> This is basically art and design critique by a pedant. "B-b-but their actions don't match their words" is the most uninspired of all criticisms.
You're required to be pedantic if you want to examine something with any rigor. And yes, I'm asking that the designers provide justifications that logically cohere with the logo they are selling.
> A logo is successful if it generates results, not if it is consistent with whatever principles the critic determines a good logo should adhere to.
This is weak. It's a sort of argument to immensity–that if a company is big enough, it can "almost do anything" at all. It's the same argument that Bierut made, and I don't buy it. It's an essentially anti-critical position. One cannot judge a logo by a large company because by sheer weight, they will make that logo stick.
Moreover, I'm not providing the criteria for judgment–I'm pulling them straight from Cooper's mouth.
> is basically the complaint of either unrecognized talent, or the untalented, against the institution for failing to recognize someone whose work follows all the rules, but lacks spirit.
Tu quoque fallacy.
> This, for me, betrays the true roots of this critique -- unexamined appreciation for all things old, and refusal to recognize merit in new interpretations or to, even temporarily, suspend judgment.
This is invalid on its face. Half this essay is devoted to critiquing a logo from 1964.
> The author's own logo fails many of the standards that he holds for these other logos.
w/r/t the pedantic point, it seems you're a bit stuck in the prison of the literal here. Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need to to be understood as books? I got that they were books before I read anything about it and it was a nice little moment. The current configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then seeing the books. Ultimately, that seems to me like a more rewarding and memorable experience than the letters MITP + color + typeface (no disrespect, Mr. Spiekermann). MIT press's audience isn't stupid, so in my personal opinion hiding a little puzzle in the logo is a nice touch.
I mostly agree with you in your response to the second point. I don't personally find as much fault with the readability issues because the logo would pretty much always be seen in the context required to make it decipherable, but I can understand why one might take issue with that. Ultimately, its important to remember that the logo is neither the brand nor a stand alone work of art. It is only a part of a system.
I think ultimately the pitfall of the don't make me think school of design is that it is susceptible to joyless, by the numbers design but I understand its utility. Also, ironically, one could probably say the same thing about modernist design.
Your article brings up some interesting points and valid criticisms, but I just don't personally agree with all of your values when it comes to design.
> Sure, the books couldn't sit on a real actual shelf, but do they really need to to be understood as books?
If Cooper is to be believed, then yes, we should.
> The current configuration allows for three separate moments of understanding: recognizing the symbol, seeing the letters, and then seeing the books.
If there had been no pretense to the second two elements being recognizable, then it would be no problem. Abstract symbols are more than acceptable. The issue arises when designers invent a story about a representation which is hardly represented at all. Until it is explained, most readers will not get to step two or three.
> Ultimately, its important to remember that the logo is neither the brand nor a stand alone work of art. It is only a part of a system.
True, and yet it's still important to design the logo intentionally for when there is no contextual system. If the logo is to be abstract, great. If not, that's also great. But no one should fool themselves about where they are on that spectrum.
> I think ultimately the pitfall of the don't make me think school of design is that it is susceptible to joyless, by the numbers design but I understand its utility. Also, ironically, one could probably say the same thing about modernist design.
Absolutely. I don't count myself as a member of the former school. I assert designers should merely be honest about their intentions.
> Your article brings up some interesting points and valid criticisms, but I just don't personally agree with all of your values when it comes to design.
Design critique is fine but this piece is riddled with personal attacks on Uber employees and political attacks on Uber as a company. You must realize this as well, as you changed the link "Uber is publicly struggling with its image" from a gossipy, political piece [1] to a more balanced piece [2] a few minutes ago.
You are mistaken. I have not changed any links. Those links were and are both there still next to each other.
Even if the article were some sort of political argument (I guess one could interpret it that way in the sense of internal design politics and management) it should not call into question its validity.
Id say your article was very informative and non bias. Of course your views are there but the information about per country palettes and whatnot was very depthy and rigorous. You did due diligence dont feel bad.
