I finally found the time to answer. You're all right that an artifact
has to be analysed regarding the circumstances of its use and creation.
I know that. But: thats not all. There is something (sorry for the vague
term) above all this circumstances that makes an artifact timeless. Look
at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enso
It's just a brush stroke but it tells me a thousand times more then the
circles I created. I don't understand what makes this thing so special.
I feel it, but I can't tell what it is. And it's not only this certain
enso, I've recognized the same "behaviour" in other artworks. For me it
doesn't matter that the enso comes out of the zen religion. It's in an
ipod as well as in graphic design. Those works feel like they are
breathing... and that disturbes me.
Maybe it's just the relationship between the receipient and the piece of
art itself in a set of certain conditions, but as far as I can judge as
a professional it seems that the emotional message comes out more
clearly in those pieces. I'm not talking about emotion in the classic
categories (love, hate etc., but more in a personal way. It's like the
maker included something in his work, he or she want's to express.
What I try to find a common principle that is in all artifacts, that
makes them have "quality" or not. I think it's not possible to catch it
with analytical seperation.
Robert Harland schrieb:
> Speaking only from personal experience of designing logotypes, 'when a
> graphic designer shapes a logo', they may consider the following:
>
> the history of what logotypes have been designed;
> the time available from start to finish;
> the politics of personal and collective identity;
> the culture within which the logotype will communicate;
> the legibility of the logotype appearance;
> the technical aspects of its reproducibility;
> the scope of its implementation;
> the economics of a clients budget;
> the unknown factors of the client brief;
> the possibility that a similar logotype design exists;
> the legalities of name use;
> the translation of name into other languages;
> the trademark registration process;
> the mood they are in;
> the other things I've may have missed out.
>
> I found that the consideration of some or all of these tended to
> determine if the logotype is 'good' or 'bad'.
>
> Regards
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
> On 3 Jun 2010, at 22:03, Kai Reinhardt wrote:
>
>> What happens when a graphic designer shapes a logo or illustrates
>> something?
>
|