|
|
|
|
|
|
by tawpKek
3719 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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!