One thing comes instantly to mind. (the obvious first, right?)-- Headbanger's Ball -- The "gnarliest" black letter you can find -- and less rotunda-schwabacher shapes more textura-fraktur -- the more mediaeval the better. or on second thought what about more of an "einsturzende neubauten" approach?

are they heavy metal ala WASP/Judas Priest, Poison/Ratt, Motley Crue/Can't think of one, Black Sabbath (60s 70s)/Blue Oyster Cult/Led Zeppelin? Seems to me the Speed Metal bands were always a little more "evil" in their "look" while heavy metal bands seemed to have their tongues more in their cheeks. I might look at the early seventies stuff -- Zep, BOC, Black Sabbath

http://labyrinth.georgetown.edu/ Great resource for looking into manuscripts (etc.)

Nothing says Heavy Duty like Spinal Tap!

Stuart :D

yah! turn it up to 11!

*** SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION ALERT ***

For your consideration, here's "Gutterbäll" as set in Hefeweizen....

David == What about taking the 'tt' and creating a special ligature in the lowercase? == I like the lowest one, although what about 'tweaking' the cap A with the umlaut?

Gutterball sounds like an cross between Guttermouth and Butterball, so that'll be an oven-ready pre-basted punk band?

Forget the 'tt' ligature, create a dagger + dagger ligature! Don't forget to use the umlat u like Motley Crüe

Totally Kick Ass!

>> Gutterball sounds like an cross between Guttermouth and Butterball, so that'll be an oven-ready pre-basted punk band?


AHAHAHAHA!!

Fun ideas, all....

Apologies that this is so late. I tried some ligature experiments:

David - I like the third one down in the left column.

Jared - are you going to show us any prelims?

Here is Gutterball set in Hrant's Brutaal.

Hey, nice triple-umlaut! (And it even goes with the three finger holes on the ball.)

hhp

being swedish, its always fun too see that our too often forgotten lettors å, ä, and ö is still considered heavy metal. the letter å is pronounced similar too the a in ball. with an ä its more like "gutterbell".

Like a tinkerbell who hits rock bottom? ;-)
Anyway, how do you pronounce the "a" with *three* dots?

hhp

Ooh Yeah. I like the one BJ posted! -- David what if the dagger part of the daggers (so eloquent) were made to look more like crucifixes?

BJ, I just have seen The Lord of the Ring part 1 again on big screen. Hrants type combined with 3 dots gives a similar impression as the type used in the film. (Which is not bad, by the way, even after reading the 5 times....)

Jacques

I like the one BJ posted too! (Nice font, Hrant -- fun to see it used like this!)

Tiffany: I had the thought about the crucifixes as well. On BJ's look, what if the bowling ball was made to look like a skull?

(Metal projects can be fun, no? :D )

David "Nigel" Thometz

> fun to see it used like this!

Fun to see it used, period. :-)

hhp

I didn't do nuthin'. Hrant's font was like a scrubbing bubble.

Hrant, what were you thinking, seriously, when you were making Brutaal?

Jared, does the band have a website, some downloadable music...what have you come up with? The Gutterball fan club wants some news, eh?

bj

to my knowledge, not yet. They're just starting out. They have half a dozen songs, and I've seen them play, but I don't think they've made any recordings yet... I'll ask.

I still need to post the version I'm working on, which is set in Fette Fraktur, if I recall correctly...

> what were you thinking, seriously, when you were making Brutaal?

Well, the name came first, with no idea what the font would look like... Then I made a trip to Bangkok (friggin' amazing place - that song is totally true - except it was four nights) and saw shapes I had never seen before*, I mean not in real life - interestingly I'd actually been drawing abtrast sketches with shapes like that since childhood, usually on restaurant napkins and stuff (you know those restaurants that have tablecloths made of paper with crayons for kids to draw with? I go crazy with the red).

* (840K) http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/wat.jpg

Anyway, shapes like the ngao (those spiky things at the edges of roofs), but certainly the atmosphere of Siam (to use a now-politically-incorrect term) inspired me immesurably. Take a boat on the big, filthy Chao Praya, and you'll feel the "cockroach crawling up your spine" - to use an Armenian expression. It all feels *real*, unlike so much in the West these days. Anyway.

BTW, in my Daam Entity, Brutaal is the original concept, but Cristaal was actually made into a font first, and then Domination Available (a name taken directly from an ad I saw in Thailand) was the lurid climax, so to speak.

hhp

you guys seriously need to stop using typefaces as trademarks. it doesn't work that way. you really should be drawing your own type for some, imagine this, uniqueness. it's really quite pathetic, i mean, these guys are paying you right? even if they aren't you should have enough respect for your craft to know better. you should all be ashamed.

non of those hold a candle to
"Squealer"

larabiefonts

"you guys seriously need to stop using typefaces as trademarks. it doesn't work that way. you really should be drawing your own type for some, imagine this, uniqueness. it's really quite pathetic, i mean, these guys are paying you right? even if they aren't you should have enough respect for your craft to know better. you should all be ashamed."

