June 28, 2005
Art Chantry Talks logos
No date on this article (something that bugs me), but I am a Chantry fan.
In the last 20 years especially, there has been a deconstruction of the purpose of logo design. I think that in many instances, logos have become unnecessary. Everyone thinks they need one, that a logo is the logical thing. But many companies have no head person at their lead anymore: Instead, a board of directors, running on fear and the desire to make money, are in charge. Maybe an abstract, mindless logo is the perfect answer to that, he says.The designer would like to see designers return to the tenets of the trademark—essentially, what a logo was called before branding cast its oppressive shadow over everything. A successful trademark could be abstract or illustrative or somewhere in between, but it represented its company A) by creating a dialogue with the viewer and B) without the necessity of a word descriptor nestled up close to it. A logo isn't working if it needs subtitles to explain it, he says.
Comments
Wow Kevin, you certainly did get fired up. How the hell are ya by the way?
I agree, I was confused by the art shown and the tone and message of the text. At the same time though I liked the description of a "trademark" vs. a "logo", and I also grow tired of the emphasis placed on "logo" concepting.
I it is from statements like:
"In the last 20 years especially, there has been a deconstruction of the purpose of logo design. I think that in many instances, logos have become unnecessary"
That the marks for Estrus Records come from. As a result of forward progress in design the logo has been deconstructed, and in our time of immediacy and instant gratification, a evolving changing logo which speaks to the creative idea surrounding each project, fits more with our time than the useless swoosh or blobby person mark. When in reality companies in our current environment are chaning logo marks every 3-4 years anyway.
Posted by: Anthony | July 6, 2005 08:44 AM
So, am I totallly misunderstanding what Chantry is saying.
When I read the article it sounds like he is saying that we need to get back to making logos that mean something. That designers have (through our deconstruction of the purpose of logo design) devalued the visual content of logos so much that companies would be better off without one then the piece of crap they have now.
I guess to me that means that logos shouldn't be flighty and disposable.
When he says stuff like "Logos have become a corporate addiction: Everyone has to have one, but nobody is quite sure why. As a result, in his eyes, they have become impotent accessories that look nice but really aren’t necessary—the cuff buttons on the corporate identity power suit, if you will."
I know he is referring to the swooshes and blobs but 5+ logos for Urban Outfitters seems a bit like corporate cuff buttons to me. Yes they are much, much nicer than the swooshes and blobs but I just can't label them logos. Maybe I'm just not grasping the evolution of the logo. Or having trouble letting go of my defenition of one.
Anyway . . . things are going well. Working too much still but it sounds like you are too. At least your company is willing to hire somebody else. I'm really starting to think that it is time to jump ship over here. Anybody know any design postitions that are available for someone who doesn't know any web design. (I'm so 1996). We're going to California in a week for my brothers wedding, then we'll take our time coming back and camp along the Oregon coast.
Ya know, there is plenty of affordable
housing up here in Canada. Don't worry, the winters aren't too cold.
Posted by: KVN | July 7, 2005 01:32 PM