New & Interesting Brandchannel Debate
Monday, May 12th, 2008Brandchannel has a new debate out that I found pretty interesting. The question is: “Are 3-D logos revolutionizing or ruining logo design?” My answer: Neither. Here’s more on what I had to say. I could have written a thesis on this but unfortunately you’re only allowed so many characters:
This is an interesting debate, but I don’t think there’s a right and wrong answer-And I certainly don’t think 3-D logos are ruining logo design. That said I think there is something to be said for taking the simple approach when considering a brand mark. Obviously as designers we are looking to communicate something specific when we set out to design an identity, so we have to make sure that the message isn’t lost in the complexity of a design. Unfortunately, turning a design into 3-D often adds another layer resulting in that loss of simplicity.
What I have seen a lot of lately are brand marks that aren’t “3-D,” but that do have some sort of dimensionality. This can even be seen in some of the most noticeable brand marks such as BMW, Apple, BP and even Nike. These logos are 2-D designs, but they all feel as though they aren’t flat. These logos have subtle changes that give them dimension, but they all START as a 2-D mark. Also as many other respondents noted, 3-D designs fall flat when reproduced in certain mediums. A true test of a mark is to start with a black and white version. If it holds up in black and white, the mark does its job.
The bottom line: Designs created in 2-D can be adapted to have dimension; however, a logo designed in 3-D is generally a failure in 2-D. I’m a proponent of simple, clean 2-D designs. If we find out that 3-D is out of style in a few years (which I think it will be), there are going to be a lot of brands with 3-D logos on the hunt for a branding + identity firm!
What’s your take?
Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com





