NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Remy Overkempe’s comment is:
I don't agree with everything he says. Maybe he feels the fluid forms were great, I find them weird. The final version could've been better without the cutting-off of the bottom part, I agree with him on that one, but the slim, stretched-out hand is much better than the original. Etc, etc, etc.
On Aug.13.2008 at 08:42 AM
john’s comment is:
I cannot tell you how absolutely refreshing it is to see drawing as an integral part of an ideation process. I oftentimes feel as though designers look a pencil as though it were a slug that slithered out from underneath their lunch. Nice to know that there are keepers of the flame out there.
On Aug.13.2008 at 09:25 AM
Stuart’s comment is:
This is what happens when the creative process changes hands without any communication between parties involved. Its especially surprising coming from pentagram.
Martijn's final mark was quite nice.
On Aug.13.2008 at 10:02 AM
Kyle’s comment is:
Wow, it was so powerful and elegant before they chopped off the bottom of it.
On Aug.13.2008 at 10:04 AM
Mingshi’s comment is:
Matijn's version definitely shows a stronger character with a more balanced figure.
Evidently he's given a lot more thoughts (and sketches!) on all the graphic details.
With the quicksand added in, I wonder what that seatbelt is doing on Bruce's shoulder...
On Aug.13.2008 at 10:38 AM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
I didn't mind the implementation, actually. AkzoNobel is well known for their quicksand rescue devices...hell, they practically invented the niche...so their treatment seems appropriate to me.
The little gesture studies are really charming. Frankly, I don't care for the mark at all...it's too elusive. That's not the fault of the visualization; it's a problem with the brief. It's vague and slippery...makes me uncomfortable.
The disconnect is achieved through the mascot's mercurial head. He jumps around from being a benefactor to an avatar. Is he AkzoNobel or is he AkzoNobel's privileged patron? Does he need help or is he offering help? That's the first big disconnect.
The gradient doesn't help. The leading hand had PLENTY of emphasis before they heated it up. Now the dude is reaching into the sun to pull out a medicinal object that he will soon inject into your vein.
Speaking of which, are there a lot of skinheads in the Netherlands? I would have preferred to have the dude giving us the "V."
On Aug.13.2008 at 10:45 AM
David Sanchez’s comment is:
Is a tough call but I think I understand Pentagrams point of polishing up the final form of Bruce. At first it felt a bit sporty, evoking a chevron torso and downward movement.
To put learn how to put our big ego aside it is a great mark of brand identity designer, so I believe Martijn Rijven, should be more careful on his critic. I believe he did an excellent job, but at the end is not his company, and a company as big AkzoNobel, they have to go beyond the rational of a single designer/illustrator.
Good job Sr Rijven, you helped bring Bruce to his blue blood life.
On Aug.13.2008 at 11:09 AM
Daniel Campos’s comment is:
???
On Aug.13.2008 at 11:13 AM
Jason Campbell’s comment is:
@ Remy I disagree about the hand, I don't feel the final is better at all. It doesn't fit with the overall style and proportion of the figure, it is much too angular on the joints and too small overall. Granted it isn't as obvious until you compare his final version to it but if you had that, "something just doesn't feel right about this" feeling with the final logo his post clears it up, at least for me.
I'm not judging which execution overall is better but I can sympathize with his feeling of helplessness having it go to another agency to be tweaked as such. It's one thing to crop it it's another to alter it as they did, I'm sure he would have been happy to make any changes they needed. Be it right or wrong for the logo, it would have been good form to at least approach him to make the alteration.
On Aug.13.2008 at 11:47 AM
John McCollum’s comment is:
It's interesting that the illustrator accuses the firm of "infringing on his copyright."
That's a pretty serious charge. I'd be interested in knowing a little more about the nature of their original agreement.
Don't know about y'all, but if I hire an illustrator to develop sketches for a logo, I make damn sure I have the right to edit the images to meet my client's needs.
Unless the illustrator can prove that Pentagram broke the law, I think he's shown bad form, and has done more to hurt his prestige than that of Pentagram...
On Aug.13.2008 at 12:02 PM
James’s comment is:
Copyright infringement is weird, yeah. But he was in Amsterdam, so maybe the rules are different?
In the final implementation, they basically cut the illustration in half, and loose half of the depth and energy. I mean, haven't those designers read How To Draw Comics The Marvel Way?
They should.
The illustration in this case IS the logo. All Pentagram did was add a gradiant and pick a font. And they probably made $500K for it. This goes to the heart of my pet peeve; the dude that does the work doesn't get the credit. That Bruce-mark is the meat of the logo; responsible for at least 80% of the visual impact. Yet in Pentagram's view (and Saffron's, and AkzoNobel's) he was just a Illustrator.
Some "brand consultant" had the amazing idea to make it more dynamic. Well, no kidding! That guy's a genius! The "illustrator" is at least 4 level's down from the decision makers, probably getting paid squat, while everyone on the levels above him adds what I will now call a "bull---- surcharge" on top of his work.
