A logo serves the purpose of identifying an entity in the interactions it has with the outside world. If people associated with the entity are allowed to use the logo, its purpose is to communicate their connection to the entity. It follows that a lack of uniformity in the logo is at odds with its fundamental purpose. In other words, an institutional or organizational logo is not a form in which to express personal individuality. That is done, simply and effectively, by placing the name of an individual in association with the logo. The logo itself should not change.
MIT Media Lab has entirely subverted the basic function of a logo by turning it into a logo-generating system. Instead of using a single logo for all those associated with the media Lab its new creation generates up to 40,000 unique variations of the "logo," using three basic shapes. This may be an enjoyable medium of personal expression for students and faculty but it does not produce a logo. A logo would give the world a single, powerful image expressing the mission or philosophy or philosophy of the Media Lab. This so-called "logo" offers a hodge-podge of shape and color which quickly become meaningless decorations. Variety and color do not substitute for selectivity and precision when it comes to logos. The following 12 out of the purported 40,000 variations are sufficient to show the silliness of this muddle.
The logo is the last place where a designer would want countless permutations. It may have seemed like a clever artistic conceit to introduce algorithmic variation into the logo of an organization where algorithms are so revered. But it was not focused on the true purpose of a logo. Generating 40,000 variations is simply antithetical to the idea of a logo.
What better indication of the mistaken focus of this algorithm than the fact it is praised as being "as personal as a Social Security number." Would anyone accept a social security number as a logo for the entity known as the United States? Would the barcode of a soap powder product be recognized as the logo of a supermarket chain?
One of the beauties of great logo design is its economy and elegance. It is not necessary to generate endless variations once the powerful, unitary and evocative symbol has been chosen. The individual who uses such a powerful logo does not need the ego boost of generating a customized mutation. The pride of association should attach to the symbol not to the individual's personal modification of it. Perhaps this is the root of the problem. A "logo" that panders to the individual's importance to the extent of designing itself out of existence points to a collection of selfish and needy individuals, not a real organization.
MIT Media Lab has entirely subverted the basic function of a logo by turning it into a logo-generating system. Instead of using a single logo for all those associated with the media Lab its new creation generates up to 40,000 unique variations of the "logo," using three basic shapes. This may be an enjoyable medium of personal expression for students and faculty but it does not produce a logo. A logo would give the world a single, powerful image expressing the mission or philosophy or philosophy of the Media Lab. This so-called "logo" offers a hodge-podge of shape and color which quickly become meaningless decorations. Variety and color do not substitute for selectivity and precision when it comes to logos. The following 12 out of the purported 40,000 variations are sufficient to show the silliness of this muddle.
The logo is the last place where a designer would want countless permutations. It may have seemed like a clever artistic conceit to introduce algorithmic variation into the logo of an organization where algorithms are so revered. But it was not focused on the true purpose of a logo. Generating 40,000 variations is simply antithetical to the idea of a logo.
What better indication of the mistaken focus of this algorithm than the fact it is praised as being "as personal as a Social Security number." Would anyone accept a social security number as a logo for the entity known as the United States? Would the barcode of a soap powder product be recognized as the logo of a supermarket chain?
One of the beauties of great logo design is its economy and elegance. It is not necessary to generate endless variations once the powerful, unitary and evocative symbol has been chosen. The individual who uses such a powerful logo does not need the ego boost of generating a customized mutation. The pride of association should attach to the symbol not to the individual's personal modification of it. Perhaps this is the root of the problem. A "logo" that panders to the individual's importance to the extent of designing itself out of existence points to a collection of selfish and needy individuals, not a real organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment