I’d be very interested in seeing some of your hand-hewn trademark designs jay. Your website appears to be a domain-park portal but maybe you could post some examples, maybe you’ve posted some previously? I see you’re based in Seattle. I suppose Art Chantry is a good example of the sort of logo/trademark designer you are advocating, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Slightly confused by one thing, however. The examples posted in this thread are clearly logotypes (by your own deﬁnition) so where does all the heat regarding trademarks come from? I also ﬁnd your self-proclaimed idealism troubling, particularly in respect to a highly ﬁltered design history: “typographers of the past knew many things that we are losing today due to ignorance and computer convenience. the more you discard your craft and treat it idly the more standards of excellence we lose, and the bigger the onslaught of ignorant graphic design hacks we create.” Well, ignorant hacks will always be with us (and always have been in one way or another). Can you put a timeline to your trademark golden age?
> no typeface can account for every individual letter pairing possible It’s not that simple. — > the good people trying to ﬁnd a mark for a band are again bogged down I don’t think anybody is really being bogged down by jay (that would be stupid), except maybe feeling compelled to type a bit more than usual. And even that has a beneﬁt: arguing with people of diﬀerent rhetorical strategies hones your skills. hhp
thank you hrant, i couldn’t agree more. this topic we have gotten oﬀ on is very relevant to the issues started in this post. the fact is that people who don’t know any better stumble on to these sorts of boards and perceive them as the upper echelon of typographic pursuit. when they see that all people are doing is typing things in on there computers they begin to think this is how it’s done. i can’t tell you how many students i’ve had to guide oﬀ this path. bj, i must apologize. i had no idea you were not a designer. i’m sorry, it seems you got singled out here. it’s great though that you are even interested enough in this subject to visit a site like this. steve, the fact is that even if trade is not the primary purpose (which is very rare) and it is still not a logotype then what is it? i say if you are looking for a blanket term which is what logo has become then a better term is trademark. that’s it. this topic really needs to go no further than this. simon, sorry about the website i’m putting together something new at the moment (you know how that goes). in all actuality i was brought to this site, a few weeks back, by a friend who had said one of my marks was posted here and that people where trying to ﬁgure out what typeface it was (little did they know it wasn’t a typeface). you brought up art chantry. i teach at the same school up here as art taught at. though i don’t go for his aesthetic, i respect the work he does. many of these marks are logotypes, you are correct. they should still be done by hand though. the logotype vs. trademark debate stems from the fact that logo is thrown around with little knowledge of what it really means. as far as your last question goes, i’m not quite sure i understand what you’re getting at. david, glad to see that someone else gets the value of what i’m saying here.
Hmmm. I guess it’s no surprise that you totally mistunderstood my point(s). Unless it’s a spin tactic, which however is exactly the sort of thing that never works against me. And I think your students would beneﬁt greatly by hearing the other side of the story, not least via Typophile. hhp
“as a last note (i think i already mentioned this) the use of the word logo is incorrect.” The english language is not a set of facts and rules cast in stone. It morphs and is really controlled by common usage amongst the masses. Today, in everyday conversation, the common term for any mark that is used to ID a product, person, company, etc. is ‘logo’. People also use wordmark, trademark, logotype, bug, icon, etc. So while your historical deﬁnition has merit, it really serves no purpose to debate its use in every day language. Except for sounding elite in client meetings and/or gaining from the enjoyment in partaking in silly debates online ;o) As for using custom type for every client, if you can do it, and feel that it is so important, then more power to you. Custom type is often a great solution. That said, there are a lot of great typefaces out there that make great raw materials for a logo/logotype/trademark/whateveryouwanttocallit Personally, I don’t side with either argument…it all depends on the needs of the client, budget, timeline, etc.
alright hrant lets get down to it then. i stated “no typeface can account for every individual letter pairing possible” while you stated “It’s not that simple”. you’re being a little open ended here. care to explain in more detail. as far as this statment of yours; “arguing with people of diﬀerent rhetorical strategies hones your skills.” i agree one hundred percent. care to tell me what i’ve missed here.
