Recently they revealed a redesign of their magazine and masthead:
The creative director stated she wanted a "modern, contemporary look", which is fine - but shouldn't the logo in some way be in harmony with the product? As I see it, there are several issues with the new look:
- The font. Angular and pointed, this sans-serif font - while "contemporary" - would look more at home on a catalogue of high-end housewares than on a magazine extolling healthful advice on a vegetarian lifestyle.
- The "leaf" element. Again, "contemporary", but hard to tell what exactly it's doing there or what it is. Is it a random graphic element? A stylized dot over the "i" in "times"? Perhaps a random apostrophe or foot mark?
Redesigning an old logo is a valid method to re-invigorate a brand and create a renewed interest, but care needs to be taken so the new design meshes with the underlying message of the magazine/business/person. As I stated in my first post, I will provide a better designed solution, seen here:
Why is this a better solution? First, the font. It's still a sans-serif, but unlike the font Vegetarian Times' creative director chose, it's organic. Not angular or pointed, it's more in tune with the magazine's overall aesthetic. Secondly, the leaf element. While stylized, it is recognizable as a leaf; a part of a plant, and won't be confused for some random element. Third, the colours. Green and a warm brown; earthtones.
Is this a perfect solution? No. Is it a better solution? Definately.
Too much graphic design focuses on being slick or modern or contemporary, with no real concern given to what the design is for. A little research into whatever you're designing for (company, individual, product, etc.) will give better insight into how the final design should look, and results in a much better finished product.
No comments:
Post a Comment