i completely agree with you on the AIVA log.

i do think however, that in logotypes ligatures can be used in different ways. actually, i would not refer to them as ligatures in that setting. i feel that logotypes draw from a different set of rules all together. (one of them obviously being readability, which only proves your point)

ps

I couldnt agree more. - It is unreadable. And if you flip it backwards - it looks a bit like the Avia sports company logo (minus the ligatures.) - an oh - could read exactly the same. If I had seen the new AIWA logo, minus the commentary - would have thought AVIA re-branded.

I am waiting for Debbie Millman to chime in a on this one - I am sure she has a good take on it!!

I'll try to beat Debbie to the Brand Consultant's point of view.

no discussion, no look at it this way

Look at it this way Armin, I don't think its supposed to say Aiwa. I know, I know, the letters are there, but it's more of a symbol of technology than a logotype. You are not supposed to read this symbol, you are supposed to recognize it. Think LG or International Paper. Yes there is an awkward I and P, but it's the tree shape that is important. Logos in general are supposed to be recognized as opposed to read each time. The problem with this is that the Aiwa mark is not unique enough to accomplish what LG and IP do.

Well... um... if you look at it again, i guess the "I" and the first part of the "V" can look like a "W"

e.g. \\/ = W

I think it's kinda cool, actually... I agree with David W's assessment. :P

If it's not supposed to say AIWA, what would you think if you first come acoss it? The fact that it is a re-branding, and that it's no longer recognizable from it's old form destroys any connection to it's old form or to a newer form. I will think AIVA and if read quickly enough like Sarah suggested would think that it was AVIA re-branded, the shoe brand, which it does look like.

I've seen a few logos and brands where they combined letters as such to overlay each other but this one doesn't make sense and the rest of the W just isn't apparent, it doesn't communicate the ghost/outline of it. It's not even really implied.

actually, i would not refer to them as ligatures in that setting

My gut feeling is to agree to this, although dictionary-wise, a ligature is, among other things "a character or type combining two or more letters," so I guess I wouldn't have a lig to stand on ...

David, obviously you know more about branding than I, but I think it is supposed to say AIWA, otherwise it wouldn't look like it almost says it. This isn't a mark that represents something else, a tree, a reel-to-reel, a wave, a fish, it's pretty much a wordmark, and yup, it says AIVA.

I don't share Armin's distaste for the Handycam wordmark, though. None of those objections bother me in the least. The whole thing seems to hang together quite well. (I've always really liked the alien marks of VAIO, but am bored to death by the alien "w" blobs over Walkman.)

Speaking of ligatures, a friend of mine has a fondness for using the st and ct ligatures, but whenever I read text using them (well, st, anyway) I can't help but read a lisp, there.

(consumer point of view)

I bought a pair of AIWA headphones earlier this year, and even though there was no "plain text" mention of AIWA on the packaging, I still knew that it was AIWA. Why? Because I was in the electronics section buying headphones. (Not in the shoe store looking for Avia shoes.)

--re-post because the second section got lost in translation--

(consumer point of view)

I bought a pair of AIWA headphones earlier this year, and even though there was no "plain text" mention of AIWA on the packaging, I still knew that it was AIWA. Why? Because I was in the electronics section buying headphones. (Not in the shoe store looking for Avia shoes.)

You're right--as far as legibility goes, this logo doesn't cut the mustard. But I don't think that logos have to exist on legibility alone. Abstraction is nice _if_ the company has the marketing dollars to back it up. Besides, everyone that has an interest in stereo equipment is probably familiar with the AIWA name, and will therefore assume that they have a new logo. (That is what happened to me.) I guess the logo in context works better than just seeing it all by its lonesome.

Think LG or International Paper.

Another Brand Consultant� ringing in here.

The problem in your argument, David, is that the LG and IP logos are not intended to stand alone. Both have corresponding logotypes that says "LG" and "International Paper". In Aiwa's instance, they seem to want to have a type treatment alone. To do that, it must function as both an identifiable and ownable logo and also as a readable wordmark. On the web site, there is a copy point that says "enjoy AIWA" next to the wordmark. I wonder if this is the tagline, which will clarify what the mark says?

I really want to like this, because I think it's pretty darn cool (and my friend worked on it a little). First and foremost, a logo must stand out amongst a crowded marketplace. No doubt this does that. I can't stop staring at the thing.

So what's the strategy behind this? It feels like some unintelligible code and maybe this is the point. It's a discoverable brand for those open enough to embrace it. According to Aiwa's president, "It will stand for everything that young electronics consumers are looking for." So the key here is definitely "younger consumers" who are more apt to want to discover something cool that their parents don't necessarily get.

I think I like this.

> I don't think its supposed to say Aiwa.

Like Marian said, it's a wordmark not an icon-based logo, so supposedly it should say AIWA.

> It's a discoverable brand for those open enough to embrace it.

I have to say it does look cool, and the consumers (young hipsters) will dig it just because of the coolness factor. And I agree with that point Jon. Still� AIVA.

Hi-

I agree with David and Rick on this one. If it was devoid of type, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are a number of marks that work fine on their own - ATT, Cingular, even Eric's "Worlds of Water" and Tan's "Harbor Properties". Like them or not (and believe me, I'm wary of discussing any of the above on a merit basis! Let's not do that again just yet).

I suspect the thinking here is the memorability (and applicability) of the mark, not the read. 'Cause come on, Sony a) seems to know what they're doing, design-wise, and b) opts for the cool over the legible at every turn.

The Handycam mark is lazy, though, I'll give that much. Like them or not, "Vaio" and "Walkman" both work well, have lasted and are a real part of the sub-brand. You're buying that Vaio logo as much as you're buying the piece of technology. But the Handycam mark is forgettable; looks like it was cranked out in an hour.

I like the "Aiwa" logo. I don't care how it reads; I know what it means. I like what that meaning implies. And isn't that what it's there to do?

-R

The problem in your argument, David, is that the LG and IP logos are not intended to stand alone. Both have corresponding logotypes that says "LG" and "International Paper".

Actually, there is no problem with my argument. Like Apple and so many others, both LG and IP frequently use the symbols on products by themselves with no logotype. To Rick's point, this is about context.

When you see the logo, you know what it is.

To do that, it must function as both an identifiable and ownable logo and also as a readable wordmark.

Absolutely not. As said above, companies all the time separate their symbols and logotypes and use the symbol to identify their brand. If they have an identifiable logo, nothing else is needed. The logo doesn't read Aiwa, but Jon, you will never wonder who makes the headphones that have that logo on it.

Like Marian said, it's a wordmark not an icon-based logo, so supposedly it should say AIWA.

You're right, it's not an icon-based logo. It's also not a wordmark. It's an abstract symbol trying to convey technology.

It's an abstract symbol trying to convey technology.

in other words... that it reads AIVA is coincidence. hmm, nice try, but i don't buy it.

Ok, I understand the correlation with using Apple computer or companies that just use the logo without any logotype. That makes sense -

But do you ever look at someone's design where something is obviously supposed to be centered, but it's just a little off? And how that makes for a little bit of tension. That's what I feel when looking at the AIV(W)A logo.

The AIV(W)A logo is supposed to look like AIWA, we can all agree on that, right? If it's not supposed to look like it and just supposed to convey technology, I think they got too close to making it look like AIWA. By getting close, they confused the matter.

Lots of companies that abandon the logotype and go for a non-descript logo have a long history of branding that got them to where they could do it. And they never truly abandon the logotype too - looking at the AIWA logo, I don't really expect that they'd put something under or next to it that says "AIWA". That would be kinda silly.

The AIV(W)A logo is supposed to look like AIWA, we can all agree on that, right?

Kind of. It's supposed to look technological and hip. That's first. The letters are there but its not about the letters. Dopod is a similar example. Some people may never see the letters, but that doesn't matter. It conveys something and is identifiable.

Like Apple and so many others, both LG and IP frequently use the symbols on products by themselves with no logotype.

All of those examples exist as symbol/wordmark combinations. Yes, they use their symbols exclusive of the wordmark on products. We're in a gray area with the Aiwa mark, though, because it is attempting to function as both an abstract symbol — of technology, of hipness, of illegibility! — and an identifying wordmark. Can it have it both ways?

DOPOD is an interesting example, except all the discrete letters are there, not in combined forms. The code is more easily broken in that case. Aiwa takes it a step further, abstracting the letterforms, then combining the abstractions. It's a real mindfuck!

Anyway, I think we're agreeing that we both like this, just maybe not on our arguments.

This works great as a product identifier, but not so much as a corporate identity. Maybe it explains why the corporate entity is actually called Aiwa Strategic Accounts Partnership and abbreviated ASAP (at least in the U.S.). The logo, then, doesn't have to carry the corporate weight, so it can afford its illegibility. Or am I just making excuses?

The AIV(W)A logo is supposed to look like AIWA, we can all agree on that, right?

