Grundtvigs Church in Copenhagen by Kim Høltermand:
Listen up doll, when a speakeasy opens in 1920s New South Wales, the bulls will be in to shut it down quick-sharp, see? And when they do, you’ll be down to the big house, so you better look spiffy for the snapper.
Enough with the flim-flam toots, now get those gams to the kitchen and fix me up a Sidecar:
Back in 2009 artist Roa painted this wicked lenticular rabbit on Curtain Road in London. It’s a really clever use of the corrugated garage door:
He’s also pulled a variation of this in Pilsen, Chicago. Gruesome and really clever:
How do you define how good a logo is, how well designed it is?
Like most creative work, it can be hard to quantify. It’s particularly tricky with logos, as they are less clearly driving a particular message than advertising concepts, and their real value becomes clear only over a longer period of time.
Ewan Yap, a Kuala Lumpur-based designer, has developed a theory that simplifies the debate. Basically, it boils down to one test: how much can you crop into a logo and still retain its recognisability?
To test his theory Yap used drinks brands, as they are well known and come in a common format (the can), which gave him a regular canvas on which to zoom in and out of his logos. Some logos retain their recognisability remarkably well, while others fail miserably.
Coke is the undisputed king– pretty much anything red with white swirls looks like Coca-Cola. However, as the most recognisable brand in the world, it’s hard to define how much of the recognition factor for the brand comes from clever logo design and how much comes from age and global ubiquity:
Slightly more unexpected is the Guinness logo, which also crops extremely well. Unlike Coke, it’s not the typography that makes it so recognisable, but the harp icon. While I could have told you that the harp was part of the Guinness logo, it wasn’t until I saw it cropped this close that I realised quite how iconic it is… which is the whole point of the project of course.
Of the others brands, this experiment seemed to show that (aside from Coke), logotypes that rely on the full name as their distinguishing feature suffer more than those that have icons based around imagery:
How much this experiment can truly be considered a measure of the quality of a logo is dubious: it only looks at one medium, when in practice the logo has to be versatile enough able to adapt to a wide range of digital and physical situations; and as mentioned before, recognition may actually come from familiarity rather than logo quality.
That being said, it’s a great experiment in bringing a simple, rational approach to the type of complex, subjective observations that we deal with every day as an agency.