Apologies if my comment was overly critical; I am genuinely interested in your opinion; I am just unable to dig into the meat of your argument. For example, this recent post doesn't provide any depth besides "all modern western and european design is trending towards a common style I abhor".
As a fan of european modernist design history, I see the current trends and fashions in modern interface design trending towards the modernists of the 50s and 60s, towards the old swiss/international style. As a Designer (software developer) with a strong sense of "duty to the public", a modernist at heart, I see this as a good thing; towards that fabled "Common Standard", that goal of least subjective interpretation possible. It finally seems the fashion is to aim at an unattainable goal that provides improvements all round.
I don't understand how self expression has any place in Design, especially interface design.
> Apologies if my comment was overly critical; I am genuinely interested in your opinion; I am just unable to dig into the meat of your argument.
Criticism is the name of the game, no apologies necessary.
> ... a modernist at heart, I see this as a good thing; towards that fabled "Common Standard", that goal of least subjective interpretation possible...
So much juice there–too much for today. I have strong disagreements with modernist thought, as you know. But if the majority of designers were aware of what a principled modernist approach was, at least there might be a bit of coherence in the output.
Yes the media distorts things. But that does not mean that it is invalid to say 'this wouldn't have happened under Steve.' Jobs had clear differences from the new leadership.
Further, the media's inevitable distortion of stories should not make criticism something regrettable or something to hide in blog posts or podcasts. If the developers in question have legitimate grievances, which they clearly do, then those should be aired accessibly and publicly. Otherwise what's the point of writing them?
I personally think it's invalid to say "This wouldn't have happened under Steve" because it's impossible to falsify or verify. I think what people think someone else would have done, particularly someone they admire, is subject to a host of cognitive biases that say more about the speaker than the subject.
Your point about airing grievances is unrelated to kaolinite's point. kaolinite pointed out that when those individuals expressed regret, it was for reasons that did not fit the narrative you established in your essay. That you feel these individuals should not feel such regret is unrelated to whether or not it fits your narrative.
The article alludes to Guy Kawasaki's 'evanga-list' back in the 1990s which seems to be the source of the "Everyone thinks Apple is doomed" meme. I don't know if anyone has written up the whole story, but it's been discussed on various Mac fora over the years.
There are lots of 'this wouldn't have happened under Steve' things that are good. I think Steve was awesome, and I wish we would have had him for longer and gotten to enjoy more of his creations. That being said, Steve had a way of holding grudges, and being set in his ways when it was obvious things needed to change.
As a shareholder, I think Tim is doing an amazing job, and there are lots things he's improved that are more shareholder friendly than Steve (I know I know capitalism is terrible screw greedy shareholders blah blah, I'm saving for retirement dang it).
As a full time mobile developer, I definitely don't think things are any worse, and I think they've made changes for the better. I know developers aren't #1 by any means, but they aren't being completely ignored.
As a user of most things Apple, I'm happy with my iMac, iPhone, iPad, and even Apple TV (for the most part, could definitely be better. really hoping for App Store this summer and Amazon Prime access). Really though I've been hugely satisfied, and based on the customer satisfaction surveys most everyone else is too, moreso than for pretty much any other company out there.
I've just written a piece to back yours up. I'm media, but I'm tech media, so I have a buncha stories in my piece about how tough Apple is to deal with. I've been trying for years to write about CUPS, but Apple owns the guys who write it, and thus, I cannot interview them. Same for LLVM, though there are people outside Apple on that project, at least. I fail to see just what scintillating details about the next iPhone the guy maintaining the Common UNIX Printing System could give me, but Apple sure is convinced he's filled with hot scoops and must be kept from the public at all costs.
Apple's number one priority is secrecy. Developers are, like, #20 on that list.
Anyway, my piece will be up soon, and I linked to yours, Eli. Great stuff!
This week I continue the "Critical Sharks" series with a new post about Schmearing Colored Paint. You'll find out the connection between Apple and Jackson Pollock's drip paintings. You'll learn how the Japanese Superflat art movement influenced Material Design. Most importantly of all, you will understand what it takes to be a modernist illustrator.
