What I see in front of me is a rectangle with a green stroke.
Few logos survive without context (even your own, Eli).
Not two weeks after I published my piece on the trajectory of the HP logo, Vlad Savov of The Verge published a masterwork of a puff piece on the Moving Brands HP logo and its "perfection."
Why do we, as designers, care what Vlad from The Verge has to say? He enjoyed the logo, and I happen to agree with him there, but ultimately he's a tech reporter writing an opinion piece, not a design tastemaker. Or does this remark only exist to imply that your article had an influence over the writings of a "mainstream" site?
I think the thing I dislike most about your articles is their overwrought self-importance. This entire three part series should have been, at most, three paragraphs and a few images. But I guess you got so caught up in what you could do, you forgot to think about what you should do.
If you look hard enough, you can see servers!
I think even Eli would have to agree that here is an abstract logo that DOES have a strong metaphor, a link to the real world... the magazine border.
It does indeed!
and yet everyone (instantly) recognises what this stands for.
Schiff critiques the overly theoretical approach of modernists, which ok, modernism can lead down some dark paths. But he commits the same sin by ignoring the everyday reality of creating logos and branding companies.
Why is the HP Enterprise logo a "a rectangle with a green stroke"? I'd guess because they do tons of very different, very abstract things, and someone wanted a business card that wasn't all text. It will never need to stand on it's own or even be identified in a logo lineup because it's enterprise.
He should take a moment to consider that logos and brands are created in a real world that is filled with real people all jockeying for different outcomes with different expectations. You can't critique the outcome of this process without at least acknowledging the process itself.
Wow, I had no idea Microsoft "generously" compensated Kim for his rebranding, I thought they just hired him.
I wonder how much was driven by his quality work, and how much was driven by legal/PR teams considering how Microsoft's wordmark was so close to his original design.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
clickbait at its finest... he just wants money from advertisers. Nothing changes article to article, little nuance or difference in opinion, style, tone or subjectivity.
I think your voice in this piece is much more neutral, which I think a lot of commenters had been asking for. Curious to see if others feel the same... though I kind of miss the more bombastic style :P
But, as anyone who has seen or used the subsequent Windows operating systems knows, the paradigm that Microsoft spearheaded was explicitly designed to be flat, and lack perspective. Scher's embrace of perspective was the polar opposite of the minimalist project Microsoft was engaging in. Her logo was wholly inappropriate for the context.
This is not accurate tho. The logo works really well with metro UI, BECAUSE there is subtle connection in perspective: when you hover over the tiles, the tile does tilt animation, which would result in similar perspective as the logo. This is masterfully done in my opinion.
Great observation–I was backwards on that point!