Graphic Language: The Trenches of Creation

Most of us don’t have a lot of spare time during a work day. That’s why we say our time is valuable. That’s why the work we devote time to comes at a cost to our clients. The final products we create for most projects are only one thing. In the end, there’s only going to be one logo, one site, one poster. But it takes a lot of work to get to that one thing. Dozens or hundreds of ideas are sketched out or written down. Then maybe a dozen different versions of a single idea worked out.

And why? How many times do we have to twist and turn an idea into something slightly different before we’re satisfied with a version of it and see it as a final option, or so dissatisfied with all versions that we throw them away?  How many times is that process repeated on a different idea during a single project? I think it’s because that’s just what it takes to do good work, and good work that’s unique and special, and lives up to our own full potential lives deep in our sketchbooks (or computers).  

You don’t just get to unique and special right off the bat. Your first idea is probably a cliché’ or something you’ve seen done before, so we push beyond that. It might actually take a couple of pages of sketching to get to those good ideas, and we should dump as many ideas into our sketchbook as possible. Then we might do multiple versions of the same idea. That’s all for the creator, that’s why your time is valuable, because you’re fighting in the trenches of creation, thinking and critiquing and researching and redrawing and second guessing why you ever chose this career. . . all for one good logo (or whatever).

A lot of times, we’re trying to meet a number set by the client. Even if you’re presenting 10 options to someone (I don’t suggest you ever do that many) in the end, there will only be one, and fuck, it’s hard to get just one good one! Why go through the pain of 10? Sometimes we can get 2 or 3 but any more than that and I bet most of us start running into the mediocrity wall. And I would much rather present 2 or 3 well executed, interesting ideas than 10 just to meet a number so a client can feel like they’re getting their money’s worth. They’ll get their moneys worth with one good idea, not with a bunch of average ones, or a bunch of average versions of an idea. That’s why I don’t let the clients set a number anymore. It’s not to anyone’s benefit.

And inevitably, if you allow someone to choose from a large stack of concepts, where there is one you really dislike and know is not as good (but it’s there because you’re trying to meet a quota) the client will choose that one. I promise you, it will happen most of the time.  Because that’s probably the one that’s safe and familiar, and that’s what most clients want to feel, but is the feeling artist hate most. Not everyone has the balls to do something unique and special.

Paul Rand presented clients one logo. He felt they hired him to solve a problem, and the thing he presented them with was his best solution to it. They needed one thing, so he created one thing. I would love to see his sketchbooks though. I’m sure he drew a lot. But I’d like to be more like Rand. “here’s the solution to your problem. Thank you”.

How Do I Logo?

There's no solid definition for what a logo is or should be. You won't find too many designers that agree 100% on what makes a good one or a bad one. Taste is subjective too, even really terrible logos have their fans. But, I can tell you what I think a good logo is.

I'm not going to tell you any magical secrets to logo design or that every logo should follow the same set of rules. Some logos need to do different things than others and they follow their own rules. Some make use of a clever idea and pull something personal from the thing it represents. Others are just for "performance" and need to do their duty, like sit in the corner of a webpage and identify what that page is. Some represent a culture with a specific concept, pattern or color (sports fans think of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Seattle Mariners), while others express a single idea well and are built to be absorbed by it's audience and become a permanent mark of the culture later (think Indianapolis Colts and Chicago Cubs).

Either way is fine, but understand that no logo is born with emotional value. That is earned over time, which we call equity. Most people don't like change and would rather their favorite brand hang on to the shitty logo they've always known than replace it. If it's a new logo/brand there will be many haters of it once it's debuted. It gets understood and accepted and loved over time.

What I will tell you about logo design is only what I can tell you. My views on logos are defined by learning from other designers, my own education, and my own experience. . . and a lot of time being a dork and thinking about logos. If I could sum up what a logo is, it is a thumbprint. To sum up what it does, it identifies something, then communicates a message about it.

Logos, like all design, send a message; and whether you're doing something personal and clever or just something to perform well, there is always a conversation with it's audience. Design is not all about aesthetics. Aesthetics are the least important thing about design. Your ideas and connotations and emotional responses to design are what makes it valuable and good. Form follows emotion. And study your history too. Colors and symbols can easily pull mental images of the wrong thing if you're too focused on aesthetics and visual performance. I like to use the example of the worst idea in Pro sports branding history: Putting a team named the New England Patriots in a red jersey and white pants.