Whoa mr. high and mighty has spoken---so, this means that you invent all of your logos from scratch including the type treatment? if so, i'm still not impressed.

nad x, yeah that's exactly what i mean. and if you want to talk high and mighty, it's incorrect to refer to them as logos. they are in fact trademarks. logo is a low brow reference to logotype. meaning a purely typographic solution which most marks are not. so step off.

Semantics!!!!

jay-I have seen the light and i do agree with you, I guess i differ a little bit in that with so many typefaces out there -i don't find it neccasary to create your own face for every logo-when in fact sometimes u come upon the perfect font for the perfect "trademark" take for instance "Nike"--pretty basic type treatment but it does seem to stand the test of time

peace

I'd like to clarify something. Even if only for myself. It isn't that I wholly disagree with you, Jay, concerning your opinion on type and logos (marks). From where I sit, as a designer, it would be best to always keep in mind the originality ,or lack thereof, of a logo I might design. However, it would do my boss no favor to spend more time than has been allotted per logo. So, if the client's budget is roomy enough for new type, then I would be nuts not to go that route. However, only IF the project necessitated it.

I said:
From where I sit, as a designer, it would be best to always keep in mind the originality ,or lack thereof, of a logo I might design.

I meant:
From where I sit, as a designer, it would be best to always keep in mind the need for originality as it pertains to the logo I might be designing.

And by this I meant... If the mark is going to have visual prominance and set the tone for the brand, I don't see the reason to design new type as there are so many amazing fonts already available.

tiffany, budget is most certainly an important issue here but more important is the integrity of the client and designer. the fact is that with experience, custom display type and letterforms are really not that hard to produce. it takes a little while to become accustom to it but it is not very difficult. as a matter of fact, i just finished up a trademark for a client and it took no more then 20 minutes for one mark. trust me, i've taught many students these same skills. it's just a new way of working and seeing typography. you need to remove yourself from the computer for a few rounds. after a few revisions by hand, you can then move to the computer. the trick really is producing a couple of unique letterform directions that speak to the client and then focus your time on the pictographic elements. this is really no different then how you would approach a trademark while using a text face. the difference is the time you would spend putzing around your type collection is spent producing letterforms that do a better job of describing your client in the long run. this is only one of many reasons why you should use custom letterforms. another is the fact that you can work out all the strange and interesting relationships between individual letters more fluidly. a text face can't do this as well. it's letter combinations (except ligatures) are utilitarian. they need to work well with all other letters in the alphabet. the fact is that they don't always do such a great job of this. custom letterforms work in and around each other accenting and stressing or pairing and differentiating with fluid ease. this is why most of the best marks in design were produced in an era where designers could not be lazy. their only option was to produce trademarks by hand. in most cases if you could not do this you had trouble even pursuing a career in design. the computer has really not made this any easier. it has only illustrated the point that a text face is not a display face.

nad x, i'm glad you agree. but the fact is that even with so many text faces to choose from, a text face is still not a display face. realistically though, most people producing and using type are not very type literate and many of the cheesy "typefaces" out there, are in actuality display faces. if you have trouble producing your own type, many of these faces can work with some proper optical adjustments. these sorts of faces can also provide great inspiration. although i would never purchase a "typeface" from t-26, they do in fact have many creative ideas in regard to unique or interesting letterforms. my suggestion is to use these as creative inspiration but not as a final design for a client. as far as the nike mark is concerned don't give it to much credit. the spacings between the "n" "i" and "k" are way to small. that said, the fact is that this mark was most likely done in the way i have described. the version you are speaking of was designed prior to the computer revolution. just because a mark looks simple does not mean it's execution was simple. masterful works usually only look simple.

as a last note (i think i already mentioned this) the use of the word logo is incorrect. logo is short for logotype. a logotype is a word mark. most trademarks are not just word marks. the correct term is trademark with the appropriate abbreviation being mark. this is more then just semantics. it's like calling a bicycle a car. though both are forms of transportation a car is very different from a bicycle.

sorry for the long post...