darrel, these things have all been said further up in the post. you are too quick to dismiss elitism. i ﬁnd it hard to believe that you would be here in this forum or even a designer if you did not believe in these types of social hierarchies. as a designer the only thing that separates you from the horde of people with the right tools is elitism. your sense of color, style, skill, craft with typography, etc. are all subjective and scrutinized by opinion. your mom may think she’s a designer because she has a computer but is she? maybe, but most likely not. why is that… because we as elitists don’t think she is. where are your standards? do they lie in the falsehoods of humility? i think people on this board are being hypocrites by denouncing these things.
that’s what i thought hrant…
Note however that very few people get avoided by me. So at least in this case, you are the problematic singularity. hhp
“that’s what i thought hrant…” your provocation is wearing thin, Jay. if you’d like to start a thread about the complexities of letter pairs (or whatever it is you’re after), please feel free to do so.
cool… and most people are nice. i’m not.
plain clothes, i’m done… i’ve been done for sometime now. i’d have been ﬁne moving this discussion at any point. you can’t expect someone to just leave an issue in mid debate after people continue to make unrealistic statements. what do you expect when people poke a hornets nest? that the bees will all just get along? you perceive me as being an elitist as*hole. i’m cool with that… why can’t you be?
»you are too quick to dismiss elitism. i ﬁnd it hard to believe that you would be here in this forum or even a designer if you did not believe in these types of social hierarchies Oh dear
“as a designer the only thing that separates you from the horde of people with the right tools is elitism.” All people are designers. That’s partly what makes us human. (Note some primates are also designers.) “you perceive me as being an elitist as*hole. i’m cool with that… why can’t you be?” It’s harder to ignore elitsts assholes online. They take up equal space with everyone else, and tend to add way too much noise to a discussion. I’m not saying you are an elist , but you seem to have a lot of fun arguing moot issues. But, then again, so do I. ;o)
“as a designer the only thing that separates you from the horde of people with the right tools is elitism.” All people are designers. That’s partly what makes us human. (Note some primates are also designers.)
yep steve… sometimes reality is hard to swallow.
>All people are designers. That’s partly what makes us human. (Note some primates are also designers.) darrel, this is exactly what i’m talking about. this illustrates it perfectly. so what seperates you from all the other humans (computer monkeys) or monkeys? you’re better, right? what makes for “better”? i’ll take a stab at that one. elitism. plain and simple. mass opinion or subjectivity based on elitism. i think you guys are to quick to reacte negitively to elitism because of it’s negitive conitations. it’s not negitive, it’s actually a very good thing. think about it, you’ll never get away from it.
Jay, you have your dear art center education, & possibly qualiﬁcations too, so in your neat little elitist hierarchy, that makes puts you somewhere above the computer user who has access to design tools, but no training, and somewhere below someone with a talent for design, regardless of their training or access to design tools. Now, all you need is some talent and you can go right to the top of your cosy little hierarchy…look out world
steve… bingo, you got it. and that is the most elusive part of the whole thing, isn’t it? what is talent? is it really just elitism like i stated before? you tell me. you seem to berate the reality of the world and its proponents but oﬀer nothing in return other then ignorant name calling. it seems that when reality ﬁnally hits, all a person in your position can do is name call.
»what is talent? is it really just elitism like i stated before? »you seem to berate the reality of the world and its proponents ‘is talent … elitism’ ‘the proponents of the world’ Where do you get this sh1t? Do you have a random word generator? Just one last question, Jay. Is it the case, that someone with design training knows more about design than someone without design training, and in the case of a disagreement about design the non-designer should accept their lowly place in the design hierarchy and give way? Yes or no will suﬃce (but probably will not surface).
> sh1t Nice bouma bypass! I only regressed to it because I know Typophile screens the real thing. hhp
All types of surgery performed bouma bypasses a speciality saccade sutures while-U-wait This months special oﬀer: Logobotomy multi-buy, 2 for a
steve, i’m going to revert to name calling here. random word generator? are you retarded or something? look it up… proponent = One who argues in support of something; an advocate. to answer your question, no. i’ve known many bad designers with good training and many good designers with bad training. the odds just support one over the other. education is only a small part in the path of elitism anyway. i ﬁnd it amazing how much of a hang up you have on this whole education thing. are you a bad designer or something? i answer your questions… you should return the favor.