That football uniform looks great, doesn't it? . . . But the concept fails.

What I use to define a good logo is a set of measures that I believe in fully, but I don't think all of them need to apply to every logo. Again, some logos just need to do different things.  I start with the idea and emotional expressions. You don't need all 3 every time, but if you can capture the 1.) Personality 2.) Culture 3.) History, of something in a single logo, you've got a great concept. And those are listed in order of importance. Design always has a personality though, so make sure you're expressing the right one.

The next set of measures is about the performance of the logo and the more tangible aspects of it. These are the duties that need to be carried out by the design. If a logo "works" well, then it does these things well. Sometimes, a few of these are all you need. There's some overlap too, for instance simplicity helps visibility and memorability, good color choices help with distinctiveness, etc.

Visibility – Readability and clear form, even at small sizes.

Application – How and where it's used. If it's going to live primarily on a football helmet, then that's the main thing you have to focus on. Design for that thing first. Also think of environment. If everything that surrounds it is green, then green probably isn't the best color to go with. 

Distinctiveness – Different from brand's competitors. It has to be able to be different enough to be easily noticed. 

Color – The color has to be pleasing as well as having qualities on this list of it's own like visibility and distinctiveness. A great logo can be ruined by a bad palette. A single color can express the brand's full personality. I believe color is one of the most important elements of design and you can never know too much about color theory and meaning. BE GOOD AT CHOOSING COLOR!

Simplicity – Helps memorability, timelessness, and reproduction across multiple mediums and sizes. A logo dosn't have to work in black and white anymore, that's dated thinking. But it is still good practice for seeing simplicity in form.  

Memorability - You want people to be able to recall your logo without being reminded of it. They should be able to clearly describe the idea. "The football team with the G on the helmet" is better than "The football team with the circle and weird brown thing in the middle" 

Timelessness – Dosen't use design trends or rely on new technology. Sometimes It's okay to follow those trends. Sometimes It's okay to build a logo with a short shelf life. But not if you're going for timelessness. It should never show it's age. 

Equity - The longer a logo is around, the more it soaks up the brand of a company and becomes a symbol of what the audience thinks of the product. Coca-Cola's logo isn't great typography, but the sight of the logo usually brings thoughts of happiness and togetherness, because thats what the brand is, and that's the emotional value. If a logo has good equity, don't change it. 

Modularity – Versatility. Can it be a mascot? Some logos have to be. 

Appropriateness - It should fit the brand goals of the company, and the culture of it's audience. I've always felt the Buffalo Sabers "Buffaslug" was a great logo, just for a football team instead of a hockey team. Still, I'm one to push the appropriateness level to the very edge, doing what's right for the brand and letting the logo find it's audience. That's kind of the Apple way of doing things.   

Descriptiveness -  It needs to communicate what you do. This is more for lesser known brands. You probably don't want to use a snare drum in the logo for a plumber. 

Craftsmanship – Dont ignore technical skills. Milton Glasier said "To design is to communicate clearly by whatever means you can control or master". Don't worry if you can't draw like Leonardo da Vinci, most can't. Just know the design principles, theory, and do good work. Don't be afraid to break some rules too; don't lose your own design personality or confuse craftsmanship with perfection. 


The end result of a good logo should be something people are proud of. Something that you wouldn't mind wearing on a t-shirt. And, if it's a sports team especially, try not to design something that it's rivals can easily make fun of. My personal redesign of the Indianapolis Colt's horseshoe was said multiple times to look like a toilet seat. . . well, fuck!

Check out some of my favorite logo designers:



Fraser Davidson - Marc Verlander - Kris Bazen - David Airey - Tin Bacic - Jan Zabransky - Gert Van Duinen - 

Something Bold; Something New

When I was a teenager learning to play guitar, one of the ways I kept myself interested was by constantly incorporating something new to learn. There was always a balance of mastering my strengths (growing vertically) and adding challenges (growing horizontally). There was something about the guitar that always felt comfortable to me. I was never intimidated by things I couldn't play, because I knew I was working my towards them, and one day I would eventually arrive there.

