Is there no objectivity in logo design?
My first reaction to the six logos laid out in an August Orange Coast article, “Logos We ♥,” was that these logos are terrible. But of course it’s just my opinion that these logos suck. I wondered whether there was some objective measure by which I could support my point.
In search of an answer, I first visited a hilarious site, YourLogoMakesMeBarf.com. Appearing on this site doesn’t prove that a logo is bad, but it seems like pretty strong evidence. Looking at the categories on the right-hand side of the page, notice how the barf-worthy logos have started to sort themselves into groups of awfulness. Maybe some of these categories could be considered “do not do’s” for logo design. The easiest to objectively identify are:
- Anthropomorphism
- Use of clipart
- Resemblance to something unintended and inappropriate (e.g., genitalia)
- Use of stick figures
- Use of the infamous “swoosh”
- Using text to create objects
Hi-Time has committed anthropomorphism (#1), and the Clints Formal Wear logo is definitely guilty of #6. So I have some ammunition to back up those assertions, at least. More subjective criteria for “good” design include simplicity and appropriate font usage.
You won’t see most of the world’s major identity design firms committing these careless sins, however. (There is, of course, a difference between the allure of a homey, amateur, local-business logo and a corporate, professionally-designed, global-business logo—as there should be.) And this is where it really gets subjective—when you get to statements like this one, on Kriszha Krishna’s post about the 10 Taboos for Company Logo Design (many of which overlap with the list above):
A Logo without a concept is like hiring masons to build a house without any engineer or architect. You will build a house in the end, but not many guests. Always better to start the logo design process with a brainstorming session with the client and sketch out your ideas with a pencil and papers.
Or this one from an article by Siegel+Gale’s chief creative officer, Howard Belk:
Every trademark that has achieved the exalted status of iconic symbol has one common foundation that underlies its particular design. They all express a single idea. The concepts behind these symbols transcend their products. They are drawn from the brand positioning, corporate values, and emotional profiles of what they represent.
Who’s to say whether a logo expresses a single idea, what that idea is, and whether it’s been expressed in a way that is both compelling and distinctive? There’s a recent slideshow on CNNMoney.com that goes through some of the most significant logo redesigns of all time. Whatever the interviewees are using to determine which logos are great (IBM) and which are “painful” (Xerox), it isn’t whether or not they express a single idea.
I also found a well-organized post on Logo Design Love that goes through some of the less popular creations from top ID firms (from 2007 and early 2008, at least) and links to opinions on other blogs. The author’s question is whether, at this level of the logo design game, there’s such thing as bad publicity. If not, I suppose that once a designer is able to avoid the mistakes made by Clints Formal Wear and Hi-Time Wine Cellar, their designs not only lack objective criteria for quality, but even a consensus of opinion that a logo is awful might in fact mean that it’s great. Just try convincing the client of that.
comment
Nice and informative article about logo design
This list will be EXTREMELY useful!
Thank you very much.
Please Leave a Reply
TrackBack URL :
agree with you that the logos shown are terrible. and the different viewpoints you highlight are very informative. specifically the subjectivity between a homey, homemade logo and a professional, corporate logo. I’m going to use that quote. thanks for the article.