No. The AIWA logo is supposed to "brand" a line of products that in the words of the AIWA president, Hiro Takahashi are "Aggressive new products that are strengthened by network connectivity and an affordable price tag is something that will set the Aiwa brand apart."

At a glance, consumers will recognize this mark because it is bold and simple and has a powerful balance between form and meaning.

Who did it? Let's get the scoop!

It's also not a wordmark. It's an abstract symbol trying to convey technology.

I actually really like the logo. I don't mind the AIVA thing--I think there is something really lovely about the "i" letterform also being the first part of the "w". It's a double entendre, letterform-wise. (That happens also to be what I loved about the old Northwest Airlines logo, which has sadly changed)

I think the logo has a lot of confidence, it is telegraphic and solid. Bold, and yet fairly simple. Works for me.

Who did it? Let's get the scoop!

I'm pretty sure it was done by Arnell Group here in NY.

Speaking of ligatures in logotypes, I always thought that Jack In The Box overdid it in kindof a neat way. Who'd have thought that O and X could make a ligature

I'm confused on how this could be considered a successful logo. On it's own it doesn't even say what it's supposed to. It's pretty? We like it? big deal...it doesn't even successfully fall into one logo category or another. Am I supposed to think that putting an illegible logo on something with established exposure alleviates me of the responsibility of making it readable? What ever happened to that form follows function rule?

Speaking of wacky Sony Vs and Ws, I always thought this:

was 'vega'.

Okay - I'm mildy dyslexic...

but i definitely read this as AIN the first time around. I know it would be a backwards [NIN] "N" but if they want me to make that glpyh into "AIWA" i don't think "AIN" is a stretch.

As far as are they letters/wordmarks/ligs... has anyone else read Roland Barthes? He wrote quite a bit about word/image relationship - that words are made of letters, whihc are just little pictures that we associate with a sound. Maybe that's a stretch - but it's the second thing that came to my mind. Either way, i like it in theory (as a smooth font maybe) but there's not enough there for me to like.

I'll weigh in.

I like the logo, mostly for the same reasons Debbie and David W have already stated above. The rules for logos are unique -- you can't apply formal principles/terminology of typography (like ligature) to logos because they are a different form of visual language. Legibility, syntax, and brand recognition are different from case to case, application to application.

I don't think it's the strongest mark in the world, but I think it's professional and fits what I know of the brand. It's a bonus achievement that it also has similarities with the other Sony family of product brands.

Just as an aside, I wonder if there are references to any Kanji characters, since it's a Japanese company. I know other marks such as Toyota and Honda does. They aren't necessarily direct translations, but it may suggest related words like "balance", "harmony"--stuff like that. Anyone read Japanese in the house? Just curious.

Darrel - funny thing though:

WEGA (the german word, I think) is pronounced VEGA

true story.

To me it looks like a cheap outdoor clothing/shoe logo trying to look adidas-ish.

But maybe if I saw it in shiny silver on a stereo I would think differently.

Speaking of ligatures, I had the worst time reading Emigre 64. The over use of ligatures was a bit much. Since the use of ligatures in regular reading is so limited, the sudden abundance of ligatures made for a very stilted read. I found myself suddenly noticing the letterforms whilst reading, which in addition to being distracting from the rant itself, actually added to the amount of time it took to read the rant.

I really don't like how ligatures are used willy nilly now. Rarely does the majority of ligature use actually increases the legibility of the text anymore. It seems to be soley for ornamentation, or to show how 'intellectual' the designer is.

The ligature fad reminds me of the Avant Garde alternate character fad that has recently hit us. Again, people using alternate characters without any knowledge of how the are supposed to be used, but trying to add a 'designerly element' to their design.

Just because you have the ligature doesn't mean you should use it, they same way that just because Mariah Carey has an 8 octave voice doesn't mean she has to assail us with it in every song.

Volkswagen.

Corey, are you talking about ligs in addition to the usual fi fl ffl ffi? If so, I wholeheartedly agree—even though I chose the domain name for my personal website based on the -cky lig in Mrs. Eaves. *smiles sheepishly*

Funny, I saw the 'W' in the Aiwa logo right away. It's the A that I was having problems with, because the stem stroke (right side stroke) on the second A is so much thicker than the stem stroke on what would be the first A. But the W I had no problem with.

I like the logo. It's definitely not conventional, in that it's fairly heavily abstracted for a wordmark. They probably thought about an abstract lettermark/symbol, but figured that their name was so short that a lettermark would be silly.

Since shape is recognized before anythign is read, as long as people realize it's Aiwa at some point, then they will probably have no problems.

