I have always been interested in how designers think! If you are designing something do you care if it means anything as long as it looks nice? Do you care whether the colour you have chosen is relevant to the business? Does the icon really make that difference as long as it looks nice and vaguely ties into its purpose? I'd love to know your thoughts!
Hi Prefixcontent Here is my point of view for your question Well sometimes in design applying colour psychology can make difference in customer point of view and it subconsciously affect their buying habit, for example blue is for corporate that aiming for trust and yellow is for young and creative mind. This kind of traits is somehow appealing in our customer eyes especially if we note that in our presentation. Look nice, of course we have to make the icon look nice but tying into the purpose is even harder and that is the key sales that indicate why design is expensive. Well that is only my thoughts, nice thread btw
Hey buzzcrowd! Many thanks for your opinion, much appreciated! I totally agree with your statement on colour psychology! It is such an important part of design and branding. For instance, take a look at U.K brand Dyno rod, you can spot their vans a mile off! When you can see a colour and immediately connect it to a brand, you known you are on to a winner! Good design is expensive, and rightly so! There are a lot of research, conceptual and visualisation stages that are carried out by reputable design companies that are definitely worth investing in. I mean, if you were a business owner, and you really valued your company you would see a need in spending more than £10 on a crappy logo from a cheap website! Funds don't often allow big spends, but that's where saving comes in!
Cool, Dyno Rod have a great brand statement there in their vans. And I totally agree with you, logo is worth investing as it can state who or what your company is. Btw sometimes I browse around the logo inspiration website such as logopond and logofaves but I wonder, do this really creative logo have a successful branding in the real world? I mean, in designers eye this logo is stating every element of the business and really inspiring but how will this affect the end customer buying preference? do you have any opinion about this because sometimes it makes me curious as i've never saw a success branding campaign from this before and no case studies about this in my country either.
That's a very good point and question! I do like to have a look now and then at logopond for some inspiration, and it would be interesting to know which ones were made for commercial use! In my experience though, most of the logos on the inspiration sites tend to be ideas that have popped into someones head, or logos that the designer really liked but the client didn't go ahead with it! It's almost like a logo scrapyard in a way! Recycling the logos that unfortunately didn't get used or looked at! I have never seen a successful yet effective branding campaign grow on just a logo! That is another reason why I think that it may be unlikely to find successful branding campaigns on logopond, as behind every great logo is a strategy, a voice, aspirations and inspirations and you need these things to create the wholeness of a brand. Now, logopond doesn't show these aspects and only shows the aesthetic of its logo, so can you see why I think it would be hard to start a branding campaign purely on one aspect of a brand! It's a difficult game, but when completely successfully, brands are fireballs of power!!
Aesthetic vs. purpose -- when I think of these in regards to design, I think of "design vs. art," or "designer vs. artist." Here is the difference. The designer creates something that caters to their audience, with mostly their audience in mind. This doesn't just include visual designs. This can include industrial design or architectural design and thus there's more of an emphasis on PURPOSE. An artist on the other hand creates something that is much more self-expressive -- for whatever reason. To prove a point, to help their audience see from the artist's point of view... endless possibilities. Not to say that a designer is that restricted. Here's an example. James Cameron as a film director "designs" his movies to cater to the largest audience group: the average schlub. Specific examples would be "Titanic" and "Avatar." In both movies, the most featured characters are 1-dimensional and caricatures of themselves. The troubled rich girl, the poor but enlightened artist, the jar-head army man, the tree-hugging aliens... Cameron made sure to fill every money-making trend in the mainstream cinema world. Easy eye candy. Easy story. Something easy to watch. Cameron is looking to cash in a lot. And he does. I can go on and on about this. An example of an "artist" film director would be Darren Aronofsky. His films are often considered "feel-bad" but artistic. In his movies such as "Requiem for a Dream" and "Black Swan," he successfully renders very specific experiences; in his case, very intense experiences, mostly intensely disturbing. Though this may compromise the size of his audience (compared to Cameron), his work is much more original, specific and gives you a very specific taste of experience in contrast to much more mainstream media. I know that my examples are in the movie-making industry, but I believe this rule applies to *anything.* Constructing cars, buildings, video games, furniture, advertisements, websites, clothes -- there is always thought crossing the realms of art vs. design during pre-production.
Hi there! I like your examples makes a lot of sense to me! I do, however believe it to be something that both art and design encompass. Art can be created for purpose, for instance, Michelangelo painted on Sistine chapels ceiling as can design be created purely for aesthetic! They can both work together and they can both can intertwine to a certain degree.