If this discussion were strictly about a logo in and of itself, I wouldn't really care. But this discussion dug deeply into issues of artistic contribution and how the public perceives, receives and rejects it.
It's not my style to be publicly critical of artists, being an artist myself. However, the logos presented by the UH administration were publicly roasted by many people who said they could do better and for much cheaper. Perhaps the people who were vocal about the logos may have sent in their own submissions. I'm not certain. But at this point in the game, having seen the kind of criticism dished out to the the Mainland firm, anyone submitting a design challenging the firm's work should at least be ready to receive criticism as well.
About the Submissions
I have a couple points:
- Hawaii Stereotypes Revisited. I know several people were complaining that the two scrapped logos embodied Mainland stereotypes of Hawaii. But I also think the reader/viewer submissions did just the same. I don't need to see the eight islands plopped upon an "H" for me to get that it's Hawaii. And if the ocean, flowers and palm trees aren't the stereotypical Hawaii, then I don't know what is.
- Lack of Simplicity. The submissions are too busy, and they force too many literal images together. They cobble all kinds of generic concepts into a basket. Ultimately, they lack elegance and depth.
Logos, like any artistic product, should make other feel emotions. That end result often does not come about through chaos, but through simplicity. Some of the most powerful logos of all time? To name a few:
- The cross
- The Swastika
- The Nike "swoosh"
Posted by ruth at May 06, 2003 06:42 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment