|
So, what i think is missing is this link that explains exactly what this dude is writing about: Thanks for everyone’s input on the new logo! We’ve had
the same logo for 20+ years, and this is just one of the
things we’re changing. We know this logo created a lot of
buzz and we’re thrilled to see passionate debates
unfolding! So much so we’re asking you to share your
designs. We love our version, but we’d like to see other
ideas. Stay tuned for details in the next few days on this
crowd sourcing project. [1]
So, in this context, i think the rant makes a bit more sense. Equally funny is iso50's description of this as "a tropicana,"[2] which is a zing i never thought i'd hear.But, i want to throw out there that this impulse to violently reject or passionately protect logos has an analog in language. "All living languages are always changing"[3] and same goes for logos and brand identities. Much like language or fashion, logos evolve and whatever. And for everyone that's all "oh that's shite, i could do better," I invite you to really try your hand at this sort of thing with actual real life constraints and (gasp!) real life clients. There's all sorts of design work you can do without a client, but it takes a special type to actually, you know, design for somebody else and more hopefully, design with someone else. [1]: http://www.facebook.com/gap/posts/159977040694165
[2]: http://blog.iso50.com/2010/10/06/gap-redesign-contest/
[3]: http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-change.cfm edit formatting goofs always get me |