Rebecca, yes I did mean the ligatures not regularly encoded into text typefaces. And the cky is exactly what I'm talking about - you used it in a logo which is the perfect use for it, but to use it in body copy is disrupting because you don't see it often enough for it to be read. Rather, it is looked at.

I agree that eventually you'd figure it out, whether you were in the electronics store, or from the clues or if someone told you. But that's also what makes it a little weak as a logo. If didn't know that it was AIWA, that if you never read Armin's initial post, or had any other outside influence, would you still first think it was AIWA? That's the problem. At least to me. ;)

Darrel:

Wega is Vega.

Sony pronounces and markets it as vega.

Debbie: I also thought of the North West logo the minute I saw the AIWA. But unlike you, I was torn on the NW logo. I though it was clever, but I always saw the W first than the N. And that annoyed me.

I agree with big steve, AIN.

The form is beautiful but my eye is constantly shifting from positive to negative space trying to make sense of it. Similar to the popular optical illusion of the 3 pronged do-hickey.

I could study it for several minutes, but then be completely unable to draw it based on memory.

This just in: the new AIWA logo was created internally at Sony.

debbie millman wrote:

This just in: the new AIWA logo was created internally at Sony.

Sony in Japan? It does have a certain 'lost in translation' quality, n'est pas?

If this is the result of not listening to focus groups

Actually, Sony doesn't use focus groups for some of its technology areas. I know they don't for the computer development, at least.

I read it as "AWA", which here in the Philippines, means pity.

Weighing in:

It reads AIVA, or AWA, or AIN. To read it as AIWA follows no consistant logic.

But (and this is what draws me out of lurking) I'm surprised no one has mentioned an outstanding "ligatured" logo, very old-school and close to my heart. If you live outside the Bay area, may I present "The Muni Worm" --

Love it, or perhaps hate it for it's extra-thick final "I," at least there's no chance that it'd be read AIVA.

-o__n

Much love for the old school muni logo, but none for the driver's who aim for bicyclists...

I agree in this case it is more important for the logo to be a distinctive mark and "AIVA" does a decent job. Also, can't V and W sound phonetically the same in some languages?

Incidentally, Sun's logo ( www.sun.com ) is one of my favourites!

I'm all for abstraction in logos, like the dopod logo that David mentioned; that works because it is abstract enough where you don't try to read it, to a consumer who looks at it for the first time, it's just a bunch of cool-looking circles. Whereas the AIWA logo is not abstract enough to dismiss the shapes as nothing but shapes, the main characteristics of each letterform are there (not so in dopod) inviting you to read it as a word. So, in that essence it doesn't work. I agree, once again, that it's a cool looking mark and it represents the future and yada yada yada but, like Brent said, does putting an illegible logo on something with established exposure alleviates us of the responsibility of making it readable?

No. It does not. Cool for cool's sake is not cool.

> you can't apply formal principles/terminology of typography (like ligature) to logos because they are a different form of visual language.

Tan, a ligature is a single type, containing two or more letters. This formal principle does apply to logos: you join two letters, you got yourself a ligature. No two ways about it. The fact that it serves a different purpose (read visual interest) in logos does not change the principle.

> It's a bonus achievement that it also has similarities with the other Sony family of product brands.

I wouldn't say it was a bonus achievement, it seemed to be done pretty much on purpose. Not that there is anything worng with that, because they are indeed creating a whole family of brands based on this ligature approach, which is very cool, my whole point is when it starts losing meaning it starts losing coherence. Does that mean they won't sell any more electronic shit? No it doesn't, so why do I care, right?

"At a glance, consumers will recognize this mark because it is bold and simple and has a powerful balance between form and meaning."

I agree that the logotype is recognizable at a glance—the balance between form and meaning is where I’m having problems. There is no denying that the letterforms are there, they just aren’t all there. While this does little if anything to undermine the mark’s effectiveness at a glance, it could serve to frustrate the person who takes a little longer to look at it. To me, that is a big deal.

In my opinion form should follow function. Don’t start out trying to make something read only to give that ideal up partway through creating it. That’s how you get AIVA.

muni looks like mini to me.

muni looks like mini to me.

yup. me too.

I haven't read all of the entries on this thread so if someone has said what I am getting ready to say sorry for the subconscious plagiarism.

Let me just say first that I think the logo is aesthetically pleasing. Okay with that out of the way I want to agree with you Armin. I think this is a whack departure for Aiwa as a brand. I know that Sony is now calling the advertising shots for Aiwa and it makes perfect sense for them to re-brand Aiwa... Yet, their M.O. is a bit perplexing.