I have tried the same approach with drawing, but gave up on new things if I didn't grasp it quickly. My problem has been one that many other artist struggle with. The road to mastery is never short or easy, but in our minds we imagine it to be so. Probably because our heroes make it look so easy.

I think I know why I've had more patience with music than pencil and paper. I'm better at music and the learning curve for me there is shorter, and there is always another challenge waiting to be met. But I can't seem to draw a good human figure for shit. There has been improvement over the last 23 years, but sometimes It's like not being able to get over a barrier no matter how hard you try. There's no moving forward, and I lose interest in trying.

Instead of looking at that barrier, becoming frustrated and giving up because I am unsatisfied with my work, I have recently embraced my mediocre-at-best drawing skills, and challenged myself to get over that wall. The way I'm doing this is by doing a lot of drawing and not worrying about how bad it is. I'm doing the best I can, learning from each one, but if it turns out worse than I expected, I don't worry about it. I just move onto the next one. I'm drawing on paper and with a Wacom tablet too. There's not much difference between the two, but I've always enjoyed the feel of pencil and paper. To actually touch what you're working with feels more rewarding, but stylistically, I love the digital look.

The fuel for this fire has been the most exciting thing. I'm doing posters. Posters based on global issues, world events, and politics. Generally, just things that are more important than corporate logos and sports team uniforms. I guess I'm following the footsteps of some of my favorite street artists in that way like Banksy and Sheppard Fairey. I also have a list of my favorite movies and songs that I want to do a poster design for. All the song posters are going to be done on paper and colored with soft pastels.

Even if I don't get any better at drawing after all this, at least I will have created something. Which is always better than creating nothing.

The Long And Short Of It: Colts' Truncated Stripes

In the world of Pro pigskin aesthetics, one of the topics that always creates a debate is the modern application of the Colts’ (and LSU, Iowa State, NY Jets, etc) jersey stripes. The controversy is how they should look on modern football jerseys, with one side claiming they are too short and should extend down to the armpit, the other side saying the current solution is the best. The claim that they “should wrap all the way around the arm like they were designed to do” is a non-starter because they didn’t even do that.

The issue is this is a design solution from the 1950s intended for a completely different problem. It’s an example of how form should follow function, and how good graphic design enhances the product. Jersey design has progressed over time, and they’ve gotten smaller, with shorter sleeves. This graphic has tried to come along with it, but at this point is just a shoe-horned element that dosent truly fit on a modern jersey template the way it was meant to do.

What jersey manufacturers have done is truncated the stripe at about the point of the collar on the front and the bottom of the nameplate on back. This solution has created a passable design using good judgment of alignment and space. That is until Nike really fucked it up in 2012, making the total width of the stripes much narrower than before, and pushing the stripes to the sleeve seam, where the smaller sleeves put the stripes on an angle, as much as 45 degrees on some players with no shoulder/sleeve tailoring to correct it.

Nike has taken a shot at lengthening the stripe design with LSU and trying to return it to it’s original integrity. They had to use a narrower number font when doing this, which in the end is fine, I think the number font is quite good. But because the jerseys are so small/tight now, it really starts to crowd the other elements. It’s a push for me from the previous solutions because it’s still a shoe-horned design that never had these modern uniforms in mind. Between the Reebok Colt’s solution and the Nike LSU one, it’s hard to pick a favorite, but I would go with Reebok’s as I feel it’s a better use of space.

Another issue is if you’re going to maintain your 50 year old design, you need this stripe. It’s always going to be botched, but a botched stripe is better than no stripe. It’s a huge part of the Colts identity. Those suggesting the uniforms be compromised to suit the jersey decoration have it completely backwards. Again, form follow function, you design graphics for the product, not the other way around. But, form also follows emotion, and there is so much recognition with the stripe for the Colts, they just wouldn’t be the Colts without it.  The other option is to blow it all up and start over with something completely different, something that actually works well with current uniforms, like Oklahoma State’s design. But blowing up a 50 year old identity that comes with multiple championships and lots of success for a current brand doing extremely well, isn’t a move that is necessary.

