↵

You Could Almost Do Anything Pt. III(elischiff.com)

over 7 years ago from Eli Schiff, elischiff.com

  • Sacha GreifSacha Greif, over 7 years ago

    I feel like there's a bit of confusion between logos and identities here. The logo is just one part of the identity. You can have a completely uninteresting logo (like the slash, the rectangle, etc.) but still have an amazing identity built around it. In fact, simple geometric logos like this often make it easier to base an identity around them.

    8 points
    • Eli SchiffEli Schiff, over 7 years ago

      I feel like there's a bit of confusion between logos and identities here.

      The confusion is on the part of the commenters. One must be permitted to criticize a logo proper.

      You can have a completely uninteresting logo

      Why would you want to?

      In fact, simple geometric logos like this often make it easier to base an identity around them.

      Ease of creating an identity doesn't necessarily make a better identity.

      1 point
      • Sacha GreifSacha Greif, over 7 years ago

        Sure you can criticize a rectangle or slash if you'd like, but that's not very interesting. Every logo doesn't need to be a fancy, textured works of art.

        This whole attitude reminds me a bit of people seeing a work of modern art and going "my four year old could do that!", ignoring the fact that what makes the piece great is placing it in the context of the artist's entire body of work.

        1 point
        • Eli SchiffEli Schiff, over 7 years ago

          Every logo doesn't need to be a fancy, textured works of art.

          Logos for the most part should be designed flat–but their contours should certainly be elegant. Otherwise what's compelling about them?

          This whole attitude reminds me a bit of people seeing a work of modern art and going "my four year old could do that!"

          I have a section about three year olds 'artists' in this piece.

          what makes the piece great is placing it in the context of the artist's entire body of work.

          A collection of bad work doesn't make the work any less bad.

          0 points
    • Chris LeeChris Lee, over 7 years ago

      Couldn't agree more.

      Focusing so much on the mark itself is missing the point — nothing is created without context. Criticizing a logo and ignoring its support structure is like criticizing a song because of its time signature ("Oh great, another 4/4. What happened to creativity?").

      If you can own a shape — color, pattern, angle, whatever — your logo becomes about as important as a stamp. At that point, even spelling out your name can be unimportant.

      A simple, memorable (if indistinct) mark is actually advantageous when these are your goals. It gives you flexibility to grow and build, where something highly specific can often paint you into a corner.

      0 points