My first point is that Aiwa (as an independent company) has spent years in the same markets as Sony developing brand loyalty using the old typographic (and easily readable) logo. They have done well with this mark so... I guess I would ask myself, "If it aint broke, why fix it?" I think an update to the previous logo would have done the job.

My second point is that though I can see that Sony wants to bring the Aiwa brand into their family of products,.. but why stylize Aiwa after the Sony brand products that will compete with them? I hope that makes sense. I think the reason why Disney can own so many Movie/TV production studios and get away with people not thinking that they are the cornerstone of the "Illuminate" is because they have so much control over their products. With this control they make sure to keep the sub-brands very different in order to mask the umbrella companies. It makes sense from a corporate standpoint to be able to sell toys to kids from Pixar, MTV and Nickelodeon (all totally different brands to the casual consumer) in the same store and have the check going to one company. So I pose the question,... "If I am looking at three stereos that are similarly priced, one from Aiwa (which the logo tells me is obviously owned by Sony), one from Sony and one from JVC... don't you think that my first cut will either be the Aiwa or the Sony; since they probably use the same electronics?"

My third and final point is a question. When does conceptual design begin to be replaced by stylization? Is art really art when it is based in market research data? These ligatures have obviously worked for Sony in the past and is complacency adding fuel to this fire? I am not blasting commercial art or corporate design. (I work for that dollar as much as the next guy) What I am asking is when does design (which I think should be new, fresh and based in an Artistic process) become the final step of a scientific method gone Wall Street? We've seen a huge influx of "design" studios that produce campaigns based on "what works" is this what design is all about? Are we in for more radius cornered, arrow flying, seizure inducing, techno blasting design just because it works?

If it were my logo I would add one more "I" like this and go with it. It's neat looking but does it work?

*c

> The fact that it serves a different purpose (read visual interest) in logos does not change the principle.

Yes it does Armin. A logomark may be based on type, but it is a visual mark that departs from typography. Typographic principles such as ligatures are used for legibility and maintain consistency of form in typographic syntax. But in a logo, these principles of legibility can take a back seat to things such as rhythm, contrast, scale, and fluidity of form. In a logo, it can be argued that the dynamics of the form takes precedence over the legibility and syntax of the form. Typographic rules and legibility principles are broken all the time in logos -- letters can be used backwards, smaller, perpendicular from one another, stylized and deconstructed to the point of unrecognizability, etc. If that's acceptable, then why choose to focus on the specifics of a ligature in this case? It seems trivial and unconsequential.

> I wouldn't say it was a bonus achievement, it seemed to be done pretty much on purpose.

of course it was done on purpose. I was just making a point that I thought they succeeded in making AIWA a distinct mark that also worked as a family when placed next the other Sony brands. It's a good bonus.

> then why choose to focus on the specifics of a ligature in this case? It seems trivial and unconsequential.

Um, because four of Sony's most important logos use ligatures.

But my point is that it's as much of a ligature as Exxon's logo? What the hell does that matter? A ligature is an extension/customization of a font. Just because a logo has two joined forms based on type, it does not mean it's a ligature. A logo is a signature, a mark in itself.

Did we talk ligatures or kerning w/ the VH1 logo? Was the "1" on that logo considered an �ber-ligature then?

It's fine to crit the logo -- but to crit it as a good or bad application of ligatures shows that you misunderstand the creation and purpose of a logo.

to crit it as a good or bad application of ligatures shows that you misunderstand the creation and purpose of a logo.

But this gets to the heart of the matter: is it a logo or a wordmark? If it's a logo, then readability as a word is secondary to its core purpose. If it's a wordmark, then readability is key, and the success or failure of its ligatures is critical.

Tan, how would you regard the old Citibank identity with the ligatured NK ? Is it a ligature? Is it a logo? I'm confused by your criteria. I think a ligature is any typographic forms joined or sharing form, Whether it is used in a logo or as text setting in a book seems irrelevant.

> A ligature is an extension/customization of a font. Just because a logo has two joined forms based on type, it does not mean it's a ligature. A logo is a signature, a mark in itself.

Tan, you are arguing a point that has no arguing. Contrary to your opinion two joined forms based on type do make a ligature whether it's on a logo or on the bible. That's a fact. Look it up in the dictionary.

> But my point is that it's as much of a ligature as Exxon's logo? What the hell does that matter?

Yes it is as much a ligature as Exxon's. Does it matter? In what sense, "does it matter" Tan? It's a ligature, it's on a logo, it works, it doesn't need discussing — you know there are two exes and that's why we are not discussing that logo. Sadly not the case with AIWA.

