Tuesday, November 17, 2015

your turn #10

r. crumb, 1960s

Kula Robbins' Jenny On The Job, Advertising, Pre-Logo years, Fortune Magazine, Anton Stankowski, George Giusti, The International Typographic Style: Huber, Armin Hoffman's vector fonts, Müller-Brockmann's rational order, Paul Rand, Saul Bass, Chermayeff & Geismar, Logo History. What's in a LOGO?

17 comments:

lucy hynes said...

I thought the discussion on ethical advertising was an interesting concept to follow. As media and technology advance, advertising follows the same curve, and thusly becomes more innovative. I am not sure how anyone else feels about this, but I feel that these days I see more unethical advertising than ethical. I was thinking about whether there is even a place for ethical advertising in today’s cut throat economic market. I also feel that the need for advertising has become such an intuitive concept people are now often doing it without even realizing. Social media platforms such as facebook and instagram are often “designed” or “curated” in order to sell a certain image, or a lifestyle. A part of me misses the early days of advertising where clever ideas were sold instead of women’s sexualized and emaciated bodies (a generalization I know, but mostly accurate). Recent ad campaigns such as AirBnb’s controversial ads in San Francisco blur the line between propaganda and advertising often. The ethics of advertising in a modern capitalist society is a tricky one. When you consider the existence of companies such as Monsanto and associations with money such as the National Corn Growers Association (responsible for ads telling “the truth” about high fructose corn syrup), should they have equal access to advertising?

Becca Magrino said...

Class on Monday was one of my favorites of the semester. I loved all of the logos, icons, and symbols. My favorite part of our discussion was probably the section on Swiss Design in the 1950s, particularly the posters by the different Swiss Artists. The works by Max Huber, Anton Stankowski, Siegfried Odermatt, and Rudolph DeHarak were so wonderful to be introduced to. Stankowski's work is so simplistic, made up of simple geometric shapes, yet so interesting to look at and really catches your eye. Odermatt's work is so impressive because it composed of so few elements and has such a striking effect that makes you want to keep staring at it. the "swissair" poster is incredible. It amazes me that these artists created what they did with only pencils and paint and no computers or programs. Their technical skill and creative powerhouse make them incredibly impressive. What I wonder is what could they do if they had programs such as Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop? Would this make them even better designers or hinder their workflow? Do the programs make us more capable designers or just lend a hand to those of us who lack drawing skills?

Becca Magrino

Anonymous said...

I think a logo is all about brand recognition, the simpler the better, and of course the audience is extremely important. Let me just mention a few: swoosh, golden arches, bitten fruit silhouette, a split U, etc… The logo is very important because it must stand out and be recognizable among many. It has to be memorable and evoke connection between the company and the consumer, it has to be simple and have a clean look that when is reproduced in a smaller version it maintains the same standards as a large logo, and it doesn’t necessarily has to show what the company does, for example airline logos do not need to have an airplane on their logo. The creator needs to be careful with the colors chosen, as some colors mean different things, and must be educated on the priorities of the company in order to produce a logo that tells a story. The logo needs to be memorable and appropriate as it’s seen as a representation of the company. The company wants to have brand recognition, therefore must choose carefully what the logo will be in order to achieve a lasting impression. The University of Miami is a good example for this exercise, as we all know the split U is recognized everywhere, therefore something that started with football has made its way up to company branding. The U is so powerful that we gave up the simple University of Miami logo for a much simpler but more powerful version. For example, the UM License Plate gave up Sebastian as the logo for the split []_[], but it was all in order to refresh the look and take advantage of the power of the []_[] and the community. - Walleska Lacayo

Anonymous said...

To me the most interesting topic of Monday’s class was the swiss design. It has always been on of my favorite types of design, simple but bold and strong. Its edgy details gives it the strength it has and the use of little amount of color just makes it that much stronger. It amazes me how the swiss were able to create this style, which is so widely used today. Everyone knows that styles come back, but for it to stay without leaving and coming back shows the importance and usability of the style. To bring this conversation more towards logos, I first think of what is a logo. To me a logo is the representation of an image, a brand. Its like the face of an entire identity. Like we had talked about in the beginning of the semester, design is everything so from this I think that we can say that if we each have a typography that has similarities to us than we each might also have a logo. Something that represents us, our image and our personal brand. In this day in age, I believe, like many, that people are their own brand. Which means that they also have a typography and logo that represents them.
Zina Dornbusch

Anonymous said...

Logo design is (in my opinion) one of the hardest things to do in Graphic Design, especially now. “Branding” has become more important than the company itself, because we live in a digital world and everything is about the visuals so the pressure is on. If the design is not effective enough, you lose the client’s interest in a matter of seconds. Building a strong brand wasn’t as essential for a company’s survival in the market as it is today. And even though it is very inspiring to see the works of masters like Saul Bass or Paul Rand, one cannot help but feel intimidated from time to time as a student. With so much technology and it being so accessible, technically any kid can make a “decent” logo, so in order to make an emblematic, successful design, one has to look for guidance in principles of psychology, philosophy, sociology, etc. It is a tremendous responsibility. As a designer, you are “creating a persona”, a symbol to represent the personality of a brand, that’s like creating a face or a being. And of course, you want it to be likable and appealing.

I’ve put some links below with articles that talk about psychological effects of different colors and shapes as well as lines in logo design. I hope they are useful.

http://www.idesigni.co.uk/blog/psychology-of-logo-design/

http://www.creativebloq.com/logo-design/psychology-logo-shapes-8133918

http://www.inc.com/larry-kim/the-psychology-of-logo-color-in-how-consumers-view-your-brand-infographic.html

Alejandra Jimenez.

Katie Luddy said...

The evolution of logos was very intriguing! As we looked over many logos and their evolution I couldn't help but realize how much logos impact us everyday. Logos today dominate the world we live in, it is on our clothing, our cars, our universities, our homes, television, etc.
What makes a logo good or bad? We talked about the four key image elements that make up the logo of the company's personality and worth. For the world today, I feel like a logo can make or break a company. We witnessed many logos of very well known companies sort of lose their uniqueness in their logo design over the years, is it due to the fact that the company knows that they are famous enough to slack on their logo design because the world will still know who they are?
Also, for many people today they see a logo and instantly know who the company is. The logo for a person can instill a sense of comfort in the reliability in the product/company and can also be used to show status. The logo is much more than a design, it has become a part of our lives and is a personal matter for most.
Change, most people don't like change. A great example that has been in the news lately is the change in Starbucks Holiday cups. The logo has evolved over the years but the space they display their logo the most is on there cups. I would consider this part of their logo design. A simple change from holiday designs on a red background with the logo last year, to a plain red with the logo this year has created a ton of controversy over a simple design switch. Maybe this switch was intentional by the company, but it sure does show that a change so simple has created such a personal uproar among the supporters to the Starbucks company.

Below is a link for more on the Starbucks red cup controversy:
http://fortune.com/2015/11/14/starbucks-red-cup-controversy-american-consumers/

- Katie Luddy

Anonymous said...

The topic we discussed that interested me the most was logos. I have taken graphic design since high school and was required to make multiple logos and incorporate logos into design. I'm also an advertising major so I understand that logos can be a very influential part of a companies brand and perception. I like logos specifically though because I like how such a small, usually simple image can be such an impactful thing for a company and can be very successful in conveying a message. Logos have even been known to be so impactful that they can create scandal and uproar. I also enjoyed learning about the famous, influential logo creators; I never realized how many of the logos that I've always admired they have created. Overall, the reason I like logos is because of their simplicity, yet power to convey a message.
-Alejandra Madrid

Anonymous said...

It was incredible to learn about Roger Cook, Don Shanosky, and the history behind their Symbol Signs during last class. For starters, I had no idea that these famous symbols were created almost forty years ago (early 1970s), and yet are still being used today! I also didn’t know that all of these various symbols were crafted by a small committee of people (Cook and Shanosky), and not contributed to by several graphic designers and artists over the years. Learning that made me respect and revere the work of these two men all the more, because everywhere you turn (the airport, public transport, the restroom), these iconic icons are present, practical, and helpful. And then, the revelation that had me re-evaluating my life for the past few days: the length of the woman’s skirt in the icon that graces women’s restrooms worldwide, was actually a SYMBOLIC REFLECTION OF WOMEN’S LIBERATION! Seriously, my mind was blown.