>>the correct term is trademark
>>this is more then just semantics

Yes, you're right this is more than just semantics
No, you're wrong, the correct term is not always 'trademark'

Its possible that Gutterb

jay, it's not the length, it's the lack of breaks. At least use some pilcrows.

hhp

steve, yes, it is more then just semantic but it is clearly you that are incorrect on the trademark terminology issue. not unless you can give us all another applicable example or replacement for the word trademark. the only other word i can think of that might be relevant is masthead. this might also help fool your client into believing that their mark is something more then it is.

if i understand your last argument i think you might be getting a little over zealous. long ago i used to listen to punk rock and heavy metal and i fondly remember wanting to believe that there was some high and lofty artistic value to the music because of it's pseudo elitism (the more obscure it is the cooler it is). i'm not debating this issue and quite frankly i don't really see what it has to do with the terminology of logo vs. trademark. the fact still remains that logo is incorrect usage. but from the stance you are taking the word logo implies as much corporate "bullsh*t" as does trademark. so, take your pick, incorrect "corporate sludge" or correct "corporate sludge".

sorry hrant, sometimes i just get verbal diarrhea. especially on this type of issue.

Even if one is using a prefabricated font to 'design' a letterhead, logo(type) or even a trademark, he or she should should take that xtra half an hour to balance it out (wheight, spacing, letterforms etc.).
The interactivity between the small amount of characters in a logotype is very different that between characters in a text.

--jacques
PS. it is only 30 minutes, max. 60!

>> [blah blah blah] pseudo elitism [blah blah blah]
>>frankly i don't really see what it has to do with the terminology of logo vs. trademark

Oh, Jay, I just can't be bothered
I was going to write a reply here, but I've just remembered who you are, and that there's no point.
(How did I remember who you are? Because you completely misunderstood what I was saying - maybe you do it on purpose)

steve, are you kidding me? i understood and responded directly to what you said. maybe you're just not expressing your ideas very well. let me quote you then if it makes things easier for you to follow.

you said > No, you're wrong, the correct term is not always 'trademark'

i responded with > it is clearly you that are incorrect on the trademark terminology issue. not unless you can give us all another applicable example or replacement for the word trademark. the only other word i can think of that might be relevant is masthead.

you said > Gutterb

Allright Jay, just for you...
1. My point restated clearly for you:
The first five letters of the word trademark make up a word all of their own. T-R-A-D-E
This is not a coincidence.
The word trade appears in the word trademark to signify that the mark exists in a context related to trade.
In many countries, you can even register your trademark, so that no-one else can use it to trade with.
Music, in common with many activities where an identifying symbol may be appropriate, is not always related to trade.
Therefore, trademark is not always the correct term for an identifying symbol, especially in cases where (as in this thread) the symbol is not being designed for an organisation primarily concerned with trade, or a purpose primarily concerned with trade.


2.Where you did not respond directly (or otherwise) to what I said:
>>not unless you can give us all another applicable example or replacement for the word trademark.
I pointed out the error in your directive that the correct term is 'trademark' - I said that this wasn't always the case.
In what way does that place upon me the obligation to come up with a term that will be correct in all situations? Jay, just use terms where they are appropriate, and if one doesn't exist, try stringing a few words together to get your meaning over.

>>you might be getting a little over zealous. long ago i used to listen to punk rock and heavy metal and i fondly remember wanting to believe that there was some high and lofty artistic value to the music because of it's pseudo elitism (the more obscure it is the cooler it is).

Maybe you were talking to someone else here, can't work out what it has to do with me.

>> you said > Gutterb

steve,

1. as a matter of fact, music labels, bands etc. offer a product that could be classified under trade. so the term trademark still holds here. almost everything that you can legally trademark has a trademark.

2. trademark is in fact correct. so my question still holds. if it is not a trademark then what is it? it's sure as hell not always a logotype. though the argument could be made that most bands do in fact use logotypes or word marks.

3. i took you statement > "Gutterb

Having thought long and hard on this, I really think the umlaut should go over the u.

cmon doesnt everyone have anything better to do then argue over the usage of "logo" and "trademark." Im not saying there isnt a differenct.. but is it really this important? We understand what is meant by either in relation to this post..

cmon doesnt everyone have anything better to do then argue over the usage of "logo" and "trademark." Im not saying there isnt a differenct.. but is it really this important? We understand what is meant by either in relation to this post..

Jay No. 1, the lowercase d-jay --

Your siren song compels me to throw myself
at the rocks, the ones right below your pedestal.


Steve is not incorrect in his Gutterball/they construction.

Some stylebooks make an exception to the standard its/their
construction for entities such as sports teams
and bands...etc...etc.

The Lakers make their debut. (they)
Los Angeles makes its debut. (its)

Coldplay make their debut. (they)
The band makes its debut. (its)


At the LA Times, you'd write, "Coldplay makes its debut."
But...this construction would be changed at Spin, Rolling Stone
and Sports Illustrated, among others. They treat
bands/teams as they.


bj

jason, you're right. it's not that big of a deal. it's nothing more than a simple fact. i just find it hard to believe that people would dispute it.

Reading that again with fresh eyes...

"makes its debut" is just gobbledygook for "debuts."

but the other point I forgot to make (but who cares anyway) is....