> Did we talk ligatures or kerning w/ the VH1 logo? Was the "1" on that logo considered an �ber-ligature then?

Maybe you are the one misunderstanding the creation of that logo, the "1" is not combined with the "h," it has a thin sliver that separates them. Hence, not a ligature.

> It's fine to crit the logo -- but to crit it as a good or bad application of ligatures shows that you misunderstand the creation and purpose of a logo.

You just want to pick a fight don't you?

You just want to pick a fight don't you?

I paid for ringside seats.

I can't believe I have to teach you dolts typography 101 here.

Ok, Mr. Webster, a ligature is "A character, letter, or type, such as �, combining two or more letters." Moreover, this definition also implies that the created ligature is a new "typographic character" (Philip Meggs, Typographic Design: Form and Communications). Agreed all? Please note here Armin that it's defined as a combination of characters, not just "two forms" as you termed it.

Now according to Philip Meggs, a typographic character is a letterform used in conjunction with other letterforms in the context and syntax of a language system. But a logotype, on the other hand, is a graphic mark created by two or more type characters that becomes a representation, a sign, or trademark -- a symbol of a separate entity.

My distinction here Jon, is that a logotype is not a typographic character. It is not meant to replace a set of characters within the syntax and system of any written language. Therefore, by Armin's own found definition, it is not a ligature.

Ligatures were designed and created to customize specific letter combinations for use within the context of text. They're not representational. They're not symbolic. They're literal, typographic characters.

Ligatures can be used as logos, but logos are not meant to be used as ligatures.

I challenge you chumps to Google away and find an instance where two letters were specifically combined to be purposely used as a clear representational symbol of an entity and still used as a typographic character within an established language system.

Your ball, ladies.

And yes, I'm just picking a fight cause I know I'm right, and to keep Armin on his toes or else he'd really go wuss.

one ... two ... three ... four ...

Here we go. Again. And after this one, I'm done, I'm sure people are getting bored. Plus if you refute this one you will have the last word, which is what you ultimately want Mr. I-like-to-quote-Philip-Meggs.

> Please note here Armin that it's defined as a combination of characters, not just "two forms" as you termed it.

You termed it like that. Go back to your 6:05 pm post from friday. My original explanation to you was the one you just got from the dictionary. Did you note that, huh?

> But a logotype, on the other hand, is a graphic mark created by two or more type characters that becomes a representation, a sign, or trademark -- a symbol of a separate entity.

Are trademarks not supposed to be read only because they are a symbol of a separate entity?

> Ligatures were designed and created to customize specific letter combinations for use within the context of text. They're not representational. They're not symbolic. They're literal, typographic characters.

Any logo based on type relies on typographic characters, doesn't it? Hence, the principle — principle, Tan — of ligatures applies to logos. The fact that they can be broken, bended with succes I agree with, but your point that ligatures don't apply to logos is, well, pointless.

> Ligatures can be used as logos, but logos are not meant to be used as ligatures.

Whoever said that logos should be used as ligatures?

> I challenge you chumps to Google away and find an instance where two letters were specifically combined to be purposely used as a clear representational symbol of an entity and still used as a typographic character within an established language system.

What? Tan, you are creating a problem that doesn't have a solution, Moreover, it doesn't prove a point.

Fine. Nevermind. I can see that this is hopeless. And you started the quote thing, so hey, don't give me shit for it.

I can pull in some bigger guns reference-wise, but I don't want to the kids to watch us argue any further -- though Marian seems to be having a good time.

Maybe I'll head over to Typophile and slap them for a while...and the last word is yours, by all means.

Wow.

Ok, probably should keep my mouth shut, but...

A great effort has been made here at SU to encourage open design dialog of designers at many different experience levels. Some time ago, a post pondered why many visiters do not get more involved and leave comments. I think this conversation is very telling.

What started simply as a critique got derailed into an argument over the definition of Ligature, and what appears from the outside to be a pissing match (sorry guys, I still respect you both imensely).

Comments like, "I can't believe I have to teach you dolts typography 101 here." are made in jest but to a newbie can be very intimidating. I think many young designers or site newbies may not want to comment for fear of slightly using a design term incorrectly and be crucified for it.

The believe the SU audience is primarily experienced designers which is one of the reasons I visit. It is also one of the reasons this site can be intimidating or even pompous and arrogant. And that is ok it that is what this site wants to be, I may be mistaken.

Gack, I have now criticized two threads in three days, how many more before I am banned from commenting?