-Rachel Watkins

Fabiola Perez said...

In our last discussion, I found the series of Jenny on the job to be very interesting. It was a way to get women into the work force to compensate for all of the men that wet away to war. I found it very interesting how this woman was portrayed. First, she is beautiful, and a woman that many women of the time would aspire to look like. She looks as though she can do anything. She works and even has time to enjoy herself after work. She does her job well and also has time to come home and get her beauty sleep. This was clearly a way to get women into the workforce. It made it sound very appealing and something that would be looked highly upon. It even attempts to make work attire appealing.
I also really likes the seeing all of the logos created by Paul Rand. He created many logos that we see today, and that have become so normal to us that we don't even think about it. I found it interesting that he resigned from Yale because the appointed a postmodern designer. He was not a fan of the post modern movement to say the least. He was influenced by artists like Cezanne, Picasso, and Duchamp because he saw them as innovative. They challenged the ordinary which is what he arrived to do.
Fabiola Perez

Anonymous said...

I was so excited to see several names I recognize on the list of designers today, especially Saul Bass and who I would like to talk about today: Armin Hofmann. Characterized for its asymmetry, sans serif typefaces, and clean and clear design, the Swiss style of design was lovingly cultivated by several people, including Armin Hofmann. While Josef Müller Brockmann was seen as the 'father of the grid' in the development of the Swiss style, Hofmann was seen as the father of color in many ways. His posters are known for being almost entirely in black and white with small occasional pops of color. He believed that advertising and other materials had taken away from the true meaning and purpose of color in design, stating, "primary in black and white posters is to counteract the trivialization of color as it exists today on billboards and in advertising." I agree with Hofmann on this matter that even today, the world of marketing and art is so over saturated with color that it doesn't contain the same impact as it did back in a time where print, television, and other materials were almost exclusively black and white. Swiss design prioritizes this idea of leading someone through a piece of art or design with a very obvious hierarchy of information happening in a piece. Today, I think many people have a problem focusing on what is really important in a piece of design and often place several dominating focus areas in one poster or billboard (which are usually differentiated through the use of color). The unfortunate downside of this is competing messages and a noticable decrease in the strength of the design. By eliminating color except in small, deliberate areas, the focus is brought back on the meaning and message of a piece.

-Samantha Richard

Anonymous said...

I was incredibly intrigued when we talked about what goes into designing a logo and how we don’t realize how much skill it really takes to make a good one. It takes knowing the company inside out, creative genius, and a vision unlike anyone else. When it was mentioned that the ultimate challenge was to design a logo that represents yourself, I was stumped. Trying to think of one symbol out of all the symbols ever created (or even not yet created) that embodies who you are seems like an impossible task. There is a theory of human motivation proposed by Abraham Maslow that says people move through a pattern of growth and development in a series of steps referred to as “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.” The steps include (in order) physiological needs, safety needs, love/belonging, self esteem, and finally, self-actualization. In order to reach the last step, one must fulfill all the steps that come before it. I think that to truly make a logo that represents yourself, you need to reach self-actualization, the point at which you have all your needs met and you are strong and confident in who you are. Some people never reach this ultimate step of self-actualization; but Saul Bass and Paul Rand were both artists who accomplished a wide variety of things—including the mastery of the logo—something I believe to be one of the hardest tasks to do.

-Jamie Port

Anonymous said...


For my discussion this week I wanted to learn a little bit more about the designs leading up to Kula Robbins “Jenny on the job”. Beginning with the original Rosie the Riveter created in 1942 by Pittsburgh artist J. Howard Miller who was hired by the Westinghouse Company’s War Production Coordinating Committee to create a series of posters for the war effort encouraging women to sign up for work. Saturday Evening Post cover artist, Norman Rockwell, created another version of “Rosie the Riveter” in May 29th,1943. It is interesting to see the influence of Robbins work, especially the way that “jenny” is portrayed. The character offers an example to other women, probably new to industrial jobs, on working safely and efficiently, doing her best to help the war effort.

-Silvana Arguello

Anonymous said...

As a designer, I've created many logos. Not all for projects, but mostly for myself. For some reason a lot of people think that it's not hard to make one, when it reality it's difficult. You're trying to give a brand, company or client an identity. A small quote by Saul Bass proves that. He said, “Symbolize and summarize.” There is a lot of work that goes into making one logo. Sketching, typography, sizing and so on. As graphic designers we can admit that logo designing can be very tedious. I mentioned last week that in order to be a great designer, you have to love it. You have to love what you do to not only do it, but to do it well. Seeing all logos that we did proves that. All the work and designing that went into making every single one is admirable. Logos can be the biggest pain in butt to design, but to me they're also the most fun.

Alicia Veasy

Anonymous said...

Spencer Schladant

I missed the last two classes unfortunately, but from reading the blog on my own time the work of Anton Stankowski struck me as it resembled the abstract expressionist work of Barnett Newman. Newman was more linear and plain with his color field paintings and his concept of the "zip", where as Stankowski adopted a more complex style of design with more varied shapes and color, however they both remain largely abstract and geometric. I found that it became easier to understand the concept of metadesign when comparing the two artists works. Newman would often attempt to achieve a sense of space, narrative, or commentary with his paintings, where as Stankowski used the design for design. I just like that both artists were around during the same time period and made similar works, but they have much different meanings, which puts more emphasis on design as its own section of art history.

Sabrina Tomlinson said...

I think it was interesting all the talk about logos recently. Four out of my six classes have referenced logos and their importance. As a graphic design student, I was already well aware of their importance and value, but the fact that it keeps popping up in my life just seems to prove that even more. As of late, many of my friends have approached me asking me to help them brand and symbolize who they are by helping them create a logo for their personal brand. I was discussing this with one of my friends earlier today and is personal branding or logo creation or the obsession with one's mark on the world the future? Or is it just capitalism becoming materialized through a new generation. With technology changing and getting better everyday, are we on to a more mechanical, capitalistic future or is the new art of logo design something that will become seen more so as art or is it just in the business of promotion?

Ashlee Fabian said...

I thought that our lecture about logo and the complexity of logo design was really fascinating. In a world where we are bombarded with advertisements and product placement, it is hard to imagine the origins of such iconic brands' logos. Logos are at times so pervasive that we have nicknames for certain things based off the logo, eg. "The Golden Arches" and even strong opinions about innovations made to it. Also, we can often determine certain companies, brands, and franchises by just seeing the logo, eg. Logo quiz, which is a very strong form of brand recognition and, as we all know, psychologically familiarity breeds liking. It takes a very skilled designer to create something that is often 2 opposite things such as distinctly memorable, while still simple, or novel without deviating from the traditional design. Before this discussion, I tended to think of logos as bred from a necessity for representation or as just another gimmick used to sell products, but now I have far more respect for the work involved in constructing them and the importance they have to each company. Logos are probably the most subtle and under appreciated art form in our everyday lives.

Anonymous said...

I was really interested in the whole history of logo design and how it really affects the consumers. From what I gathered, the first logos in the 19th century to the mid 20th century were more detailed and even evaded the purpose of being an easy identifier of the brand. With the maturation of modernity, designers also matured their styles for logo production, almost to the point of creating a formula for an effective product. Whilst the digital revolution, logos suffered not from a design change, but from a transition in expression vehicle. In other words, logos started to be used for self-branding or to assert ones personality. That development made me think how if we expand that factual historical knowledge into a generalized social phenomenon, we can see how our own society has changed throughout the centuries. How people now feel a need to be social and generate an image to the world using social media. I mean, throughout history kings and other royals had their own form of "logos" in family crests, but it seemed to be less personalized and more of a family business. I am interested in seeing how logos will transition in the future.

Anne De Souza.