The only G'ball logos/trademarks in this thread came from myself and David.
We were using fonts that had never
been used for anything, fonts that are not even for sale.
Twas simply an exercise in fun.

Did you begin reading at the beginning of the thread?

Did you expect the D.Young treatment from two people
with no involvement other than being fellow Typophiles?

The typeface-as-trademarks argument that you learned at
Art Center is super, but you picked the wrong thread to make
your point and nobody wants to bogged down with absolutes.

C'mon jay. This is a logo for a friend in a garage band, not identity
for the next Metallica tour.

Again, it's Jared's friend who's in the band and Jared
simply opened the thread for ideas.

Finally, a question: Is using a completely original font (a font not even for sale)
that happens to work well for an assignment any different
than making a font from scratch once the assignment comes in?

That's what happened here...very pathetic indeed.

your/you

good fix! Me too.

bj, are you kidding me... i'm amazed that you would pose such a ridiculous question. but to answer, i think you're completely missing the point. no typeface can account for every individual letter pairing possible. this alone should be enough to answer your question but i will go further. because it is really much larger than this.

it really is less crucial that the type is unique in its letterforms (though important, this is only a side benefit). there are plenty of custom or hand done trademarks that use mundane faces like helvetica for instance. because they are done by hand means they are done with a keen sense of artistry, with emphasis placed on the letter pairings found in the word. the time spent crafting each letterform in it's relation to other letterforms pushes these marks into a realm that no type set text face can match. the importance of doing marks by hand goes beyond originality and into craft. it's the fine crafting of each letterform into a piece of display type.

this craft is also about not being lazy. typographers of the past knew many things that we are losing today due to ignorance and computer convenience. the more you discard your craft and treat it idly the more standards of excellence we lose, and the bigger the onslaught of ignorant graphic design hacks we create. if creating a trademark is as simple as turning on my computer and typing out something in a text face, than everyone with a computer and one hundred free typefaces is a graphic designer. all you are doing is making this paradigm more and more acceptable.

you may think i'm an idealist but we should all be maintaining these standards. their implementation helps guarantee that we all have jobs.

I'm not disagreeing with you -- you are the so-called Expert --
just pointing out the
things I pointed out, which you overlook because
mea culpa is not in your vocab.

I'm not a trademark designer nor a logo designer
nor have I taken a single graphic design class
but jay, this stuff goes without saying. Of course
you don't just roll a font out of the box. Of course
you look at letter pairings, positive/negative space, ligatures,
color and weight, among a host of other things.
Of course you ought to sketch stuff out, but
not in the gutterball instance, for us onlookers.
We didn't set craft or artistry back and we weren't being
lazy. We were having
fun with a few fonts that have never seen the light
of day.

There's nothing wrong with being an idealist, but it's
the arrogant manner in which you spread your recycled
gospel that is so grating. Humility is a wonderful thing.
Do they teach that up on the hill?

bj

I love Art Center, btw. I've been there three times.
You won't find a better guy than Art Center
grad Jeff Soto. He has more humility than anyone
I know.

www.jeffsoto.com

You see Jay (W), that's why I didn't want to answer
You've done it again and the good people trying to find a mark for a band are again bogged down with this issue which is irrelevant. A degree of wandering from the topic is one thing but this is getting silly.

As briefly as possible:
Trademark is not always the correct term, esp. when trade is not the primary purpose.
In cases where trademark is not the correct term, logo may or may not be the correct term.
>>webster is progressive
Yes and Oxford about as staid as they come, but both accept that logo is not restricted only to type. Oxford even goes so far as to suggest that logo isn't always an abbreviation of logotype, but can be an abreviation of logogram etc.

BJ >>Steve is not incorrect in his Gutterball/they construction.
BJ, I don't think Jay(W) has that in mind as the error.
I think that's too subtle - he just hasn't read the words properly, or he hasn't grasped the idea of saying 'this may be the case BUT I don't think so'. He's a serial misinterpreter, I think he uses miscomprehension as rant fuel or something

OK, that's enough.
Jay(W), answer this however you like, you tempted me into a reply before, I already wish I had gone with my instincts and ignored you.

Now, having used up lots of this thread on nothing, I'm going to give some more thought to the original question - 'What typographic treatments lend themselves for effective heavy metal-ness?'

"if creating a trademark is......a graphic designer."

ahhhh, at last. well done jay. well done jay.

people - study with Doylad Young. then you're going to understand what is a typeface...logo... trademark. BUT - FIRST STUDY HOW TO DRAW. BY HAND. WITH PEN. PENCIL.

I'd be very interested in seeing some of your hand-hewn trademark designs jay. Your website appears to be a domain-park portal but maybe you could post some examples, maybe you've posted some previously?