If it were up to me to design the perfect Colts uniform, it would be this. see the whole thing here: Colts Brand Adjustment

GO COLTS DAMMIT!!!

The Possible Future of Sports Uniforms

I’ve paid very close attention to sports uniform design for the last 5 years. Specifically, college and pro football. This year has been one of the most disappointing seasons for football uniform and logo design (actually, just the NFL in the logo department). It seems it’s been mostly about recycling ideas and copying what others have done before rather than creating something new. Although there are one or two new things for 2013, It largely seems like schools and designers are running out of ideas. But I think what lies ahead can be very promising, if someone takes advantage of it.

Socks – Socks are a growing niche for apparel manufactures as some are reporting a 35% increase in sock sales within the last year. This growing trend with the often overlooked and unexplored area of sock design in sports uniforms makes for a great opportunity for a school and designer to take advantage of. Especially for UnderArmor, Nike, and adidas, where everything they do is to direct you back to shoes. Because the sock/shoe combo is such a great hook in stores now, they do offer socks that will combo with your new pair of kicks. But the attention could be driven more towards that if they took advantage of a sock design for one of their major college clients.

Everyone is racing for the helmet now, and sublimated patterns and unique designs within numbers and jersey sleeves have been around for a few years. The unexplored ankle area could be one that these companies will compete for soon. Under Armor is experimenting with sublimated sock designs now for purchase in stores. Don’t be surprised if Maryland football rolls out with a school specific pattern on their socks ala’ the popular pattern-within-numbers trend. Oh, but let it be known I though of it first 3 years ago :)

Cooling Technology – I’m not sure if this will make it’s way into the jersey and pants fabric for football because it’s a cold weather sport. Baseball and basketball could be different stories though. But what I envision for under shirts, sweatbands, arm sleeves, skull caps, helmet liners, and headbands is being made from self cooling fabrics.

Conventional wisdom says that to cool the body, you need to move air and have ventilation; something modern jerseys and helmets are designed to do. But with these new materials, companies are saying cooling comes from conduction, where the material cools the skin. Basically, when the fabric gets wet, it gets cold.

Adidas is already in the game with Climachill, which will hit the marketplace in spring 2014. It acts like a mesh, using titanium cooling fibers and aluminum silver dots that cool the body. A company I’m more interested in is Dr Cools (drcoolrecovery.com) who also has material hitting the marketplace in spring 2014. Their biggest piece right now is a hoodie which is endorsed by Reggie Bush, using EnduraCool technology. It does the same thing as adidas’ version in principle; when the material gets wet from sweat, it gets cold. Another company doing the same but I know very little about is NEXAR.

Helmet Design -  We have seen matte helmet finishes and matte vinyl graphics before. I have yet to see matte properly combined with a gloss finish. I have to believe though, that it’s only a matter of time before the muscle car influence hits college football where a matte decal is set on a gloss finish (it’s always the other way around). I think it would be an excellent combo for the ever popular black-on-black look, as seen below.

There’s also a whole world of vinyl graphics that the football game hasn’t seen yet. Oregon has used fluorescents on their helmets, and a few others have used chrome-color on theirs. But we’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg. There’s so many other fluorescent, pearlescent, reflective, metal flake, chrome-color, engine turn, gloss, matte, satin, and translucent options available that I’m not even sure if Nike, UA, and adidas even know about. It dosent have to be a gaudy, in-your-face application, just imagine a helmet with a matte-chrome (kind of like brushed aluminum) finish with a 1 color logo in any of the previously mentioned materials. There is plenty of original ideas waiting to be discovered.

It would be great to see any of these ideas actually used in uniform design, but like all the other trends and advances, it has potential to be abused. There's nothing wrong with gradients and matte finishes and such, but the way they are used most of the time is horrible. Most critics and sideline designers want to put all the blame on the designers, Nike, adidas, etc. But the clients are the ones getting what they want in the end. They're the ones making the final calls, and if they're already doing a shit job of handling what's available to them now, then they'll probably do a shit job of handling everything else to come after it. I like to stay positive though. Can someone just please do a matte black decal on gloss black helmet for me!?!?