And I agree with all the changes to the mark as well; his final work is better for the comments. I think his point is more about how client's become fixated on details too soon, instead of looking at the big picture.
And his frustration and disappointment seem directed more at Pentagram, than at AkzoNobel's direct feedback...
On Aug.13.2008 at 03:18 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
With all of the negative reaction to the 2012 Olympics logo (and all of the creative animations that followed), I can't say I blame a client for being concerned that the logo suggests a rude hand gesture.
In my opinion, the hand resolution was the weakest part of the logo development. When someone is giving you the finger, it isn't a detail. It also makes it hard to step back and admire the total picture.
"Oh no... that hand can 'mean' stuff" . And yes, hand gestures do mean something. Don't give the old American "thumbs up" or even "OK" in other parts of the world where they have very different meanings.
I think Rijven should be glad they saved him (and his copyrighted logo?) from a very embarrassing and potentially expensive oversight.
That said, I think Rijven's creative work was excellent and I agree with James that all input was leading to better results until it was taken away from the designer's hands.
In order, the three most damaging final revisions are:
- the sinking effect, the solution Rijven had was fine
- the gradation, which just looks faded and works at cross purposes with the bold translation of the figure
- and the overly detailed hand which seems out of character with the rest of the abstraction
On Aug.13.2008 at 06:35 PM
Morgan Smail’s comment is:
GREAT MARK! distinct. dimensional. inspiring.
This seems to be a great example of collaboration done right. The illustrator sculpted the form, designers refined it to bare essentials, and the client filtered out communication/symbolism issues. The end result is a stunning and powerful icon...
The fresh shell-shock of the design process can be hard and often dilutes the perception of the work itself in the designer/illustrator's mind, but I truly believe it's something all parties involved will one day grow proud to be a part of... or at least should (and in my mind deserve to)
great post Armin... a real treat
On Aug.13.2008 at 08:12 PM
Jason Campbell’s comment is:
It is quite possible he retained the copyright for the illustration while licensing it for use within the logo. Contracts for work of this nature may always be negotiated differently.
Giving the finger? I don't get that impression at all from his final version.
There were many unfortunate symbols found in the hand shapes during the illustration's production. as he details in the animated evolution, but the differences from his final and theirs, at least in the hand, is IMHO not an improvement.
On Aug.13.2008 at 08:13 PM
Morgan Smail’s comment is:
regarding the "quick-sand"-esque positioning of the line...
I don't see it as a problem because the most predominant perception is not that of dissension but ascension.
On Aug.13.2008 at 08:20 PM
felix sockwell’s comment is:
well said jerry.
its a nice mark in any case. quite a lot of research/ development. as many logos as I've drawn I can't recall anyone yanking my work away and drawing on top of it. OK, actually I can... but its rare.
given the amount of design involved here its pretty ballsy to rearrange the guys work without his consent/ knowledge.
On Aug.13.2008 at 08:48 PM
josh’s comment is:
all that and he still looks like the silver surfer
On Aug.13.2008 at 09:04 PM
Paul’s comment is:
nice post. interesting blog too.
cheers.
On Aug.14.2008 at 12:26 AM
AL’s comment is:
All this 'middle marketing' syndrome - how typical.
Beautiful work and development process, the pencil, the video - very inspiring.
I agree the hand gesture should be free of anny negative connotations. In the end it didn't loose anything, did it?
It is a really interesting situation that Pentagram guys made all those amends not even consulting the author. I have a feeling that he would come up with a better solution that would not hurt the mark so much. I mean, c'mon Pentagram...
On Aug.14.2008 at 09:39 AM
Justin’s comment is:
Am I the only one who feels that Pentagram made necessary changes that did in fact make this a stronger mark? Granted, having poor Bruce cut in half had to be tough to swallow for the original illustrator, but it did two very important things. It eliminated the problem of Bruce's back claw / three toed sloth thing. And it made it more versatile for typography applications. The original feels to me like it rides the fence on having realistic characteristics (the knuckles, cheekbone, lips, etc.) Where as the new mark is more refined in those areas and is more elegant in it's execution. The new curves applied at the elbow, the shoulders, and the face alone I feel help a ton. However we are comparing the marks of an illustrator and Pentagram. His looks like an illustration, theirs looks like a mark. Not exactly a fair fight. And as far as copyright........almost every aspect of Bruce has been refined. And I feel for the better.
On Aug.14.2008 at 10:44 AM
AL’s comment is:
Justin: Look at the original drawing - a man with outstretched (both) arms looks more like the ancient sculpture and is properly balanced while the modified one really looks like in a swamp looking for help. "Three toed sloth thing"? C'mon it's a logo, not illustration (you said that?). Also you didn't see the alternative to Pentagram's execution so you just can't say the original mark with type wouldn't work better. Adding a line to the logo just to be able to make the collateral look "better" is just silly.
On Aug.14.2008 at 01:21 PM
Samuel’s comment is:
"It eliminated the problem of Bruce's back claw / three toed sloth thing." – harsh, but the back hand of Rijven's final version did look awkward, and needed a solution.