I see you're based in Seattle. I suppose Art Chantry is a good example of the sort of logo/trademark designer you are advocating, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Slightly confused by one thing, however. The examples posted in this thread are clearly logotypes (by your own definition) so where does all the heat regarding trademarks come from?

I also find your self-proclaimed idealism troubling, particularly in respect to a highly filtered design history:

"typographers of the past knew many things that we are losing today due to ignorance and computer convenience. the more you discard your craft and treat it idly the more standards of excellence we lose, and the bigger the onslaught of ignorant graphic design hacks we create."

Well, ignorant hacks will always be with us (and always have been in one way or another). Can you put a timeline to your trademark golden age?

> no typeface can account for every individual letter pairing possible

It's not that simple.

--

> the good people trying to find a mark for a band are again bogged down

I don't think anybody is really being bogged down by jay (that would be stupid), except maybe feeling compelled to type a bit more than usual. And even that has a benefit: arguing with people of different rhetorical strategies hones your skills.

hhp

thank you hrant, i couldn't agree more. this topic we have gotten off on is very relevant to the issues started in this post. the fact is that people who don't know any better stumble on to these sorts of boards and perceive them as the upper echelon of typographic pursuit. when they see that all people are doing is typing things in on there computers they begin to think this is how it's done. i can't tell you how many students i've had to guide off this path.

bj, i must apologize. i had no idea you were not a designer. i'm sorry, it seems you got singled out here. it's great though that you are even interested enough in this subject to visit a site like this.

steve, the fact is that even if trade is not the primary purpose (which is very rare) and it is still not a logotype then what is it? i say if you are looking for a blanket term which is what logo has become then a better term is trademark. that's it. this topic really needs to go no further than this.

simon, sorry about the website i'm putting together something new at the moment (you know how that goes). in all actuality i was brought to this site, a few weeks back, by a friend who had said one of my marks was posted here and that people where trying to figure out what typeface it was (little did they know it wasn't a typeface). you brought up art chantry. i teach at the same school up here as art taught at. though i don't go for his aesthetic, i respect the work he does.

many of these marks are logotypes, you are correct. they should still be done by hand though. the logotype vs. trademark debate stems from the fact that logo is thrown around with little knowledge of what it really means. as far as your last question goes, i'm not quite sure i understand what you're getting at.

david, glad to see that someone else gets the value of what i'm saying here.

Hmmm. I guess it's no surprise that you totally mistunderstood my point(s). Unless it's a spin tactic, which however is exactly the sort of thing that never works against me.

And I think your students would benefit greatly by hearing the other side of the story, not least via Typophile.

hhp

"as a last note (i think i already mentioned this) the use of the word logo is incorrect."

The english language is not a set of facts and rules cast in stone. It morphs and is really controlled by common usage amongst the masses.

Today, in everyday conversation, the common term for any mark that is used to ID a product, person, company, etc. is 'logo'. People also use wordmark, trademark, logotype, bug, icon, etc.

So while your historical definition has merit, it really serves no purpose to debate its use in every day language.

Except for sounding elite in client meetings and/or gaining from the enjoyment in partaking in silly debates online ;o)

As for using custom type for every client, if you can do it, and feel that it is so important, then more power to you.

Custom type is often a great solution. That said, there are a lot of great typefaces out there that make great raw materials for a logo/logotype/trademark/whateveryouwanttocallit

Personally, I don't side with either argument...it all depends on the needs of the client, budget, timeline, etc.

alright hrant lets get down to it then. i stated "no typeface can account for every individual letter pairing possible" while you stated "It's not that simple". you're being a little open ended here. care to explain in more detail.

as far as this statment of yours; "arguing with people of different rhetorical strategies hones your skills." i agree one hundred percent. care to tell me what i've missed here.

No.

hhp

darrel, these things have all been said further up in the post.

you are too quick to dismiss elitism. i find it hard to believe that you would be here in this forum or even a designer if you did not believe in these types of social hierarchies. as a designer the only thing that separates you from the horde of people with the right tools is elitism. your sense of color, style, skill, craft with typography, etc. are all subjective and scrutinized by opinion. your mom may think she's a designer because she has a computer but is she? maybe, but most likely not. why is that... because we as elitists don't think she is. where are your standards? do they lie in the falsehoods of humility? i think people on this board are being hypocrites by denouncing these things.

that's what i thought hrant...

Note however that very few people get avoided by me.
So at least in this case, you are the problematic singularity.

hhp

"that's what i thought hrant..."

your provocation is wearing thin, Jay. if you'd like to
start a thread about the complexities of letter pairs (or
whatever it is you're after), please feel free to do so.

cool... and most people are nice. i'm not.

plain clothes, i'm done... i've been done for sometime now. i'd have been fine moving this discussion at any point. you can't expect someone to just leave an issue in mid debate after people continue to make unrealistic statements. what do you expect when people poke a hornets nest? that the bees will all just get along?

you perceive me as being an elitist as*hole. i'm cool with that... why can't you be?

