< No Logo
- Started
- Last post
- 87 Responses
- Visia0
whoa! okay, to try and blanket answer here:
1. I'm not an idiot. You don't know me.
2. I'm not pro-sweatshop. I believe the stakeholder model would be very effective but would require a massive shift in how our economies operate.
3. I'm a realist, I live and think in reality. Pipe dreams don't impress me.
4. I sit on the left-wing of politics, but I'm not an extremist and it takes more than an idea and colourless "non-branding" for me to buy into a Brave New World.
5. I do believe that the stock market IS the root of all evil. BUT, it exists so we need to design solutions to deal with it, not blab on about "wouldn't it be nice if . . ."
6. Bucking the system will get you exactly nowhere.
7. Naomi Klein is a total hypocrit. A friend of mine is an audio engineer for CBC, she walked into her interview sucking back a Coke and a Starbucks coffee. When he noted the irony she said "give me a fucking break, I'm really hungover." Believe it or don't.
8. That's all I have to say in this thread.
- Soler0
Visia, it's almost as if you didn't read teh book. It's not anti-logo or ant-corporate. Liek my earlier post, it's only pointing out THEIR hipocrisy and advocating responsibilty.
- spiralstarez0
Okay so my point with that is a lot of talk in this thread is about how our jobs wouldn't exist without the branding/lying that goes with our profession.
What I'm saying is that the profession of visual communication still exists in a world where the principles of "No Logo" is put into place.
The profession has been around for centuries whereas branding hasn't.
Anyone who read the book knows that the main principle is about selling a "lifestyle" rather than a "product".
So if we stop lying to sell, there is still a profession that exists in honestly communicating a message of a product or service visually.
So I'm basically trying to dismiss the arguments presented earlier that No Logo's principles are irrelevant to the real world.
- spk0
perhaps visia could share with us what he/she have done to help abate the decline in the health of this planet - or improve the lives of the poorest who are being exploited by the richest (i.e. corporations)?
klein is doing something - surely not a perfect person in her own right... but at least she's speaking up - trying to help those at the bottom.
good for her (klien) - if visia has anything to offer - perhaps he/she will come back out of their cave and share it.
- blackspade0
good read/thread
- Soler0
No Logos is NOT ANTI-CORPORATE. Neither is it anti-branding. Neither is it anti-lifetsyle-branding.
Its PRO CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY.
Perhaps "no logo" wasn't the best title, because when taken literally people get the wrong perception.
- raiden0
i think this is a great thread, and demonstrate how important it is for graphic designers to be socially aware of the effects of unrelenting capitalism, and its casualties. no ones asking you to change anything, but at least consider what you are playing with.
i had the oppurtunity to hear Naomi Klein (and Amy Goodman) speak at a lecture at columbia last year. and i would think it would be wise for designers [especially in the commercial sector] consider what she has to say, and how it [indirectly] ties into your own life.
Enjoy situationism.