
You Could Do Almost Anything Part 1 - elischiff
http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2016/4/12/do-almost-anything
======
zeveb
> 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.

~~~
entee
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?

~~~
PKop
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".

------
ebbv
I 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.

~~~
sloreti
> 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.

~~~
TeMPOraL
True. But most of those rules can be taught over a single lecture. Why then
the need for expensive designers? I suspect most of the philosophy around logo
design is a simple job-security measure, whether they admit it to themselves
or not. For a logo, a person with some sense of aesthetics and knowledge of
aforementioned rules is more than sufficient.

------
siranachronist
A well-designed logo relies on its inherent memorability and the strength of
its association with its parent brand/entity to create a lasting impression.

It might be informed by the name of the company, but certainly doesn't need to
achieve a one-to-one association with the visual letterforms--we don't expect
the reverse after all.

Memorability and distinctiveness is the end goal, and if your brand is strong
enough that a simple mark will be sufficiently distinctive, then it's to your
advantage to adopt a simple mark.

No one will forget that Microsoft is four boxes, and that the Internet is a
blue e, even though these marks are visually panned, and in a context-free
environment, only loosely associated with their parent brands.

------
jessedhillon
This 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.

~~~
elischiff
> This 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.

You're required to be pedantic if you want to examine something with any
rigor. And yes, I'm asking that the designers provide justifications that
logically cohere with the logo they are selling.

> 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.

This is weak. It's a sort of argument to immensity–that if a company is big
enough, it can "almost do anything" at all. It's the same argument that Bierut
made, and I don't buy it. It's an essentially anti-critical position. One
cannot judge a logo by a large company because by sheer weight, they will make
that logo stick.

Moreover, I'm not providing the criteria for judgment–I'm pulling them
straight from Cooper's mouth.

> 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.

Tu quoque fallacy.

> 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.

This is invalid on its face. Half this essay is devoted to critiquing a logo
from 1964.

> The author's own logo fails many of the standards that he holds for these
> other logos.

Tu quoque again.

~~~
tawpKek
w/r/t the pedantic point, it seems you're a bit stuck in the prison of the
literal here. Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they
really need to to be understood as books? I got that they were books before I
read anything about it and it was a nice little moment. The current
configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing
the symbol, seeing the letters, and then seeing the books. Ultimately, that
seems to me like a more rewarding and memorable experience than the letters
MITP + color + typeface (no disrespect, Mr. Spiekermann). MIT press's audience
isn't stupid, so in my personal opinion hiding a little puzzle in the logo is
a nice touch.

I mostly agree with you in your response to the second point. I don't
personally find as much fault with the readability issues because the logo
would pretty much always be seen in the context required to make it
decipherable, but I can understand why one might take issue with that.
Ultimately, its important to remember that the logo is neither the brand nor a
stand alone work of art. It is only a part of a system.

I think ultimately the pitfall of the don't make me think school of design is
that it is susceptible to joyless, by the numbers design but I understand its
utility. Also, ironically, one could probably say the same thing about
modernist design.

Your article brings up some interesting points and valid criticisms, but I
just don't personally agree with all of your values when it comes to design.

~~~
elischiff
> Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need
> to to be understood as books?

If Cooper is to be believed, then yes, we should.

> The current configuration allows for three separate moments of
> understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then seeing
> the books.

If there had been no pretense to the second two elements being recognizable,
then it would be no problem. Abstract symbols are more than acceptable. The
issue arises when designers invent a story about a representation which is
hardly represented at all. Until it is explained, most readers will not get to
step two or three.

> Ultimately, its important to remember that the logo is neither the brand nor
> a stand alone work of art. It is only a part of a system.

True, and yet it's still important to design the logo intentionally for when
there is no contextual system. If the logo is to be abstract, great. If not,
that's also great. But no one should fool themselves about where they are on
that spectrum.

> I think ultimately the pitfall of the don't make me think school of design
> is that it is susceptible to joyless, by the numbers design but I understand
> its utility. Also, ironically, one could probably say the same thing about
> modernist design.

Absolutely. I don't count myself as a member of the former school. I assert
designers should merely be honest about their intentions.

> Your article brings up some interesting points and valid criticisms, but I
> just don't personally agree with all of your values when it comes to design.

That's the fun of it!

~~~
tawpKek
Whoops, there was a typo in my post. I meant to write do they need that
(meaning a physically accurate bookshelf) to be understood as books.

>That's the fun of it!

No, I am the arbiter of design and all who disagree with me are evil and
wrong! Who moved my crown??

------
louprado
IEEE'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/](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.

~~~
HCIdivision17
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.)

------
ahoka
This reminds me of the "SASV" laptop for sale screenshot (ASUS).

------
t0mbstone
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.

------
bkmrkr
Is there an inshort for windows?

------
bkmrkr
IS There a Inshort for windows?