»i answer your questions… you should return the favor »are you retarded or something? The latter. »are you a bad designer or something? See above. »proponent = One who argues in support of something; an advocate »berate the reality of the world and its proponents Sorry, jay, are you an advocate of the world or reality, its not too clear (but either way I can see you’ll have your work cut out ﬁghting the enemies of oh…er… reality, and er those who are not in favour of …the um …world) »i ﬁnd it amazing how much of a hang up you have on this whole education thing I have no hang up on this, I just wanted to see how far you would stretch your obsession with it (from where I’m sitting it seems that its all thats keeping you separate from the monkey with a Mac and a free fonts CD) »all a person in your position can do is name call Talk about the pot calling the kettle a wanker! Have a good look through your 121 posts to this forum, Jay, how many people here have you insulted, called pathetic or ignorant or stupid or…
>are you an advocate of the world or reality, its not too clear (but either way I can see you’ll have your work cut out ﬁghting the enemies of no need to, the computer monkeys like yourself parish everyday in the industry. once the technology exhausts itself we move on. design consumerism and it’s elitism never die. >Have a good look through your 121 posts to this forum, Jay, how many people here have you insulted, called pathetic or ignorant or stupid or… i can honestly think of only two. hrant and yourself. i do like hrant though. he is at least a worthy opponent. what you are referring to might be perceived by people but is in fact very unsubstantiated. i’ve just stated truths. just because some truths hurt does not imply name calling on my or anyones part. by the way i admitted in the post that i was resorting to name calling. which is what i’ve done each time i’ve ever done it here. twice. so try again>I have no hang up on this, I just wanted to see how far you would stretch your obsession with it. yes you do. that’s apparent in where your interests have been. as far as my own interest / obsession in education, it’s in fact quite small. i’ve only brought it up once as an important part of a discussion. it’s the mostly untrained individuals such as yourself that have continued and obviously still continue to bring it up. who brought up art center in this tread? sure as hell was not me. these last few posts have lost sight of any point and have become a clash of characters which as far as i’m concerned is ridiculous. steve if you would like to continue with this battle of wills, we can do it somewhere else. here it’s a waste of peoples time including our own.
“Logo” is deﬁned generally as: “A distinctive name, symbol or trademark of a company designed for easy recognition. [ < LOGOTYPE.]” (American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition) As “logo” is derived from the word “logotype,” it’s important to know that a logotype (in the context of a piece of type) could be a trademark, a stamp, a word, phrase or ligature set in a speciﬁc proprietary or nonproprietary typeface. Logos were often made into a single piece of type, hence the term “logotype”. In modern usage, even a proprietary color used in a distinctive way can in some cases carry the eﬀective and legal force of a logo in identity systems. Proprietary fonts are often employed in this manner as well. The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), for example, often omits its famous “eye” logo in printed or broadcast advertising when it would conﬂict with the design of the piece, instead relying on its use of Didot or other identifying elements to reinforce its corporate identity. (Philip B. Meggs, A History of Graphic Design, Second Edition, 1992, p. 381.) Here are some of Paul Rand’s ideas on the subject of logos, taken from his book, “Design Form and Chaos” (1993): “Here is what a logo is and does: A logo is a ﬂag, a signature, an escutcheon, a street sign. A logo does not sell (directly), it IDENTIFIES. A logo is rarely a description of a business. A logo derives its MEANING from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around. A logo is LESS important than the product it signiﬁes; what it represents is more important than what it looks like. The subject matter of a logo can be almost anything.” (p. 56. Parentheses and emphasis in original, uppercase substituted here for italics in original.) “A street sign is a kind of logo. Trying to locate an unfamiliar street that has no marker is a bewildering experience. Whether the sign is beautiful or ugly, serif or sans, only the name matters. A logo and a street sign have this in common
(me)»Jay, how many people here have you insulted, called pathetic or ignorant or stupid or… (JW)»i can honestly think of only two. hrant and yourself Jay, I can think of at least three other people who have asked you to stop being insulting (Keith, William, plain*clothes) A quick browse through your posts reveals: -it’s really quite pathetic -you should all be ashamed -i’m amazed that you would pose such a ridiculous question -i ﬁnd it hard to believe that you would be here in this forum or even a designer if you did not [think just like me] -i think people on this board are being hypocrites these kinds of topics are ridiculous -at some point these designers [anyone who doesn’t like helvetica] grow up and much more like it. I think David hits the nail on the head:”foolishly holier-than-thou” Having foolishly risen to your pathetic bait, I also feel that I should apologise to Jared for contributing to turning this thread into the rant-fest it has become. This time I mean it — Jay, you’re on your own, man. Talk sh+t, don’t expect a reply
My ﬁnal question to jay (ﬁve or six metres of screen-space ago) was simple enough
I maintain that one cannot administer eﬀective psychotherapy through ASCII. hhp
Jay: Since you are caught up on literal deﬁnitions, let’s go to the dictionary. The dictionary says elitism is “The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or ﬁnancial resources.” So I can’t agree with you. Just because you believe your better than someone doesn’t make it so and certainly shouldn’t be what deﬁnes you as a graphic designer. Having elite skills at graphic design, well, sure…that’s a good thing. But elitism is just plain arrogance. And why in the hell did you dig up a year old post in the ﬁrst place? (And why does a55hole get blocked but assholes doesn’t?…and isn’t this thread much more entertaining if we discuss the ways the naughty-ﬁlter works instead of the deﬁnitiion of logo and if Jay is an a55hole or not?…and why am I writing like a script-kiddie?…and did I spell ‘script-kiddie’ correctly?)