>>you are too quick to dismiss elitism. i find it hard to believe that you would be here in this forum or even a designer if you did not believe in these types of social hierarchies

Oh dear

"as a designer the only thing that separates you from the horde of people with the right tools is elitism."

All people are designers. That's partly what makes us human. (Note some primates are also designers.)

"you perceive me as being an elitist as*hole. i'm cool with that... why can't you be?"

It's harder to ignore elitsts assholes online. They take up equal space with everyone else, and tend to add way too much noise to a discussion.

I'm not saying you are an elist •••••••, but you seem to have a lot of fun arguing moot issues.

But, then again, so do I.

;o)

"as a designer the only thing that separates you from the horde of people with the right tools is elitism."

All people are designers. That's partly what makes us human. (Note some primates are also designers.)

yep steve... sometimes reality is hard to swallow.

>All people are designers. That's partly what makes us human. (Note some primates are also designers.)

darrel, this is exactly what i'm talking about. this illustrates it perfectly. so what seperates you from all the other humans (computer monkeys) or monkeys? you're better, right? what makes for "better"?

i'll take a stab at that one. elitism. plain and simple. mass opinion or subjectivity based on elitism.

i think you guys are to quick to reacte negitively to elitism because of it's negitive conitations. it's not negitive, it's actually a very good thing. think about it, you'll never get away from it.

Jay, you have your dear art center education, & possibly qualifications too, so in your neat little elitist hierarchy, that makes puts you somewhere above the computer user who has access to design tools, but no training, and somewhere below someone with a talent for design, regardless of their training or access to design tools.

Now, all you need is some talent and you can go right to the top of your cosy little hierarchy...look out world

steve... bingo, you got it. and that is the most elusive part of the whole thing, isn't it? what is talent? is it really just elitism like i stated before? you tell me. you seem to berate the reality of the world and its proponents but offer nothing in return other then ignorant name calling.

it seems that when reality finally hits, all a person in your position can do is name call.

>>what is talent? is it really just elitism like i stated before?
>>you seem to berate the reality of the world and its proponents

'is talent ... elitism'
'the proponents of the world'

Where do you get this sh1t?
Do you have a random word generator?

Just one last question, Jay.
Is it the case, that someone with design training knows more about design than someone without design training, and in the case of a disagreement about design the non-designer should accept their lowly place in the design hierarchy and give way?
Yes or no will suffice (but probably will not surface).

> sh1t

Nice bouma bypass!
I only regressed to it because I know Typophile screens the real thing.

hhp

All types of surgery performed

bouma bypasses a speciality
saccade sutures while-U-wait

This months special offer:
Logobotomy multi-buy, 2 for a

steve, i'm going to revert to name calling here. random word generator? are you retarded or something? look it up...

proponent = One who argues in support of something; an advocate.

to answer your question, no. i've known many bad designers with good training and many good designers with bad training. the odds just support one over the other. education is only a small part in the path of elitism anyway. i find it amazing how much of a hang up you have on this whole education thing. are you a bad designer or something?

i answer your questions... you should return the favor.

>>i answer your questions... you should return the favor

>>are you retarded or something?
The latter.
>>are you a bad designer or something?
See above.

>>proponent = One who argues in support of something; an advocate
>>berate the reality of the world and its proponents
Sorry, jay, are you an advocate of the world or reality, its not too clear (but either way I can see you'll have your work cut out fighting the enemies of oh...er... reality, and er those who are not in favour of ...the um ...world)

>>i find it amazing how much of a hang up you have on this whole education thing
I have no hang up on this, I just wanted to see how far you would stretch your obsession with it
(from where I'm sitting it seems that its all thats keeping you separate from the monkey with a Mac and a free fonts CD)

>>all a person in your position can do is name call
Talk about the pot calling the kettle a wanker!
Have a good look through your 121 posts to this forum, Jay, how many people here have you insulted, called pathetic or ignorant or stupid or...

>are you an advocate of the world or reality, its not too clear (but either way I can see you'll have your work cut out fighting the enemies of

no need to, the computer monkeys like yourself parish everyday in the industry. once the technology exhausts itself we move on. design consumerism and it's elitism never die.

>Have a good look through your 121 posts to this forum, Jay, how many people here have you insulted, called pathetic or ignorant or stupid or...

i can honestly think of only two. hrant and yourself. i do like hrant though. he is at least a worthy opponent. what you are referring to might be perceived by people but is in fact very unsubstantiated. i've just stated truths. just because some truths hurt does not imply name calling on my or anyones part. by the way i admitted in the post that i was resorting to name calling. which is what i've done each time i've ever done it here. twice. so try again

>I have no hang up on this, I just wanted to see how far you would stretch your obsession with it.

yes you do. that's apparent in where your interests have been. as far as my own interest / obsession in education, it's in fact quite small. i've only brought it up once as an important part of a discussion. it's the mostly untrained individuals such as yourself that have continued and obviously still continue to bring it up. who brought up art center in this tread? sure as hell was not me.

these last few posts have lost sight of any point and have become a clash of characters which as far as i'm concerned is ridiculous. steve if you would like to continue with this battle of wills, we can do it somewhere else. here it's a waste of peoples time including our own.

"Logo" is defined generally as:

"A distinctive name, symbol or trademark of a company designed for easy recognition. [ < LOGOTYPE.]" (American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition)

As "logo" is derived from the word "logotype," it's important to know that a logotype (in the context of a piece of type) could be a trademark, a stamp, a word, phrase or ligature set in a specific proprietary or nonproprietary typeface. Logos were often made into a single piece of type, hence the term "logotype". In modern usage, even a proprietary color used in a distinctive way can in some cases carry the effective and legal force of a logo in identity systems. Proprietary fonts are often employed in this manner as well.

The Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), for example, often omits its famous "eye" logo in printed or broadcast advertising when it would conflict with the design of the piece, instead relying on its use of Didot or other identifying elements to reinforce its corporate identity. (Philip B. Meggs, A History of Graphic Design, Second Edition, 1992, p. 381.)

Here are some of Paul Rand's ideas on the subject of logos, taken from his book, "Design Form and Chaos" (1993):

"Here is what a logo is and does:
A logo is a flag, a signature, an escutcheon, a street sign.
A logo does not sell (directly), it IDENTIFIES.
A logo is rarely a description of a business.
A logo derives its MEANING from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around.
A logo is LESS important than the product it signifies; what it represents is more important than what it looks like.
The subject matter of a logo can be almost anything." (p. 56. Parentheses and emphasis in original, uppercase substituted here for italics in original.)

"A street sign is a kind of logo. Trying to locate an unfamiliar street that has no marker is a bewildering experience. Whether the sign is beautiful or ugly, serif or sans, only the name matters. A logo and a street sign have this in common

(me)>>Jay, how many people here have you insulted, called pathetic or ignorant or stupid or...

(JW)>>i can honestly think of only two. hrant and yourself

Jay, I can think of at least three other people who have asked you to stop being insulting (Keith, William, plain*clothes)

A quick browse through your posts reveals:
-it's really quite pathetic
-you should all be ashamed
-i'm amazed that you would pose such a ridiculous question
-i find it hard to believe that you would be here in this forum or even a designer if you did not [think just like me]
-i think people on this board are being hypocrites
these kinds of topics are ridiculous
-at some point these designers [anyone who doesn't like helvetica] grow up

and much more like it.

I think David hits the nail on the head:"foolishly holier-than-thou"

Having foolishly risen to your pathetic bait, I also feel that I should apologise to Jared for contributing to turning this thread into the rant-fest it has become.

This time I mean it - Jay, you're on your own, man. Talk sh+t, don't expect a reply

My final question to jay (five or six metres of screen-space ago) was simple enough

I maintain that one cannot administer effective psychotherapy through ASCII.

hhp

Jay:

Since you are caught up on literal definitions, let's go to the dictionary. The dictionary says elitism is "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

So I can't agree with you. Just because you believe your better than someone doesn't make it so and certainly shouldn't be what defines you as a graphic designer.

Having elite skills at graphic design, well, sure...that's a good thing. But elitism is just plain arrogance.

And why in the hell did you dig up a year old post in the first place? (And why does a55hole get blocked but assholes doesn't?...and isn't this thread much more entertaining if we discuss the ways the naughty-filter works instead of the definitiion of logo and if Jay is an a55hole or not?...and why am I writing like a script-kiddie?...and did I spell 'script-kiddie' correctly?)

>>isn't this thread much more entertaining if we discuss the ways the naughty-filter works

It doesn't seem to take much notice of English-English, just US-English

wow... there's way to much here to even respond to. i'll hit the big topics and try to keep it short.

on the issue of "logos":
1) it's a low brow term. that does not mean that logotype solutions themselves are low brow.
2) just because the dictionary has adopted the incorrect term and defined it does not mean it's correct. many notable identity designers would agree.
3) paul rand was producing work when the abbreviations "logo" was coming to power as a word. this does not make it a correct term either.
4) i do agree that it has become a common term though and that is the reality of it. i don't chastise people over it only people that should know better. my effort was to expose the reality of the term. i think you guys are way to entrenched in an improper blanket term.

on the issue of elitism:
1) elitism is a beneficial element in culture. it creates high standards. it's there and will never go away. our industry (design) is based on it. get used to it and learn to embrace it.

on the issue of insulting people:
1) most of the statements i make sound outlandish because they are. most of them are written as jokes with some truth behind them. in the written language they come across with little humor. i'm sorry for that. most individuals i know, in person, who read these posts laugh. it's humorous how up in arms you guys get.
2) steve, you are still incorrect. the statements you have listed are very general and site no one individual, directly. i have only reverted to name calling twice. and i've admitted to it when doing it. it is a weak way to debate.
3) if some people in general feel insulted that is their own perceived and individual problem. people need to toughen up. i can't believe how sensitive you are being. you'd have a hard time living in places like NY.

on the issue of using lowercase:
1) it's more efficient while typing and is a modification to the written language. it omits what i consider to be little needed formalities. it is a push toward utilitarianism and minimalism. my doing it is expression of these ideals. david, would you insult wim crowel for his new alphabet because it has no caps? your attempt to discredit through what you perceive as technical inconsistencies is one sided.

on the issue of posting to this thread:
1) i found the title interesting. i grew up listening to punk rock and heavy metal.
2) i was shocked by the typographic practices with in it. i think it's in bad taste and sets a bad example to people learning this craft. to see professionals practicing in this manner sets bad standards.
3) i couldn't help it i had to say something. i'm sorry my initial post came out to strong. i was mostly joking. but i don't apologize for it's honesty. these sorts of practices are bad for the craft. they make it seem ok to be a lazy typographer. i stand by this.

on the issue of my class:
1) it is going well, thanks for asking the class is full every term so much so that i have to ask students to drop. the students have given it amazing reviews each and every time. as a matter of fact i've never seen a bad review. if it were as awful as you are suggesting simon, the school would have been alerted to my offensive and outlandish behavior and never asked me to return. that is obviously not the case.
2) the principles i teach are sound. they are a benefit to the industry establishing standards that are very important for young designers. laziness is not permitted and i'm surprised you don't feel the same.

i still think this has gone on to long. i've done nothing to damage design here. i've brought up important standards that we should all be striving for. these forums should be an attempt to rise out of hack-dom. not submit to it and defend it. my initial joke of being ashamed has sadly turned out to be true. i would have expected higher standards here.

"just because the dictionary has adopted the incorrect term and defined it does not mean it's correct."

Well where am I supposed to go for the authorative policy on word meanings? I can't trust the dictionary anymore? *sigh*

"our industry (design) is based on it"

Oh god no. If it is...what a pathetic, insecure lot we are.

"brought up important standards that we should all be striving for"

What standards? That we should create custom type for every client's mark?

>Wouldn't that make it sound kind of like "Gooterball" or "Gyooterball?"

Yeah, but at least is was on-task. Or almost. If I'd realized this thread started a year ago, I wouldn't have bothered.

So, Jared: is Gutterb

darrel, did you really read the post. you can trust the dictionary if you want to. i don't think you've fully understood what i was saying. it's become a common term. i'm aware of that. i feel we need to be aware of the reality behind it.

yes, our industry is based on elitism. yes, it is pathetic. i can't believe you've never realized this? i understand the need to try and make design more important then it is. we all want to feel good about ourselves and our profession. but the reality is that it's based on something very shallow.

> What standards? That we should create custom type for every client's mark?

yes, that's pretty much what i've said. or at least have some standards beyond being lazy. i can't believe any designer with standards would be shocked by this.

>Wouldn't that make it sound kind of like "Gooterball" or "Gyooterball?"

Yeah, but at least is was on-task. Or almost. If I'd realized this thread started a year ago, I wouldn't have bothered.

So, Jared: is Gutterb

"we all want to feel good about ourselves and our
profession. but the reality is that it's based on
something very shallow."

yes, for those who practice elitism it's quite shallow. it
stems from the fact that elitism *is* shallow.

however, elitism is in no way a prerequisite for quality
design/typography/type design. for those who
appreciate design's true value, it is actually quite
complex and meaningful; aesthetically, socially,
culturally, economically, etc.

btw, I can obviously understand your disinterest in the
rules of capitalization; however, if you want to be an
elitist, work on your spelling and punctuation -- those
*are* useful elements of writing.

plain clothes, you should practice what you preach... there are many rules to formality, not all are up held by all people. that's the reality of the world. you pick your battles. if yours is technical writing you've got a long way to go my brother. keep up the good work though.

as far as design goes. it's an act of elitism plain and simple. i can't see why you guys have such a hard time with the reality of this. this is one of those stupid simplicities of life. there's no need to drag it out.

"as far as design goes. it's an act of elitism plain and simple. i can't see why you guys have such a hard time with the reality of this. "

No, it's not. It's not elitism in any way. Where are you getting this, Jay? If you're going to argue this point, fine, but give us something to go on other than your opinion.

I'm still enjoying the argument (slow week at work...), but you're not giving us anything to really debate here.