What, exactly, makes sign people qualified to design anything?

[signmeup]

bob nails it again! That's what I was clumsily trying to say. Very well said bob.

 

[Joe Diaz]

What are the qualifications to to produce an image?

Interesting

You answered this on a thread titled "What are your pet peeves" :

Sign makers being allowed to design logos, business cards, and stationary.

So I think bob has formed some sort of opinion on "What, exactly, makes anyone qualified to design anything?" Since sign makers being "allowed" to design logos, cards, and stationery is a pet peeve of his. I would be interested in what he thinks those qualifications are.

 

[signmeup]

bob misspelled "stationery". LoL (Unless he meant "things that don't move")

Why are you poking the bear anyway, Joe?

 

[bob]

Interesting

You answered this on a thread titled "What are your pet peeves" :


So I think bob has formed some sort of opinion on "What, exactly, makes anyone qualified to design anything?" Since sign makers being "allowed" to design logos, cards, and stationery is a pet peeve of his. I would be interested in what he thinks those qualifications are.

Your deliciously primitive, convoluted, and tortured reasoning never ceases to entertain.

In the quote you seem to find so telling I used the word 'allowed' which has nothing whatsoever to do with the word 'qualified'.

The reason I feel as I do is that when a sign maker produces logos, cards, etc, these things always seem to look like signs which is usually not the look the patron is trying to achieve. Unless it's another sign shop.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not someone is qualified to do this sort of thing, merely on the predictability and desirability of the result.

Even at that, the statement was made with my tongue planted squarely in my cheek. The use of the word 'allowed' was a rhetorical device called a trope. Perhaps if you and your fellow tribesmen had spent less time pointing at the sun and grooming each others pelts and more time pursuing a proper education you might have known this.

 

[Marlene]

The reason I feel as I do is that when a sign maker produces logos, cards, etc, these things always seem to look like signs which is usually not the look the patron is trying to achieve

if they are looking for a logo that will only be seen in print, maybe so. the biggest problem is just about every type of business has a sign. when these logos come in from "designers" no thought at all was put into signage in any way. I gave the example of a hospital that I worked with that had their work done by a design house. what part of tiny, little thin stroked letters in a low contrasting color combo of Pantone colors works for signs telling people on site where to find what they need to find? it might look good on a card, but it doesn't work for anything else. when a sign person designs, yes the card may end up looking like a sign but at least the signs look like signs and not some art project gone bad. I think that sign people think of useage, materials and the more practical side of a logo.

 

[signmeup]

I view "designers" with a similar reverence a mechanic does an engineer. Anyone who has ever had to partially remove a car engine to change the back spark plug knows exactly what I mean.

 

[Joe Diaz]

Your deliciously primitive, convoluted, and tortured reasoning never ceases to entertain.

Glad to be of service. I always find your brand of douchebaggery entertaining, so we should do this again sometime.

In the quote you seem to find so telling I used the word 'allowed' which has nothing whatsoever to do with the word 'qualified'.

Perhaps not, but then I wasn't saying those two words were related in that way. But it does stand to reason that if you believe someone should not be allowed to do something, there must be some reason why they aren't qualified to do so. Which you actually did answer. So thanks for that.

 

[Marlene]

But it does stand to reason that if you believe someone should not be allowed to do something, there must be some reason why they aren't qualified to do so.

maybe the qualified person isn't allowed to do something because of a bad case of "douchebaggery":Big Laugh

 

[signswi]

I should think that the original question might well be expanded to "What, exactly, makes anyone qualified to design anything?" 'Anything' being taken to mean some sort of graphic arts product.

There, that plays better. The 'sign people' can be replaced with any sub-set of humanity, be it plumbers, mechanics, or white slavers, and the question is equally as valid.

What are the qualifications to to produce an image? What if an image were to be produced by someone lacking these qualifications, whatever they might be? Would that image be unacceptable but if an identical image were produced by someone 'qualified' it would then suddenly become acceptable?

I recall some years back that a woman had a paint splattered canvas or board or tortilla or something that she claimed was splattered by Jackson Pollack. There was much ado about either proving or disproving that it was a Pollack splatter-work. If it was it would be worth much money. If it were not, it would be worthless.

Same splatter, what difference? Apparently it was far more important who did the splattering than whether or not the splatter was pleasing to behold. That didn't seem to matter. It would seem that old Jackson was qualified in this regard but anyone else was not. Personally, I thought the thing looked like and possessed all of the charm of a well used drop cloth.

'What fools these mortals be' Wm. Shakespeare

So you'd rather they valued it on the subjective value of aesthetics rather than objective values such as the established market pricing for work by a specific person and the provenance of the work in question?

Laying aside that you're disregarding entirely art historical progression aren't you the guy who spends all of his time railing against subjective pricing?

 

[Colin]

Ah but what about the "good" designer who draws a blank on a particular job and/or just produces something poor - it can & does happen.

 

[signswi]

The difference being a good designer has processes to prevent blanks and when they occur has systems in place to generate ideas anyway, and if all else fails, won't let subpar work go out the door. Processes and systematic approaches to design problems is one of the things that defines "designer" and is the unifying thread between the various design disciplines.

When IDEO was approached with the task of redesigning the vegetable peeler for OXO they didn't just stare a blank board, they tested thousands of handle types for hand feel and narrowed them down systematically. The winner ended up being a BMX bike handle. They then reduced it to it's basic forms and functional advantages and designed those into the OXO vegetable peeler, winning a bazillion awards. Just waiting around for inspiration rarely works, you need processes. Design doesn't occur in a vacuum and is inherently collaborative.

The problem with the small sign industry is that there is rarely time or a client willing to foot the bill for real design, so you end up basically shooting in the dark on most projects and at that point it's more "graphic arts" than "graphic design". All you can do is try to build up your skills and mental toolbox to be able to generate quickly and effectively in the absence of time for market research, competitor research, etc.

 

[Colin]

The difference being a good designer has processes to prevent blanks and when they occur has systems in place to generate ideas anyway.

Oh ya, I forgot about clip-art.



:Big Laugh :Big Laugh :Big Laugh

 

[signmeup]

The difference being a good designer has processes to prevent blanks and when they occur has systems in place to generate ideas anyway, and if all else fails, won't let subpar work go out the door. Processes and systematic approaches to design problems is one of the things that defines "designer" and is the unifying thread between the various design disciplines.

When IDEO was approached with the task of redesigning the vegetable peeler for OXO they didn't just stare a blank board, they tested thousands of handle types for hand feel and narrowed them down systematically. The winner ended up being a BMX bike handle. They then reduced it to it's basic forms and functional advantages and designed those into the OXO vegetable peeler, winning a bazillion awards. Just waiting around for inspiration rarely works, you need processes. Design doesn't occur in a vacuum and is inherently collaborative.

The problem with the small sign industry is that there is rarely time or a client willing to foot the bill for real design, so you end up basically shooting in the dark on most projects and at that point it's more "graphic arts" than "graphic design". All you can do is try to build up your skills and mental toolbox to be able to generate quickly and effectively in the absence of time for market research, competitor research, etc.

I'm curious as to why you feel mere sign makers wouldn't have the same systematic approach to design as anyone else. Finding a bmx hand grip that works as a potato peeler seems more like a process of elimination than design. Wouldn't a good designer simply fabricate a prototype that did what they wanted? ....oh wait.... never mind...

 

[HulkSmash]

interesting

you answered this on a thread titled "what are your pet peeves" :


So i think bob has formed some sort of opinion on "what, exactly, makes anyone qualified to design anything?" since sign makers being "allowed" to design logos, cards, and stationery is a pet peeve of his. I would be interested in what he thinks those qualifications are.

got em

 

[bob]

So you'd rather they valued it on the subjective value of aesthetics rather than objective values such as the established market pricing for work by a specific person and the provenance of the work in question?

That would depend, wouldn't it. If it were more important to you that the this was created by some favorite being of yours rather than what it looked like. Or some combination of those factors.

There are legions of people to whom provenance is more important than what the thing is. Hence the sale of some celebrity of the moment's underwear or whatever for astronomical sums.

There are also legions to whom provenance is not so important.

Then there are those to whom provenance might be important depending on exactly what that provenance is.