We just needed to vent, that's all, it's been a while since we've had a pissing contest ’round here. Tan and I can pee really far, even when we are not even aiming in the same direction — we proved that alright.

> Gack, I have now criticized two threads in three days, how many more before I am banned from commenting?

You have two more critiques left, choose them wisely.

> What started simply as a critique got derailed into an argument over the definition of Ligature, and what appears from the outside to be a pissing match

Oh, it's nothing more than a light-hearted argument b/t us griff. Really, Armin and I haven't disagreed on anything in a while, and this was just a slapfest for the fun of it. Nothing more than a sibling brawl.

I didn't think "dolt" was that bad -- I could've called him much worse, like "girlie wuss" or "design ignoramus" or "Forrest Gimp" etc...but I didn't want to make him cry.

Didn't you ever fight with your sibling? But you still love each other though, eventhough you call each other idiots once in a while, didn't you?

Have no fear newbies, we're just being boys.

Noted without comment:

When sharpened by context, or sheer lust, innocent little details can become highly titillating. Ligatures for instance. A normal f-l or f-f ligature, in a classic Roman typeface, already has a definite sensual quality in its subtle merging of lines. Almost obscene — as with any exaggeration� — it becomes in Emigre’s all-ligature font �Mrs Eaves Just Ligatures’, especially with the italics. The �f’ and �y’ are still dancing, holding hands and drifting along with the music; the �g’ and �y’ are definitively having serious intercourse; and with �i’ and �t’ �it’ happens�

--Max Bruinsma

(via the indomitable Coudal)

Max seems to have gotten a little too close to his letterforms for my comfort.

I must admit, one of my prize possessions is a big 72pt metal 'ffi' ligature in Cheltenham Bold Condensed. It's purty in all its heavy, clunky splendor.

Again - WOW

Absolutely beautiful the way you guys dismissed the criticism from someone trying to explain why it is no longer enjoyable to be an active participant of SU. But I guess that comes with the territory when you're just being boys, right?

> Absolutely beautiful the way you guys dismissed the criticism from someone trying to explain why it is no longer enjoyable to be an active participant of SU.

I wasn't being dismissive -- I was just explaining that the argument was not as serious as it seemed. And Griff seemed to be fine with it -- but apparently, you're still angry or bitter about something.

So what would you like to see happen Corey? Would you like Armin and I to pinky-promise that we'll never ever disagree on anything again? Would that bring happiness back into this disgruntled house for you?

Well Tan I don't know what to tell you. Honestly I don't. I have not been enjoying SU for quite some time now. The tone has changed and changed markedly.

I find it very telling that in quick succession, two people have tried to point out a flaw in SU that is off putting for at least two people (possibly more) and in both instances the reader is the person that is incorrect. Maybe the site has outgrown me, or I have outgrown it, but the topics are only interesting for the first couple posts, then it degenerates into either a brawl or the mutual onanism society meeting. I find very little discussion happening here anymore; the site has become so polarized that it seems to come down to either us or them.

But to answer your question directly, I would like you to be less condescending, would you make a pinky promise for that?

pinky promise.

Seriously, I do see what you're asking here. I really do. But I think you're mistaking sarcasm for condescention. The irony is that Armin and I respect do respect each other. In fact, we respect each other enough to argue over the semantics of a highly specialized term like ligatures. That's where the sarcasm of "typography 101" is apparent -- you see, I know that Armin is knowledgeable enough about typography to defend his use of the term when I question it. It would be truly condescending if I didn't think Armin was capable of a debate.

> but the topics are only interesting for the first couple posts, then it degenerates into either a brawl or the mutual onanism society meeting.

Not sure what you mean by "onaism", but if you're suggesting that some of us can be elitist -- then I think this debate between Armin and I prove just the opposite. There is no class structure here -- everyone has a right to an opinion, and that opinion can and will be questioned by anyone else -- friend, colleague, or stranger.

And to me, arguing over the term "ligatures" is very relevant to his thread -- since it was the basis of the evaluation in the first place. I really don't mean this as being dismissive -- but why isn't it appropriate to argue over the semantics of a typographic term like "ligatures" here on SU? How more design relevant can it get than for a Philip Meggs quote to be used during the debate?

But I'm sorry that you see it as "degenerating" and uninteresting. I disagree.

Perhaps the language is needlessly harsh at times -- discussions can become heated and passionate. If it's not your style, and you just want information or eyecandy, then there are dozens of other threads you can join. Currently, I see "Love over Money", "Contracts, Lawyers and Ethics," and "Just Married" among others. What's wrong with those?

