NEWS
Blind Leading the Blind
Recently, we were thinking about any competition that we might have in St. Louis advertising and creative news and realized that one of our competitors could be AdSaint.org. So we surfed on over to their site yesterday and checked out what news they had cooking. For instance, yesterday there was a brief article highlighting a new logo for the St. Louis Society for the Blind and Visually Impaired made by Schuppco. This is what they showed:
Clearly you can understand our confusion that a big shop such as Schuppco would not put out a logo that looked like something from PBS circa 1983. In fact, we were so shocked that this was actually the new logo that we went over to Schuppco's site to see this nasty little piece of art in their portfolio. We started clicking thru their portfolio and were relieved to see that this wasn't the case. Well, relieved for a brief second:
Clearly this was better than the one AdSaint had featured but still, we were pretty turned off by the burning eye rising from the river in the middle of the Arch. The Arch, if you are new to St. Louis logo design, should be incorporated in 95% of logos created within the St. Louis region when no better ideas can be conjured up. We're fairly certain that Schupp had to keep the burning eye arch combo from the previous PBS version but the type on the other hand, while extremely large and probably easier to read for visually impaired people, is gross. Just because you're doing pro bono work for people who can't see doesn't mean you have to give them a shitty logo.
As a last curious effort, we actually went over to the St. Louis Blind & Visually Impaired website and of course, there was yet another variation altogether different:
Sigh.
We here at the Egotist believe that when doing pro bono work, the same amount of effort and skill should be brought to the table as when doing work that will pay everyone for the next year. And to us, it just doesn't seem as if that was the case in this instance.
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Comments
Can't say I disagree with you on any of your points.
This is either a case of the creators not having enough time to create a solid logo or the committee at the society was responsible for and stubborn about the creative direction. We've all had that meeting when the main client has in their mind exactly what they want, and they won't change that vision for anything.
It is great that SchuppCo helped them out though. A bad logo is generally better than no logo.
That you didn't bother to get the context of the project is obnoxious--we have NO idea what the constraints were here. Schupp Co has done plenty of great work, and maybe it'd be more worthwhile to cover that than rip into a logo they're probably not totally stoked about themselves.
You know...I realize that the philosophy of the Egotist network is to remain anonymous (for whatever reasons), but that gets really tiresome when it comes to criticizing the work other people do. Man up and put your name on your words, especially when you've attacked people here for posting anonymously.
@Chris Meeks
Good points. And yes, no logo is generally not ideal.
@Brad Gutting
Sorry that we don't have privilege to Schuppco's project briefs when writing an article. We're calling it how we see it and we are fully aware that there may be a back story that explains what/why. That's what this site is about - presenting something and gathering feedback and further insight. If they were not proud about it, then why would they feature it so prominently on their site? We didn't say that "Schuppco hasn't done any great work" and we do realize how good they are, hence the shock in seeing something that doesn't seem to fall in line with previous work.
The philosophy of anonymity exists because the work and the city are the feature here, not us. Nothing would come to light if you found out who we are... plus, how many boring news sites exist because the people don't want their professional lives marred? Anonymity affords truthful perspective. Clearly we're not dishing out any brash insults or bullshit negativity.
Everything we bring up is open to discussion. We're not attacking Schuppco. and for all you know we are Schuppco. We appreciate good solutions and will call out the ones by the leaders in this town if we think the solution was not up to their normal level of quality. They are free to provide further insight if they wish too.
Gateway to the Creative Pettiest
@Brad Gutting
Don't get your panties in a bunch.
The work is way better than the logo. They must know it, too, since the logo isn't on the posters. Oh well, they live to fight another day.
Rock on, St. Louis...
Rock on.
Wow. Not good, guys.
Maybe it's time to change the Egotist crew again.
Damn. Thats pretty harsh.
I understand the arguments here. There is definitely a vacuum of criticism on other blogs... but this one really did come off as over the top.
Slow news day inside the tower?
They don't call it 'Egotist' for nothing.
To be honest, I'm not sure what everyone is so outraged about.
Why come to a site like that and then get mad when the author has a strong opinion. Is it just that negativity isn't appreciated in any form?
The author is criticizing the final form - the logo, not people with blindness. Yet many act like The Egotist just pants-ed the Pope!
Do any of you read Brand New? What makes an author's criticism bearable if it is there, but not here?
Maybe that's just my opinion...
We actually prefer seeing the not so stellar work and the opinions people have about the critiques, just as long as the egotist keeps promoting top creatives and good work in equal measure.
One thing is for sure, it's entertaining albeit being as blunt as kick in the shins.
There is nothing wrong with slamming artwork for being poorly done, and let's be honest, that logo is ugly. But as many have pointed out already, there is no regard to any of the possible constraints that could have been in place when they did the art. So where's the rest of the story here?
