There is so much talk about logo design being such a big deal. Talk of a logo symbolizing the brand and all. You should see designers go on and on about how the yellow in the lettering symbolizes this and that, the arrow indicating that and this…the truth is a logo which has to come with an instruction manual has had its purpose defeated. After all shouldn’t a logo say it all?
The design of the logo should not begin from the standpoint of the designer but that of the audience. Therefore it would be a good idea to ask: how does the psyche truly respond to symbols and colours?
If we understand the templates of the unconscious, the notion of the preconceived notion; then
aesthetics wins over design for designs sake.
People naturally perceive things as a whole first before they begin to deconstruct it. The Gestalt principles of perceptual organization grants useful insight into how we perceive logos.
The key is to get to better understand the language of the human mind. As a whole a logo might give us certain impression (different symbols interacting with each other in the context of colours, fonts etc) breaking it down into separate symbols, colours and fonts will obviously elicit another interpretation. Yet isn’t it possible that we look at it as a whole first before deconstructing it; perhaps bringing to our interpretation of the component parts, insight from of perception of the whole? Any way it is possible that a striking individual component might first catch ones attention when we interact with the logo but then a single actor doesn’t make up the entire story now does he?
Design is the frontier at which art meets functionality. Thus any creative license must be peppered with the empiricist’s eye. A logo might be corporate art but like a fork or stapler it is used. It is imperative we come to develop better understanding of how consumers perceive logos. It would certainly make for better design.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment