the minimum idea. Likewise, a technologist is likely to see the MITP logo and grok the various visual puns linked to barcodes, books, graphs, tape, 1s/0s, gear teeth, precision, and all manner of other tech thingies. What exactly each person sees may be different, but it sure feels appropriate.
(Side note: I feel that having to stare and figure out the logo really accentuates that MIT hacker mentality. It's a small, clever joke or puzzle, and that feeling of "oh I get it" seems superbly appropriate here. That confusion? That sort of exclusive humor/cleverness is classic hacker in-joke material.)
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#28> 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…
The entire thing is pretty scathing - it was also hard to believe that the part about the HP logo wasn't tongue-in-cheek satire, but came from a real logo designer.
Feels a lot like an emperor has no clothes types situation and a lot people pretending there's science behind something that might as well be random.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#29> 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 is a most pertinent debate to introduce Roger Scruton's most excellent & eminently watchable "Why Beauty Matters"[1] I don't know how much the readership of HN is versed in contemporary American popular culture's obsession with the round rejection of traditional ideas of beauty. I would go as far as to say that the current leitmotif seems to be 'embrace ugliness & dullness' for the sake of it and little else. Th…
One of the things I love about art is that it is almost defined by its resistance to definition. You say "art has to be beautiful," and art says "no, fuck you, a urinal can be art." You say "well, art at least has to mean something," and art says "no, fuck you, a big red square can be art."
Personally, I'm hoping to see a post-ironic return to traditional values of beauty, purely as a way of flipping the bird to a society that finally embraces the new paradigm.
Re: You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1
#30> 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…
Slight aside, but art does not have to be beautiful to be good art.