I have been lecturing on Brand Management for a few years now; even though it is not a graphic design course, i do try to show students different options for logo development, my aim is to help them develop their own taste and feel for what makes a logo attractive and effective.
I have used a couple of logo classifications, sort of typologies, but i do feel the need to see more options. The classifications i use focus on the relation between symbol and lettering and seem to have too may undecided cases; the exceptions tend to make the students more confused, and this undermines my objectives.
Thank you all,
Paulo L
It all comes up on what is the purpose or scope of the classification, but mostly you'll end up things such as 'pictorial', 'lettermark', 'mascot', 'emblem', 'abstract' or a combination of two or more of these (e.g. (e.g. https://en.99designs.pt/blog/tips/types-of-logos/)... You may even come up with color-based distinctions, and so forth. Gestalt-based principles are certainly worth mentioning as a possible generalization of the underlying visual principles (e.g. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/the-laws-of-figure-ground-praegnanz-closure-and-common-fate-gestalt-principles-3). Anyway it is not straightforward to know what will or will not work out, as numerous factors (e.g. age, sex, sexuality, religion or fashion) will be interfering, and thus, yes, students may easily be confused. In this regard, it will certainly be worth mentioning the 'classic' troubled story of NASA logo (e.g. https://www.ceros.com/originals/nasa/).
Hope any of this can be usefull!
It might be helpful to look into semiotic marketing texts. Take a look at my article on alphabet ( Lemo Šimić, Horvat) - might give you an idea.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude