Logos, Flags, and Shields: Paul Rand on Logo Design

Reprint must indicate: Logoke (www.logoke.com) translated by Meson

Translator's Note: This article was first published in 1991 by AIGA (American Institute of Graphic Arts). It is also included in the book "Looking Closer: Critical Writings on Graphic Design" published by Allworth Press.

[img]http://www.logoke.com/files/assets/0000/0185/%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%871.jpg[/img]

Paul Rand (1914.8.15~1996.11.26): Renowned American graphic designer who designed logos for famous North American companies such as IBM, UPS, ABC, The Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Cummins Engine, Yale University Press, etc. Among them, the logos for IBM, ABC, The Westinghouse, Cummins Engine, and Yale University Press are still in use today.

[img]http://www.logoke.com/files/assets/0000/0187/%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%872.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.logoke.com/files/assets/0000/0189/%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%873.jpg[/img]

"This logo reminds me of a chain gang in Georgia," said an IBM executive when he saw my newly designed striped IBM logo. And when the new Westinghouse logo was unveiled, it received similar feedback: "It looks like a pawn shop sign." I can't help but marvel at how many exemplary designs have been discarded due to some mediocre nitpicking. Bad design is often the consequence of carelessness. This is not limited to logo design; this lack of awareness permeates the entire visual design community.

[img]http://www.logoke.com/files/assets/0000/0191/%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%874.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.logoke.com/files/assets/0000/0193/%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%875.png[/img]

People don't need to be responsible for their perceptions. Some people look at a logo or any other visible object as if they were looking at a Rorschach inkblot test. Others look at a logo without seeing its meaning and function. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the American Broadcasting Company updated its logo in 1962. They realized that just one market survey could show that the logo update had high audience recognition. Of course, this does not mean anything about the intrinsic value of a well-designed logo. When a logo design is unrelated to other things, the quality of the work becomes the decisive factor, rather than historical accumulation or vanity.

[img]http://www.logoke.com/files/assets/0000/0195/%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%876.jpg[/img]

There are many reasons for designing a new logo or updating an old one, and the feedback is also varied. Changing a logo becomes a lucky charm to change company performance, and there are plenty of people who think so. Admittedly, a new logo might bring something new and improve existing things. But if a company doesn't fulfill its promises, then this effect won't last long. Sometimes, an old logo becomes ugly, outdated, or inappropriate, hence the redesign. But in many cases, the logo redesign is merely to satisfy someone's vanity or please a CEO because the CEO wants no connection with the past, or it's considered a necessary thing to do.

[img]http://www.logoke.com/files/assets/0000/0197/%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%877.png[/img]

Different from the above arbitrary redesign of the logo, there is an academic idea - ignoring the logo design altogether. This thought is sometimes wise, but more often superstitious, occasionally nostalgic, or even sometimes fear-driven. Not long ago, I made some minor modifications to the UPS (1961) logo. But the final design was brutally rejected, even without considering compensation. If a design needs improvement without affecting its image, then improving it is reasonable and appropriate. After all, a logo is a tool to display pride, and should be presented in the best possible condition.

In the media business field, if images reign supreme, then the logo, as the essence of the image, is the pearl in the crown.

The following briefly introduces what a logo is and its function:

A logo is a flag, a signature, a shield.

A logo does not directly sell things, it identifies things.

A logo rarely describes the nature of an industry.

A logo derives its own meaning from the quality of what it represents, not the other way around where the item gains quality from the logo.

A logo is not as important as what it represents. But what it implies is more important than its appearance.

A logo can take many forms: a signature is a logo, a flag is too. Flags like the French flag or the Saudi flag are visually beautiful symbols. One is pure geometry, the other is Arabic calligraphy combined with an elegant royal dagger. Two completely different visual concepts, but both have good functionality. However, their charm goes beyond aesthetics. On the battlefield, a flag can be a friend or an enemy. If the ugliest flag is on your side, then it is the prettiest flag. Because "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", whether in wartime or peacetime, whether on flags or logos, this applies equally. We all believe our flag is the most beautiful. This tells us something about logos.

Should a logo be self-explanatory? Only when the logo is associated with a product, service, industry, or any entity like a company does it become self-explanatory. The logo draws its meaning and utility from the quality of what it represents. If a company is second-rate, then the company's logo will naturally be perceived as second-rate. Before the audience has properly positioned it, believing that a logo can fully perform its duties is indeed reckless. Only when the company's products or services are judged as effective or ineffective, suitable or unsuitable, does the logo represent these aspects.

Sometimes logos are designed for deceptive purposes, with various tricks ranging from mimicking certain traits to outright copying. Design is a double-edged monster. Once the swastika, the most benign symbol, became associated with evil, it lost its place forever in the temple of civilization's symbols. Even so, its inherent quality remains undeniable. This well explains the resilience of a good design.

The role of a logo is assigned in the simplest way possible. Complex designs, such as overly decorated illustrations or obscure abstract paintings, inherently carry the mechanism of their own destruction. Ironically, simple ideas and simple designs are the products of convoluted thinking. But achieving simplicity is not easy and worth the effort.

A good logo design depends on the following points:

a. Distinctiveness

b. Visibility

c. Usability

d. Memorability

e. Versatility

f. Durability

g. Timelessness

Most people believe that a logo's theme depends on the type of business or service involved. Who is the target audience? How is marketing carried out? What is the medium? There are other factors to consider. An animal may suit one category but be taboo in another. Numbers become possible alternatives: 747, 7-Up, 7-11. Letters are the same, not only possible but most common. However, the importance of the logo design theme is relatively small. Suitability also does not play a critical role. This does not mean that suitability is unpopular. It simply indicates that a one-to-one relationship between a symbol and what it represents is unlikely, and under certain conditions may even be counterproductive. Finally, the only mandatory requirement is that the logo should be attractive and reproducible in monochrome and at very small sizes.

For example: The Mercedes logo itself has nothing to do with cars. But it is still a very good logo. This is not because of its excellent design, but because the quality of the products it represents is good. The same goes for Apple. Few people realize that the bat is a symbol of authority for Bacardi rum. But Bacardi remains deeply ingrained. The crocodile brand has no relation to crocodiles. But the green little reptile logo is simple and memorable, and has huge market profits. The Rolls-Royce logo is outstanding not because of its design (old-fashioned design), but because of the quality of the cars it represents. Similarly, George Washington's personal signature is famous not just because of his handwriting, but because he is George Washington. If banknotes weren't returned, who would care how bad the signatures on them were? Personal likes and dislikes should not interfere with the identification process, nor should they be related to approval or rejection. This is a design utopia!

From all the above, a good design seems redundant. Good or bad design is just a carrier and tool for memory. Good design adds value and sometimes brings pure enjoyment. It respects the audience - their feelings - while rewarding entrepreneurs. A better design is easier to remember than a random one. A well-designed logo reflects the industry it symbolizes. It suggests the characteristics of a thoughtful and purposeful enterprise, reflecting the quality of the company's products and services. It is an embodiment of good public relations and a harbinger of goodwill.

The logo says, "We care."

Original link: http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/articles/logos_rand.htm