Friday, November 11, 2011
New USA Branding
This allows me to talk briefly about something very important. While I don't like the logo, it's still a good logo. There is nothing glaringly wrong with it. A logo acquires meaning and significance when it is paired with what it represents. Separate from that thing, a good logo can manage some representation of personality, which is ideal, but it doesn't specifically need to.
For example, What does the IBM logo say about IBM? Nothing. Or Target? Nothing. They are simply bold and identifiable. This logo is bold and, while generic and unidentifiable, is being covered by every magazine on the planet, meaning that it will be very quickly associated with the United States and all of the great things therein (ya'know, forclosures, unemployment, and the such).
If I was going to create a logo along that same theme (if I had been designing the brand, I would have almost certainly gone in another direction), I think that I would have done a patchwork design. It's a tad overdone, but not as much as the dots. I've also viewed America as less a scattered group of different people and more a patchwork; many disparate elements of different colors and textures, tied together under the banner of "America." In fact, I get a little teary-eyed just writing that sentence.
I added bulges to all four sides, giving the logo a three dimensional appearance while also furthering the general theme or a country literally bursting at the seams with diversity and energy.
Is my logo much better? No. It needs a lot of refinement to be production-ready. My philosophy is better though. There are very few logos out there that are as wild as this one, which makes it exciting, friendly, and identifiable.
Finally, I've uploaded the original direction I was going to take, with rigidly defines lines and geometric letters. It illustrates why I was immediately bored with the idea when I saw the excitement available from broken lines and an energetic, haphazard appearance.