But that wasn't the point, was it? The point being that there exists some work that, if it were done by a notable it would be worth lots of money but if it were not, it would be worthless. For the same work of essentially a mindless, talentless, splatter of paint. Seems odd.

Laying aside that you're disregarding entirely art historical progression aren't you the guy who spends all of his time railing against subjective pricing?

"art historical progression"? What, exactly do you mean and why, whatever that it might be, should it not be disregarded? Or regarded?

All of my time? Dealing in absolutes in these sorts of contexts is a sure way to look the fool.

That notwithstanding, do you hold that a sign made by a master sign maker is somehow worth more that a functionally identical commodity made by someone who has yet to achieve that lofty status?

 

[Billct2]

Anyone who has ever had to partially remove a car engine to change the back spark plug knows exactly what I mean

'I rember a 69 Mercury Montego

 

[Colin]

'I rember a 69 Mercury Montego

Big block?

 

[Joe Diaz]

All of my time? Dealing in absolutes in these sorts of contexts is a sure way to look the fool.

The reason I feel as I do is that when a sign maker produces logos, cards, etc, these things always seem to look like signs which is usually not the look the patron is trying to achieve. Unless it's another sign shop.

Or were you using a "trope" there too? :ROFLMAO:

 

[SignManiac]

I feel that Wendy's cheeseburgers from a design standpoint are indeed superior and therefore more valuable than a McDonalds cheesburger. The value isn't perceived per se, rather in the taste. Not every corner burger joint has the artistic sensibility to design a cheeseburger that is universally recognized as a masterpiece. This is why the prices are all over the place.

 

[Dan Antonelli]

I read the Dan Antonelli books on logo design and am always reading trade magazines to sharpen skills. "Real" logo designers have to start somewhere too.

Excellent point, and like Rick said earlier, look at my work from 15 years ago. A good portion of the work in my logo books as well, are not in the same realm as what we do today (which is why I'm so happy to be writing a third book!).

We all do start somewhere. It also should be noted my first paid logo some 18 years ago when I opened my doors (or my basement door at least) sold for $25.

How you get from 'good' to 'great' is a result of many variables. Yes, I went to school, earned a BA in Communications/Advertising. But it wasn't an art school. Prior to college I worked in sign shops, and had been lettering since I was 15. I learned under a great sign painter. I studied SignCraft. College taught me about advertising and theories related to it. A 5 year stint as a graphic designer taught me real world applications of design.

But what really helped me excel was quite simply passion for branding. Passion to the point almost of obsession. And with the constant objective: Today I will be better than I was yesterday. . You can't help improve if you really believe that. I can say its very hard to live up to it.

Its not easy when every brand project you get, you're obsessed with outdoing a previous effort. Its waking up in the middle night. Its pouring through resources. Its obsessing about brand applications for this business who entrusted you with their most precious asset. Its a responsibility which should never be taken on lightly. My clients know no one will care as much about their brand as I do - including them. It may be their logo but its my baby.

This is THEIR business and YOU are responsible for a large part of their success or lack of. If you don't believe that or understand your responsibility to the client, then you are not holding up your end of the contract and you shouldn't be designing their logo. I can put a Creative Director after my name and so can anyone else. But you can't fake passion.

Can or should sign designers design small business brands? Some do very well, and some maybe not. And some small businesses don't know who to turn to. And quite often they have no fundamental understanding of how a small business brand should work, what it's value is to their business, and how to hire a designer etc. After they read my next book, however, this will solve all those problems and all small businesses will want to hire the best logo designer they can get, and there will be no more bad small business brands. (hahah).

As a small ad agency, its a core competency we think we're pretty good at. I'm surrounded by a great crew and I'm very fortunate in the skills of my crew.

One other point, as it relates to time to take to build a proper logo. We're averaging approx 20 hours for each brand we do. Some take more time, especially retro genre work. We're paid well enough for that to work for us, but to do them justice, there's not a ton of shortcuts you can take -especially when you are building custom art for each logo.

Great post Pat, and a good discussion. I think you are an extremetly talented designer, and sometimes we all go through dry spells. I had 16 hours last week just trying to get this one logo to work, and ultimately, I threw them all away as well. It happens. You take a break, and your in the shower or barely sleeping and the answer comes.