Those Sneaky Graphic Designers

Going about my daily browse on Digg, I ran across a site featuring their "Phallic Logo Awards". This section of B3TA's site is dedicated to logos that have some sort of, perceived or real, phallic symbolism I can't help but think that some of these were intentional. I mean seriously, look at this example.



I think this type of thing is done by graphic designers more often than we know. Take for example the cover art from the Little Mermaid. There is well defined image of something that could be considered phallic. Even though the urban legend has been debunked, it claims a disgruntled artist intentionally put this in as a way of getting back at Disney. Whether or not anyone is willing to admit it, this has to be intentional.



Another prime example is Disney's The Rescuers. A quote from Snopes sheds some light on the issue - "January 1999, Disney announced a recall of the home video version of their 1977 animated feature The Rescuers because it contained an "objectionable background image." Approximately 38 minutes into the film, as rodent heroes Bianca and Bernard fly through the city in a sardine box strapped to the back of Orville...the photographic image of a topless woman can be seen at the window of a building in the background in two different (non-consecutive) frames...The two "topless woman" frames have reputedly been present in the film ever since its original 1977 theatrical release." I have blotted out the naughty parts but you can see the examples below.






The list goes on and on. From Who Framed Roger Rabbit to Disney's Aladdin, there are many examples of sneaky artists or animators. Take a look at this mid 80's Australian Coke ad. Snopes confirmed that, "The graphic artist who designed the picture put this in as a joke, and it went through unnoticed until someone spotted it on the back of a Coke truck. The artist lost his job and was sued..."




Of course, you have to differentiate the workings of one person trying to slide something in as a joke and well executed or planned hidden imagery. Modern advertising incorporates all kinds of covert imagery and symbolism designed to illicit a response. Then again, people can also see something where there may be noting at all. The infamous "Camel Man" on the front of a pack of Camel Cigarettes and numerous other examples in pop culture are often a stretch, but create conversation and product discussion nonetheless. So how much is intentional? We can only wonder.

 

Bad Logos And The Mistakes That Made Them

I just read a really good post on a design forum from 2004 by Craig Fraser. The author wrote about common mistakes when you are designing a logo and how you can avoid them. Granted this information is 3 years old and there are some things that I don't agree with, but I think the author does have some extremely valid points.

"The Clipart Logo - Most clipart images are widely distributed. Anyone who is familiar with the software providing the clipart will very likely recognize your ‘borrowed’ logo. This is a poor way to build credibility for your business."

"The Special Effects Logo - Strip away all of the special effects to get at the heart of your design. Special filters such as glows, drop shadows, and bevels are great for creating graphics and manipulating photos, but they can be very distracting when applied to a logo. A great logo should be able to stand its ground in black and white, without any effects. You may like to consider drafting your concepts on paper first. You should think more about what is being presented before you decide how it is presented. When you are pleased with a one-colour concept then go to the computer and recreate it digitally. At this point you may or may not like to add a subtle effect to enhance your logo for web use. Eliminate any effect that does not add value to your design. "

I agree with some elements of his second point like the need to design in black and white first. But I disagree with his condemnation of treatments. This may have been the school of thought 3 years ago but today logos can incorporate "glows, drop shadows, and bevels" with little or no detriment to the design. Do you like apples?



"The Banner Logo - A logo is not a web banner advertisement. You are doing yourself more harm than good by forcing your logo into a banner shape, especially if the content is crammed to fit the entire rectangle. Our eyes are trained to avoid these shapes, not read them. "

"The Integrated Logo - Professional logo designers occasionally integrate graphic elements directly into the text to create one unified logo. This process is difficult and risky. Executed poorly, your logo can easily look ‘tacky’ and illegible. (i.e. using the letter ‘O’ in the company name to create a globe, eye, magnifying glass, etc.) If you are new to graphic design, stick to a top centered or left graphic layout. "

"The Text-Only Logo - A text-only logo severely restricts the ability to express your company’s uniqueness and memorability. Larger, more established businesses can pull off text-only logos with exorbitant marketing budgets. One test of logo's effectiveness (marketing budget's aside) is to alter the letters and see if your logo is still recognizable. If not then you need to seriously consider a visual element. If you just can’t resist a text-only logo, consider a strong, unique typeface – preferably custom made. "

I am going to have to disagree with him on this one. There are plenty of well know, extremely successful companies that have "text only" logos. Toshiba, Panasonic, The New York Times, Time Magazine, Google, Cannon, Mobil, Wells Fargo, Sony, and HBO - just to name a few.

"The Monogram - Monograms (company initials) are very difficult to use effectively. It will take a long time to build credibility with a monogram logo. Similarly, logos consisting of several overlapping letters generally do not work well. They may be fun to construct, but the end result says very little about your company and your products/services. "

"The Complex Logo - Detailed illustrations, photos, and complex layouts make poor logos. Each additional detail is an extra detail that your (potential) customer has to remember. A simple, unique logo with solid shades and minimal lines will have greater impact and memorability. "

I couldn't agree more with his last statement . Case in point: