How come most designers suck?
- Started
- Last post
- 212 Responses
- gramme0
So neue, it seems you're saying that a logo doesn't communicate anything unless it lives within a well-considered visual program, is that correct?
It seems to me that an appropriate logo can and should be a visual distillation of an organization's core values. Granted, you can't and shouldn't try to say everything there is to say about your client in a logo. That's what everything else is for. So, that is actually communicating something. Now, I'll be the first to say that a responsible designer keeps working (if possible) after designing a logo, getting involved in the creation of a cohesive system—not so that his nitpicking ego can be stroked, but so his client can build more equity. A logo doesn't really mean too much in a vacuum, I'll grant you that. And of course a good logo works best in a good system of word, image, color, and typography. All of which say something about an organization's personality. It's up to the designer to portray that personality accurately or inaccurately. At times, a designer can even help a client figure out or redefine what their personality is.
You make a distinction between function and communication. Are they not one in the same? How would you distinguish between function and communication? To play devil's advocate, what if an emotional response is the desired result, producing someone to buy a product? Is that not appropriate communication? We all want clients who have something more meaningful to say than "buy my shit," but it doesn't always work out that way.
Speaking for myself, the primary goal behind all of my work is to elucidate my client's message—to communicate. In the past, there have been too many times where I've gone into a project thinking "I'm going to use this opportunity to create something really cool for my portfolio."
I've been consciously abandoning that philosophy more and more, because not only is it irresponsible, but it's selfish as well. I think that's a phase people either grow out of and a) produce better, more useful work; b) become jaded, apathetic, and stuck in a rut; or c) they simply never grow up, and get stuck in a rut of a different kind.
- Let's celebrate that last paragraph together. Nice work there.luckyorphan
- ********0
Most of the hate in this thread comes from insecure people.
Cheers to neue and gramme for some interesting discussion. Keep it up fellows.
- Well, you did set the tone with the word 'suck'.luckyorphan
- neue75_bold0
what I'm saying is a logo does NOT need to communicate such a tall order as is often demanded... 95% of the time it's accompanied by what we call branding, which should be what communicates that false sense of belonging, desire, etc... [Insert > blonde girl, front cover] so imo a logo only need to clearly state who the sender of the message is, [ie - be legible] beyond that, the rest is superfluous ...
I can explain further in a bit..
- PonyBoy0
Have I mentioned that I fucking rule lately?
- maybe, I dunno, nobody is listening anyway..neue75_bold
- i hear you, manPonyBoy
- version30
i heard you and saw your boobies in the window yesterday... bout time you started playing along...
- version30
"you're saying that a logo doesn't communicate anything unless it lives within a well-considered visual program, is that correct?"
i say that too, a mark only has the value we build behind it logos fail or succeed with the company...
cadillac is cadillac because of the word cadillac, its definition was that of luxury and opulence, now if you don't capitalize it, it's considered misspelled. it was the cars that got them that reputation, not the logo on the paper or embrandened™ on the hood
fedex hasn't succeeded because of a silly arrow, they succeed because it gets there faster and cheaper than UPS and without needing a signature
if any of these marks were the backbone to success you wouldn't see them changing with the times all willy nilly style, to a company a logo is a asset, no more than a copier, employee, or pen to be replaced whenever the company feels necessary
- I kinda disagree. A logo can represent on its own as a piece of design. But I hear what you're sayin'.luckyorphan
- design without purpose is art... the only people designing logos for nothing are crowdsourcedversion3
- A logo in a vacuum is a design waiting for its purpose to be fulfilled.gramme
- Crowdsourcing isn't art, it's the result of people thinking that design is a commodity.gramme
- ********0
Gramme, he does have a point though. Symbols don't exist within themselves. They are only defined by their relationships with other ideas, thoughts, and symbols. Very Baudrillard, but it makes sense.
For instance, the color red or the color blue have many preconceived values and notions and ideas placed upon them.
In more practical terms, that means a logo has to work well with all the other materials, or else it fails at its job. And the reverse, which I'm sure we've all experienced....a client that supplies us with his shitty, terrible logo that we have to try to design around, like some albatross around the neck of our designs.
- I agree, especially with the notion that a logo is only as good as the way it's used.gramme
- i.e., the things that surround it, the way it's reproduced, etc.gramme
- But isn't a well-designed logo always driven by ideas? So a logo means something, because it's based on research and thinking.gramme
- and thinking.gramme
- But I agree 100% that logos are useless in a vacuum.gramme
- neue75_bold0
I just used the logo as one example of a notion that exists in our industry that hasn't really changed much in the past half-century, other than maybe the idea of dynamic identities, which again is much more than just the logo... but to continue that thought, the only time a logo sits on it's own is say, when it's clustered with 30 others as an event sponsor at the bottom of a poster, even then you still have some context, not much, but some, chances are if I'm a church organisation, I'm not going to be sponsoring a satanic death metal concert, even in these liberal times... so the event and company should have something in common...
My business cards don't hand themselves out, I give them away, and even then, I don't throw it at someone and run in the other direction, we engage in conversation and generally what I do and how I feel about it comes up... My letterhead usually goes to those I've already dealt with in form of letter or invoice... I think you get the point...
Context and content should usually make it pretty clear what the company does.. the tone and manner of that should make the why and the how pretty clear...
- version30
i can't help but think companies need logos and not that logos need companies... i hope that makes sense
- version30
perfect example of a power brand whose visual has nothing to do with their product
- it depends on the words to workversion3
- I Like the "E" the best!utopian
- F represents a throwback to coffees roots and was a decision made by the ceoversion3
- "coffee tea spices"– they're making a reference to traders like east indian trading company, which DOES have a nautical backgroundscarabin
- backgroundscarabin
- i have no idea what you guys are arguing about though, just wanted to chime inscarabin
- scarabin, "it depends on the words to work"version3
- F is shite.gramme
- F LOOKS SO GOOOOOD I COULD FUCK ITpauli
- ********0
And to build on what neue75 is saying...
I'm not suggesting that a logo be devoid of meaning. But I have sometimes completely needed to change a logo around once I viewed it in working within a complete identity system (letterhead, packaging, etc). I realized the logo design that appeared to work in isolation fell flat once fully realized within a larger, more complete context.
That sorta thinking even extends outside the design realm. Can the logo and its role in our branding communicate well with both our customers and suppliers? Does it make us look foolish to some groups while being spot on for others? Is that a good thing, being insular?
The London 2012 logo is a great example of this "larger context" issue in action.
- neue75_bold0
You make a distinction between function and communication. Are they not one in the same?
Function is purely the mechanics in my books and whether things are logical and feasible to implement given the constraints..
Communication is communication.. At it's purest form imo and it's best, is when it clearly explains what is being sold... but then here's where the emotion comes in, when clients and designers start to explain why this product is right for _____ . Just tell me what it does, how much it costs, what goes into it and I'll decide whether it's right for me... I mean do you trust that your clients want anything more than results/sales and a good public perception?
Of course this is highly ridiculous and in most cases not possible but for me it's a case of best practice and I wish more designers warmed up to it...
- ********0
L
- ********0
Nick you really need to put up a portfolio, I'm starting to lose my faith in you old boy.
- ukit0
I think it's also an example of people's attitudes changing on the consumer end, we've almost become immune to traditional branding to an extent. Naturally after a while the consumer adapted and audiences are now more cynical and respond to a less formalized kind of communication. You see this in branding but the same thing is present in TV and movies that are forced to more closely mimic real life to be authentic. So what you're describing is probably more applicable in today's world than it was in the 50s or 60s when people would see an ad for a hula hoop or something and run down to the store to buy it because they were like lambs to the slaughter when it came to being marketed to. Now we're all cynical bastards and so obviously the requirements of what branding and advertising need to achieve have changed.
- fresnobob0
fib, the idea that "Symbols don't exist within themselves" is not "In more practical terms" the idea" that means a logo has to work well with all the other materials, or else it fails at its job." Your trying to reference postmodern philosophy to sound smart, but if you really knew what was up, you'd realize you're not right. The idea you are trying to reference would actually be more properly related with something like: "that means even if your client supplies you with a shitty logo, you can use your "branding" to create a new context for the logo thus making it an amazing logo." It also means things like "even if you thought you made a sick design today, it'll probably suck tomorrow because the meaning will have changed," and "dude, my friend told me this logo was dope but then everyone else told me it sucked so it really does depend on who you talk to." What it really means is that no matter how concise and clear your system is, no matter how amazing of a branding system you made around your amazing logo, the only one who is ever going to see it the way you see it is you, because you're the only one who had your exact set of experiences to build up your exact systems of meaning which led to you thinking your work was the shit, so it really doesn't matter.
- ********0
- version30
shit logo, mad success... in context with bob's personality it's fitting, what's your point? Actually, it really does matter. people have a hard time investing in things that haven't invested in themselves...
- ********0
The TriPrimality:
"Bob" is.
"Bob" becomes.
"Bob" is not.
Nothing is; Nothing becomes;
Nothing is not.Thus: Nothing Is Everything.
Therefore: Everything is "Bob."
Abracadabra.
- ********0
You need about 5 years of real world experience before you 'get it' and hopefully you can work with the some really great art directors and creative directors. Design school is useless.
- I take it that you never went to design school?utopian
- not sure what design school is, but art school is never useless...********
- and get experience in printing.********