elischiff

> 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.

That's the fun of it!

> 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.

Tu quoque again.

Your comment helped me with that one, thanks!

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.