I really like have Rand was able to break down the process and really focus on creating something visually distinctive and didn't necessarily care if the type or the shape represented the company. Like he said about IMD, the logo itself doesn't represent computers nor do the stripes although the stripes came to represent computers later because the logo was later defined by the success of the company.
I particularly like how he admits that attributing certain magical qualities to certain type faces is a subjective matter. It seems that some designers get too wrapped up into the meaning of the type face and less about how it works visually on the page or with a logo.
"Designing such charged—and lasting—logos is not magic, but it does take an acute understanding of the nature of perception and the ability of translate that into a visual form. Logos are aides de memoire that give you something to hook on to when you see it, and especially when you don’t see it.” - Paul Rand
I think this statement not only embodies Paul Rand, but what he set out to do with his life's work. Designing such long lasting logos may seem like magic, but in reality Rand is able to be in our heads - create a logo that is an "aid to our memory." After all, that's exactly what a mark is meant to do - give you something to recognize when it is seen with the eyes but more importantly, a good mark gives you something to recognize about a company, even when the mark is seen with the mind.
This article goes to show one thing about Mr. Rand. He was a fantastic salesman. Only showing one version of a logo is confidence. Though the article states that Paul was not confident in his logo but at the same time, at this point in his career he had a reason to be so confident.
In being knowledgeable on the subject Steve Jobs wanted Paul Rand to do this logo for one reason. Paul Rand creates instant notoriety for your mark. Jobs knew that he was selling high end computers and people who would buy these computers would find out about a Rand logo and it would gain momentum that way.
No matter the reasons rand uses to sell his logo, people would buy. At the time his UPS logo had been standing strong for nearly 25 years, ABC logo the same, so why would the NeXT logo not hold the same.
Showing one version of the logo is a bold move, but if you have reasoning behind it's obvious that you can sell the logo. The fact that Rand embodied the idea of the company by only using the black box shows the pure simplicity of how logos can work. Rand talked about how the cube can be directly related to the actual product as it was mentioned in his first meeting with the client. Although he argued it can be saw as a child block. Either way it's a notable mark.
The fact that Rand saw the connection between the words "EXIT" and "NEXT" in all caps is funny to me. I would have never thought that until it was mentioned and then the connection stuck. The lowercase font used was simple and effective. Like Mike said in the first post, the fact that designers get wrapped up in what a typeface means as opposed to how it works within the form in the logo is crazy. If it looks good and communicates as well then the need for the era reference of the typeface seems a bit minor.
I really like have Rand was able to break down the process and really focus on creating something visually distinctive and didn't necessarily care if the type or the shape represented the company. Like he said about IMD, the logo itself doesn't represent computers nor do the stripes although the stripes came to represent computers later because the logo was later defined by the success of the company.
ReplyDeleteI particularly like how he admits that attributing certain magical qualities to certain type faces is a subjective matter. It seems that some designers get too wrapped up into the meaning of the type face and less about how it works visually on the page or with a logo.
"Designing such charged—and lasting—logos is not magic, but it does take an acute understanding of the nature of perception and the ability of translate that into a visual form. Logos are aides de memoire that give you something to hook on to when you see it, and especially when you don’t see it.”
ReplyDelete- Paul Rand
I think this statement not only embodies Paul Rand, but what he set out to do with his life's work. Designing such long lasting logos may seem like magic, but in reality Rand is able to be in our heads - create a logo that is an "aid to our memory."
After all, that's exactly what a mark is meant to do - give you something to recognize when it is seen with the eyes but more importantly, a good mark gives you something to recognize about a company, even when the mark is seen with the mind.
This article goes to show one thing about Mr. Rand. He was a fantastic salesman. Only showing one version of a logo is confidence. Though the article states that Paul was not confident in his logo but at the same time, at this point in his career he had a reason to be so confident.
ReplyDeleteIn being knowledgeable on the subject Steve Jobs wanted Paul Rand to do this logo for one reason. Paul Rand creates instant notoriety for your mark. Jobs knew that he was selling high end computers and people who would buy these computers would find out about a Rand logo and it would gain momentum that way.
No matter the reasons rand uses to sell his logo, people would buy. At the time his UPS logo had been standing strong for nearly 25 years, ABC logo the same, so why would the NeXT logo not hold the same.
Showing one version of the logo is a bold move, but if you have reasoning behind it's obvious that you can sell the logo. The fact that Rand embodied the idea of the company by only using the black box shows the pure simplicity of how logos can work. Rand talked about how the cube can be directly related to the actual product as it was mentioned in his first meeting with the client. Although he argued it can be saw as a child block. Either way it's a notable mark.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Rand saw the connection between the words "EXIT" and "NEXT" in all caps is funny to me. I would have never thought that until it was mentioned and then the connection stuck. The lowercase font used was simple and effective. Like Mike said in the first post, the fact that designers get wrapped up in what a typeface means as opposed to how it works within the form in the logo is crazy. If it looks good and communicates as well then the need for the era reference of the typeface seems a bit minor.