»isn’t this thread much more entertaining if we discuss the ways the naughty-ﬁlter works It doesn’t seem to take much notice of English-English, just US-English
wow… there’s way to much here to even respond to. i’ll hit the big topics and try to keep it short. on the issue of “logos”: 1) it’s a low brow term. that does not mean that logotype solutions themselves are low brow. 2) just because the dictionary has adopted the incorrect term and deﬁned it does not mean it’s correct. many notable identity designers would agree. 3) paul rand was producing work when the abbreviations “logo” was coming to power as a word. this does not make it a correct term either. 4) i do agree that it has become a common term though and that is the reality of it. i don’t chastise people over it only people that should know better. my eﬀort was to expose the reality of the term. i think you guys are way to entrenched in an improper blanket term. on the issue of elitism: 1) elitism is a beneﬁcial element in culture. it creates high standards. it’s there and will never go away. our industry (design) is based on it. get used to it and learn to embrace it. on the issue of insulting people: 1) most of the statements i make sound outlandish because they are. most of them are written as jokes with some truth behind them. in the written language they come across with little humor. i’m sorry for that. most individuals i know, in person, who read these posts laugh. it’s humorous how up in arms you guys get. 2) steve, you are still incorrect. the statements you have listed are very general and site no one individual, directly. i have only reverted to name calling twice. and i’ve admitted to it when doing it. it is a weak way to debate. 3) if some people in general feel insulted that is their own perceived and individual problem. people need to toughen up. i can’t believe how sensitive you are being. you’d have a hard time living in places like NY. on the issue of using lowercase: 1) it’s more eﬃcient while typing and is a modiﬁcation to the written language. it omits what i consider to be little needed formalities. it is a push toward utilitarianism and minimalism. my doing it is expression of these ideals. david, would you insult wim crowel for his new alphabet because it has no caps? your attempt to discredit through what you perceive as technical inconsistencies is one sided. on the issue of posting to this thread: 1) i found the title interesting. i grew up listening to punk rock and heavy metal. 2) i was shocked by the typographic practices with in it. i think it’s in bad taste and sets a bad example to people learning this craft. to see professionals practicing in this manner sets bad standards. 3) i couldn’t help it i had to say something. i’m sorry my initial post came out to strong. i was mostly joking. but i don’t apologize for it’s honesty. these sorts of practices are bad for the craft. they make it seem ok to be a lazy typographer. i stand by this. on the issue of my class: 1) it is going well, thanks for asking the class is full every term so much so that i have to ask students to drop. the students have given it amazing reviews each and every time. as a matter of fact i’ve never seen a bad review. if it were as awful as you are suggesting simon, the school would have been alerted to my oﬀensive and outlandish behavior and never asked me to return. that is obviously not the case. 2) the principles i teach are sound. they are a beneﬁt to the industry establishing standards that are very important for young designers. laziness is not permitted and i’m surprised you don’t feel the same. i still think this has gone on to long. i’ve done nothing to damage design here. i’ve brought up important standards that we should all be striving for. these forums should be an attempt to rise out of hack-dom. not submit to it and defend it. my initial joke of being ashamed has sadly turned out to be true. i would have expected higher standards here.
