architecture and id

Redesigning your mark (logo) IS part of your business strategy. A good mark should be able to evolve as the company evolves. UPS’ business changed to be more inclusive why shouldn’t their logo.

I’m not saying I like the new design but the strategy to update it was correct (Even if the old design is a Paul Rand classic.)

Companies don’t redesign their logo just because its trendy. Redesigning a logo (identiy) is expensive and sometimes risky. If redesign doesn’t contribute to the bottom line I doubt companies would invest in it.

Sorry the metafilter has server problem. Perhaps the traffic jam.

Here is some interesting opinion from

“UPS has a new logo…it’s a high-tech shield design. UPS (Brown) had one of the more boring designs of any Fortune 500 firm, so I guess an update was overdue. This is a classic example of a very large company incorporating a very simple design for their corporate identity. Probably thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of consultations went into producing this design”
“I guess a shield is a fairly recognizable emblem, but what does it have to do with shipping? As you may have noticed by their advertisements, UPS has it’s own consulting division (Brown) that primarily deals with delivery logistics of packaging – not just the end delivery of a package. They probably wanted to get away from the package in their old logo to reflect their new corporate endeavors.”

For the end of this post, I think you are right for the business point of view.
for the historical point of view, this UPS logo shows along with many other corps’ changing identities, which created certain shifting ground or the movement for the graphic evolution.

BTW, what’s your logo stands for?
If it represents you or your design, don’t you think it needs some business update?
For me…it just looks like
Adorable Petstore logo…

I interpret the shield to imply safety… your packages will arrive safely and intact. UPS will shield them from harm… get it.

As far as my logo, its one I designed for an intermediate type class. We were put into groups and had to come up with a name for our publishing company. Once we had a name, we individually designed our own mark. This mark was then used in the books we designed. The name of the press (if you couldn’t of guessed by now) its Armadillo Press.

Here’s where the mark is used (must roll over ‘next’ to see the mark in use:

explanation of the mark:

I use it here because it reduces nicely and it is one of my designs. I preferred my Sabroso logo ( ) since its message is all about conversation but it doesn’t reduce to the icon size limitation of forum.

Your reply is one of the best I’ve read. It tells me that you know what you are talking about! My son, who is still in high school, has just decided to go into Industrial Design, I didn’t know much about that field until recently but your post has certainly been very enlightening. Thanks

MOM, check these out.
These are what ground breaking graphic designers do now.

It doesn’t have to be 3D logos to update the outdated self.
Time passes…
Coolness can not be obtain by just using latest tools or formula
of 1-2-3 graphic design for Dummies.

By Yishun Wu,

"Although we’re designers, most of the time we’re users. We, as users, encounter design work with intended meaning or fixed rules, which are predetermined by its designers. However, we don’t comply always. Sometimes we misread the design work by accident; sometimes we reinvent it on purpose. By doing so, we create new meanings and rules on the original design work, which undermine, defy, or even subvert the original ones.

The misreading/reinvention is sometimes noirish and anarchistic. For example, my neighbor, a Ph.D. student majoring in physics, recently told me a little story that happened several years ago when he took a political science exam in college. During the exam, an open-ended question baffled him. He knew if he tried to write down something, even something nonsense, the grader would probably be able to give him a minimum of credits. But he didn’t because he didn’t like the exam. Instead, he spent several minutes drawing a bird in the blank space right below the question which was for the answer. This is absolutely not the best example of reinvention. But it shows the intensity that often exists between the designer and the user.

On the other hand, we, as designers, can produce something that foresees, allows or encourages user’s reaction and creation. Designers provide the framework, space, and sometimes a set of basic rules to let users complete the story. Take, the poker game, for example. The design of the cards has a strong sense of order and regularity, while the way people play them is open to unlimited possibilities. "

Let’s put it this way, would you like to live in a house designed by an industrial designer? through huricane season?

well…its totally different …i agree that both archi and id are different …archi cover many different aspects …at least till now in india …it is more like jack of all master of none(in a differnt way ) …i even agree that id has in depth detailing of each and every thing … …i guess many of u might be practicing many are students …what are the allied servics an id has to provide like for archi we has landscaping… electricla .drainage…and when we talk abt the utilitarian aspect of id … accessories …and lifestyle objects …do they come under all this …

How about the Charles Eames and Verner Panton?
Both were architects, and their amazing furniture has definitely
stood the test of time – both aesthetically, and as well-built
products. You can poke fun at Gehry’s wiggly basket chairs
and trash Mike Graves’ sometimes hokey objects, but noone
can doubt the influence of these two architecture/designers
(esp Eames) on ID and furniture design today.

And speaking of designing for mass production, weren’t the
Eames’ pioneers in applying steambending processes to the
manufacturing of bent-plywood furniture?

in the early avant-garde movements such as deStijl, the Bauhaus or Constructivism, there was little distinction between these, and even fine art was a source of insiration and expression for them. I think the point with these though (different from today) is that each was working with a unified theory of art that caused the same theories of design one may use for a building to also be applied to a chair – with varying success, some may argue. Corbusier and Aalto would be others who worked in this way though not as part of any “school” or movement.

In America, I would offer Charles and Ray Eames as examples of those who fir the bill as famous architects designing exceptional furniture.

I don’t get any sense that this (unified theory of art) exists nowadays. Perhaps it is the education system and the over-specialization and complexity of each field that causes it to be so. Cranbrook may be a place where this is countered, but it itself is a very specialized and unique example.

it is all about your portfolio, not your education

good education builds up the good portfolio if you didn’t know.