"Adding a line to the logo just to be able to make the collateral look "better" is just silly." – The logo now has more legs than it previously did and can be used successfully in a wider variety of ways. To make a change to a logo so that it is more versatile with type is a valid point. The lockup holds together well in Pentagram's version. I don't know that it would hold together as well with the rounded torso of Rijven's.
Most of Rijven's work is very illustrative in nature. Which is why his mark came out looking more like an illustration than anything else. Pentagram was brought in to refine that illustration and make it into a solid mark. Which they did. There are always things we can speculate over, but as designers we should be able to see the minute details that make Pentagram's revisions relevant. The curves, the proportions, the small subtleties that pull it away from being so illustrative. Rijven did a great job. He is very talented. But you can't compare his work to that of Angus Hyland.
On Aug.14.2008 at 04:29 PM
brandy’s comment is:
That was a fantastic and absolutely fascinating post Martijn!
Your process animation gave me the chills! Wonderful work. This clearly shows how incredibly challenging it is to render a figurative mark. So subjective and highly charged with psychology! I totally see your point and was amused and very sorry about the resulting Bruce. What were they thinking? Reminds me of the last scene in Planet of the Apes when Miss Liberty is washed up on the beach!
(remember, bad decisions, judgement and implementation can screw up any mark and it's not your fault!)
Uzair’s comment is:
I really like this post. His description of his work provides a very interesting and vivid perspective on what designers go through with their designs. Its more than just sketches, its a wave of emotions and thought-streams that culminate into a beautiful picture/symbol- remembering that when we look at something final is hard, yet warranted.
On Aug.15.2008 at 12:39 AM
Alice Baldwin’s comment is:
I agree that Bruce should not have been cut off. But mostly because of the upward motion, making me feel like the name should be above instead of below. There has to be better options for the type. I feel like they chopped off his bottom half to stuff the name in there.
At the same time I think this teaches an important and nearly impossible to follow lessen:
don't fall in love with your work.
Alex’s comment is:
I think Pentagram developed a great C.I. using the original mark, I dont think the illustration (although nice) was much more of a stand alone element and looking at the old 'bruce' mark it had a single line below so maybe Akzo didn't want to move to far from what they had before.
I like the gradients though they seem quite apt for a paint and resins company although usings helvetica for body the copy seemed a bit of an obvious choice.
On Aug.15.2008 at 05:33 AM
AL’s comment is:
Sorry, I couldn't resist trying. I love most of Pentagram's work but here I'm just not so sure and I mean standalone logo not the whole of CI which is good as usual.
On Aug.15.2008 at 08:41 AM
JonSel’s comment is:
It is quite possible he retained the copyright for the illustration while licensing it for use within the logo. Contracts for work of this nature may always be negotiated differently.
Felix would be a better person to comment on this, but I'll weigh in anyway. There is no way a logo or illustration would be licensed for use as a corporate identity. It's a complete buyout or nothing. No corporation, let alone one the size of Akzo, wants to have to check in with the illustrator/designer of their logo for approval on how it is used. Likely, Saffron negotiated the buyout from Rijven, then transferred the copyright upon being paid by Akzo. Once the client makes the buyout, it's theirs to change or modify.
On Aug.15.2008 at 10:10 AM
Morgan Smail’s comment is:
AL :
wow I really like the way the logo looks without the line... both are good but the one without looks very cohesive and uniform...
especially with how the curves of the type match with the curves of Bruce so nicely
On Aug.15.2008 at 04:16 PM
Blue’s comment is:
In the comparitive view in AL's post, the updated, more detailed hand is out of keeping with the style. The more fluid (and on-brief) fingers are more open and positive, the more closed more detailed fingers are weaker.
The line is poor - there's a real power in the oval rib-cage and it's completely eliminated with the crop.
The issue for me in the original designer's work is that the back hand seems a little effeminate. I imagine that's why it was hidden.
Dare I say that cutting it off completely is a rather talentless solution to the problem, though?
On Aug.15.2008 at 10:10 PM
Danny Yee’s comment is:
I just tried clicking to Martijn Rijven's blogpost, but he was required to take it down. For those who are still curious, though, you can copy and paste the link into a google search field. From the results, click on the 'Cached' link, and it will take you to the original post.
On Aug.16.2008 at 03:17 PM
Michael’s comment is:
Hmmm...
As someone on his blog commented, I think his emotion in all of this gets him nowhere. In this case it got him a cease and desist order, which is a pity because the work he had on display was very interesting and worth seeing.
AND it reminded me of a situation that we found ourselves in with a project we were doing not too long ago, as it might have done for ALL of us I'm sure. And I understand. It is hard to contemplate the reasons sometimes. Unfortunately you can never be sure, regardless if the superstar graphic design firm in question, that the changes made are not as much an ego trip as much as anything else. Clients can be led! And very often are!
On Aug.17.2008 at 03:58 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