“just because the dictionary has adopted the incorrect term and deﬁned it does not mean it’s correct.” Well where am I supposed to go for the authorative policy on word meanings? I can’t trust the dictionary anymore? *sigh* “our industry (design) is based on it” Oh god no. If it is…what a pathetic, insecure lot we are. “brought up important standards that we should all be striving for” What standards? That we should create custom type for every client’s mark?
>Wouldn’t that make it sound kind of like “Gooterball” or “Gyooterball?” Yeah, but at least is was on-task. Or almost. If I’d realized this thread started a year ago, I wouldn’t have bothered. So, Jared: is Gutterb
darrel, did you really read the post. you can trust the dictionary if you want to. i don’t think you’ve fully understood what i was saying. it’s become a common term. i’m aware of that. i feel we need to be aware of the reality behind it. yes, our industry is based on elitism. yes, it is pathetic. i can’t believe you’ve never realized this? i understand the need to try and make design more important then it is. we all want to feel good about ourselves and our profession. but the reality is that it’s based on something very shallow. > What standards? That we should create custom type for every client’s mark? yes, that’s pretty much what i’ve said. or at least have some standards beyond being lazy. i can’t believe any designer with standards would be shocked by this.
“we all want to feel good about ourselves and our profession. but the reality is that it’s based on something very shallow.” yes, for those who practice elitism it’s quite shallow. it stems from the fact that elitism *is* shallow. however, elitism is in no way a prerequisite for quality design/typography/type design. for those who appreciate design’s true value, it is actually quite complex and meaningful; aesthetically, socially, culturally, economically, etc. btw, I can obviously understand your disinterest in the rules of capitalization; however, if you want to be an elitist, work on your spelling and punctuation — those *are* useful elements of writing.
plain clothes, you should practice what you preach… there are many rules to formality, not all are up held by all people. that’s the reality of the world. you pick your battles. if yours is technical writing you’ve got a long way to go my brother. keep up the good work though. as far as design goes. it’s an act of elitism plain and simple. i can’t see why you guys have such a hard time with the reality of this. this is one of those stupid simplicities of life. there’s no need to drag it out.
“as far as design goes. it’s an act of elitism plain and simple. i can’t see why you guys have such a hard time with the reality of this. ” No, it’s not. It’s not elitism in any way. Where are you getting this, Jay? If you’re going to argue this point, ﬁne, but give us something to go on other than your opinion. I’m still enjoying the argument (slow week at work…), but you’re not giving us anything to really debate here.
“if it were as awful as you are suggesting simon, the school would have been alerted to my oﬀensive and outlandish behavior and never asked me to return.” On the contrary, the sort of course I was imagining from your posts sounds depressingly familiar. Oﬀensive behaviour is tolerated (if not encouraged) in countless educational establishments. However, your course may be nothing like I imagined. Here’s hoping… “laziness is not permitted and i’m surprised you don’t feel the same.” When did I become an advocate for laziness? Or do you derive this from the “dissent is disruption” mentality common to a certain type of arts educator? I’ve got no problem with your lowercase postings: “it omits what i consider to be little needed formalities.” Sure, but why do you keep writing “to” instead of “too” (as in too sloppy)? I’m not trying to make a cheap shot it’s just that we all have our own standards, y’know?
darrel, i’m enjoying the debate as well (slow on this end too). i think everybody is secretly. i feel i’ve done a pretty good job of outlining elitism in design in many of my posts to this thread. but i can do it again. our world is one of hierarchies. i don’t always love this i just accept it. i think you guys have misunderstood this or i haven’t expressed it clearly. these hierarchies are alive and kicking in all human endeavors. what makes you think design is any diﬀerent? what makes certain designers better? are they in fact “better” on some rudimentary level? or is it simply the opinion of a large segment. what makes you a designer and not your client or your mom? you have a better skill set, training, sense, eye or whatever. the fact is that you are casting yourself into a position based on hierarchies. design is subjective. it’s all opinion even the few concrete issues in design like legibility are opinion (though i doubt anyone here will admit it). legibility is the kosher opinion we can all throw around and take no heat for. because design is based on opinion it becomes subjected to elitism. it’s a world of cool. we create cool or pander to it in most of what we do. the world of cool is one of the biggest realms of elitism. cool runs rampant through the industry. this is the reality of the industry and i ﬁnd little need to debate it. what would be an interesting debate though, would be, is elitism positive or not? i pose the argument that a healthy dose of it is very good. it establishes high standards that allow some to excel and others to parish. this is the natural order of nature and the world. there is no need to ﬁght it just join the game and enjoy it. take a strong part in it. high standards are what guarantee that you have a job. they make you the designer and not your client or your mom. wouldn’t that be bad.