And furthermore, why drag down the other blog for posting it? If they felt strongly about it, which they had to have otherwise they wouldn't have posted it, then who cares.
If the goal of the site is to further the STL design and ad industry, I can think of more productive ways to go about doing so than ripping on other blogs with similar goals.
Your critiques suck.
Over a few years I had the privilege of teaching and co-teaching with an immensely accomplished design faculty in the Communication Design program at Wash U. Unquestionably, I learned more than I taught. A routine and foundational part of the design student’s education was participating in formal critiques of design work.
Young designers, lacking the experience and vocabulary to describe design work, would affix empty appraisals to the work pinned up in front of them. “I like it. I think it works.” “This is better than the other version.” “That font is terrible.” Professor D.B. Dowd would advise them, “That’s evaluative, not descriptive. Be descriptive.” The “formality” in these crits doesn’t refer to use of artsy-fartsy, flowery language. It speaks to using words that have precise meaning, and more importantly, providing valuable insight into the thinking that yields an evaluation. An evaluation alone omits the thinking altogether. Twitter, Facebook and blogs make it so easy to render a faceless, thoughtless opinion. LIKE. WIN. FAIL.
There was some hub-bub in the Egotist comments about Toky’s blog posts on the Feast branding done by the firm. Absent from the ad hominem attacks was the observation that the posts on the Toky blog highlighted the merit of the small, specific design decisions made by his team. The post didn’t say “the nav menus look bad with black dividers” (an evaluation), it says “the line-spacing is much tighter in the final version, and the dividing rules are black and not reversed, giving the menus a cramped feeling.” (a descriptiton)
My beef with the Egotist site isn’t that the commentary isn’t all lollipops and puppy dogs, or even that it’s done anonymously—it’s that it’s so inexpert. The editorial commentary and the comments alike are so…simple. The type is gross. The logo is shitty. The font is New York Timesy. The destination video is surprisingly good. Some LouFest stuff we dislike. But there’s some stuff we like too. LIKE. WIN. FAIL.
I think we can do better. Let’s shoot for descriptive over evaluative. It’s the difference between “Your critiques suck” and “Here’s why your critiques suck.”
Try on this new bio on for size:
The St. Louis Egotist serves up juvenile attacks, comment bait and national news easily attained elsewhere.
p.s. - the petty reply post is only digging you in deeper.
I'm sure that Schupp will be running all future work past the Egotist board of creative pundits before making any decisions.
And why wouldn't they? Obviously, the design of this site is second to none. Nothing to criticize here. No, sir. It is just top notch all the way. Strong, never before used, old timey newspaper look. I love it! And really how could you go wrong by following the same tried and true template of just about every elementary school newspaper?
Intentionally designing something to look like an off the shelf template. What a powerful statement. I wonder why no other websites have ever thought to use such a powerful and though provoking design. You did it so well that I can't even tell it was designed at all. It really looks like a template. Good job!
You guys are truly design geniuses.
What? Is this how you make a name for your weak on-line publication? Really? How do you benefit STL? You are like the kid we all knew in Jr. High. The kid that that didn't get any attention...so that kid became a bully, met friends on ChatRoulette and cried themself to sleep at night. You're a waste, but your name says as much. Schupp is not happy.
My only advice for Egotist is precisely the same advice DRINKSPILLER offers above. I want to continue seeing good work celebrated (it does a good job at that) but at the same time, would love to see constructive criticism. (emphasis on 'constructive'). It will help make the STL design community stronger/better. Which is what I think is what Egotist is supposed to be about in the first place.
I'm not giving up on you Egotist. I think there are some redeemable qualities here.
Oh, and a little author transparency would be nice, too. It helps to add even more legitimacy to this online publication.
My two cents.
You could also take a minute to mention the other award-winning work that Schupp Co did for Society for the Blind. But why be positive when negativity is sure to do more for the local ad scene?
I guess no good deed goes unpunished by the Egotist.
I say we turn this frown up side-down!
Designer Throwdown!
The Place: http://blindlogos.tumblr.com/
The Weapons: Illustrator, Coffee, Ice Pick
The Logo: Society for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Best logo gets lunch at Blues City on me!
Fight!
Skye (drinkspiller) is dead on with his comment.
The reason the Brand New blog is great is because Armin Vit, et al take the time to write a detailed deconstruction of why they like / dislike a logo. Some of it is fairly critical but it always comes with good descriptions of what / how it was done.
This critique seems like client feedback you get where you they lack the vocabulary to articulate what they do or don't like about a design comp:
Make it pop
Not feeling it
Too much whitespace
Saying the Arch is overused in St. Louis design is true. Saying the type treatment is 'gross' and the logo is 'nasty' in a poorly written post does nothing but point out an opinion that anyone could have.
Post new comment