> I find very little discussion happening here anymore

On the contrary corey, I think we're doing a fine job of discussing something right now.

There's no other design blog or discussion site where the conversation is more immediate or direct. Try AIGA's Design Forum or the highly intellectual Design Observer and see the difference.

Tan, did you really write that at 3:42 am?

"onaism"

You may have been being disingenious, but he meant "onanism" - masturbation.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

I love a good, heated argument over ligatures, myself. That's why I got ringside seats. This is the only place I know of where anyone cares enough about such things to really take the gloves off, and that's special.

I'm still not really sure who "won" this particular argument. My stand on the matter is the same as my first post in this thread, but kinda leaning into the Tan camp.

tan wrote:

On the contrary corey, I think we're doing a fine job of discussing something right now.

To me, you're arguing about the tree and missing the forest. My original question was if anyone knew if the logo was done in Japan. We know that it was created 'in house' and we know that Sony's electronics headquarters is in Japan. Was this logo drawn by someone who uses a totally different writting system?

I love Japanese graphic design and find that it usually falls to the extreme of either astounding or horrible. (I'm not big on the Keane-eyed cute cartoon character thing) Regardless of how good the piece is, the most amazing things can happen when Western letterforms are reinterpreted by someone who writes in ideograms.

So I ask again? Does anyone know if this was done in Sony's Japan office?

So this all started because of Mark's original question?

Oh well. I think we can find that out. I'll get back to you on that Mark.

> My stand on the matter is the same as my first post in this thread, but kinda leaning into the Tan camp.

People to ban from Speak Up (continued):

4. Marian

5.

armin wrote:

So this all started because of Mark's original question?

Well... my first question went unanswered.

It was your original posting:

The latest ligaturization by Sony is what made me think about all this, they bought AIWA last year and they recently unveiled the new logo . I just wonder what was going on in the decision process� it reads AIVA for God’s sake! It’s a cool looking logo, but it’s wrong, and this is not me being conservative or close-minded or whatever, it reads AIVA — no discussion, no look at it this way

...which led me to wonder about the cultural gap between Sony and the American market. I had heard stories how Sony would introduce products without the neurotic focus group vetting that other companies need. If it worked, great -- let's make some money. Otherwise, nothing ventured nothing gained. Hence, devices like the one which printed screen grabs on a roll of small fax paper. The product would appear, artists like Robert Longo or Gretchen Bender would use it in their work, I would see it in a gallery and go up to Sony's store on Madison Ave. to get my own -- only to find out it was no longer made.

Armin's original posting also begs some discussion about what happened when CBS Records President Walter Yetnikoff (bastard!) arranged the sale of the division to Sony. An idea was floated around at that time about how perfect the merger was. Sony had the hardware (CD players, etc.) and CBS had the 'software'. In retrospect this was one of the first global mega-mergers in a long dance of death between media companies.

Oy, such questions for a Thanksgiving holiday...

Mark wrote: To me, you're arguing about the tree and missing the forest. My original question was if anyone knew if the logo was done in Japan.

sorry, Mark -- but I've been camping in that damn forest. I'd beat you to it. I posted this same question below, before you did. Scroll it up.

I'd posted: Just as an aside, I wonder if there are references to any Kanji characters, since it's a Japanese company. I know other marks such as Toyota and Honda does. They aren't necessarily direct translations, but it may suggest related words like "balance", "harmony"--stuff like that. Anyone read Japanese in the house? Just curious.

>"onanism" - masturbation.

thank marian -- I'm not as familiar with such gentler terms for spanking the monkey.

> I'm still not really sure who "won" this particular argument. My stand on the matter is the same as my first post in this thread, but kinda leaning into the Tan camp.

ahem..Did I ever tell you guys just how strikingly beautiful Marian is in person? Hip fashion sense and smart too.

And I did post at around 2am Pacific time -- my poor wife was up with a cough, so rather than watch infomercials, I decided to smacktalk some ligatures with Armin.

... uhh ... I've been banned, otherwise I'd say something.

>So I ask again? Does anyone know if this was done in Sony's Japan office?

It wasn't done in Japan, it was done in Sony's New Jersey offices.

New Jersey! That explains everything.

debbie millman wrote:

It wasn't done in Japan, it was done in Sony's New Jersey offices.

Too bad. A cross-cultural gap would have been more interesting.

M Kingsley wrote:

Too bad. A cross-cultural gap would have been more interesting.

And probably would have made the bad ligaturization acceptable. What? I'm just saying, that's all.

Anyone mention the LG logo?

and the International Paper logo?

why not mention Pakard Bell?

and its previous logo