Simon, you are right we all have our own standards. i stated this earlier in this thread. i just write oﬀ the top of my head. i’m sure like many people posting here that my writing is riddled with all sorts of errors. it’s not really the issue for me here. i think writing well is wonderful. it’s not my strength nor do i claim that it is. but i do respect it and would never be naive enough to say that it does not matter. i appreciate standards and adhere to them as best i can. but i think you can understand my posts fairly well as they are. thanks for cutting us slack here.
“what makes certain designers better?” There are subjective and objective ways to measure it. Elitism, however, is just one’s impression that they are better…and deserve something ‘more’ because of it. That’s not really how we should perceive ourselves (or how any industry should perceive themselves, other than maybe royal families or evil dictators.) “design is subjective.” Parts are. Other parts aren’t. (And I assume were talking design in the general sense, or are you talking about something speciﬁc, like graphic design?) “is elitism positive or not? ” Maybe I’m not understanding your deﬁnition, but elitism is perceived as a negative thing by most people. It smacks of arrogance, rudeness, and—generally speaking—assholeness (did the dirty word ﬁlter get that?)
»interesting debate though, would be, is elitism positive or not What would be the point of that, since you insist that elitism is unavoidable »some to excel and others to parish The ﬁrst time I assumed it was a typo — twice in succession, maybe you don’t know that the word you’re looking for is ‘perish’ (Oh bugger, I’ve done it again)
darrel, > That’s not really how we should perceive ourselves (or how any industry should perceive themselves, other than maybe royal families or evil dictators.) i think it’s a knee jerk reaction to vilify elitism. there are many elitists who are healthy happy friendly people. elitists are not evil fascists. i’m talking about design generally which applies to graphic design as well. design is subjective in general and in it’s details. can you think of an area where it’s not (without reverting to the typographic legibility line)? > Maybe I’m not understanding your deﬁnition. i guess this is part of the problem. with elitism can come arrogance, rudeness, etc. but not necessarily. not all elitists are arrogant. but most are. all good things have bad things about them and all bad things have good things about them. i’m just focusing on the positive elements of elitism. emotionally no one likes being talked down to. but when it happens to you or you’re placed in that position it pushes you in one of two ways. 1-you make changes in yourself and strive for something higher. 2-you do nothing. this is illustrated well in school. there are those that ﬁght the elitism found with in and remain ignorant. then there are those who rise to the challenge and learn new things becoming elitists themselves. our american society today is too quick to try and deny social hierarchies and elitism because it’s not p.c.. i think most all the great things in culture owe themselves to elitism. art, design, typography are just a few of them.
steve, perish is correct… thanks
Elitism is avoidable. It’s called humility. Being talented doesn’t mean you have to be an elitist. It is possible to have pride in one’s work without being arrogant. It is also possible to know with strong conviction that you have successfully answered the clients problems through your design without being elitist about it. I think perhaps what can be said is that designers do need humble conﬁdence, not arrogant pride. Here’s a good quote for you: Elitism is the subconscious assumption that worthy persons must be built up, and unworthy persons must be degraded. It includes the assumption that such a dichotomy is objective, necessary and virtuous.
> It is possible to have pride in one’s work without being arrogant. but it’s still elitism and a form of social hierarchy. > solve clients problems through your design without being elitist about it. you as the designer and they as the client automatically puts you in a position of elitism. humility is a form of etiquette that social covers up it’s root, which is elitism. just because someone is humble does not mean they aren’t elitist. look at eastern culture if you need an example of this. we just wear it on our sleeves in the west. you can’t escape it. it’s hard wired. great quote, though i’d say it’s very conscious.
Forgive me. I couldn’t help myself.