All logos, no art

[JuicyGoo]

Even as a graphic designer who would like to think that design is a form of art and not just a byproduct of consumerism, I have to say that this is freakin' retarded...

you've let me down, Keanu Reeves

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079501/

[akuma]

valid argument iago, but im not buying it. no matter how you (or slate) puts it... it's still only a shitload of corporate logos.


...makes any mall in new jersey the smithsonian.

[akuma]

but warhol and duchamp at least flipped it like never seen before how they brought such mundane objects into a new context- eliciting something new from the viewer... just throwing contemporary logos on the wall as an exhibit just reeks of laziness. at least having an exhibit of yesteryear's logos would be something interesting, throwing the viewer into a time warp to re-examine marketing visuals before such things as 'politically correct' were even a thought. like buscemi did in 'ghost world'. that to me at least challenges and engages the viewer.

[akuma]

and the lack of a difference you find between a logo and a work of graffitti is somewhat of a superficial examination. graff has so much more personal meaning tied with it.

[akuma]

agreed.

[angrykitty]

What "Sponsorship" does so cleverly is simply remove culture from the equation. There's no brand extension here for the "patrons" to exploit; it's just them. The show thus takes a poke at the fine art world's dependence on corporate support, but also asks whether sponsorship is evidence of good corporate citizenship, or merely a refined form of product placement. A release about the show takes a line similar to Naomi Klein's, saying that the show and its forthcoming catalog examine how "companies that want to a appear 'down' with a certain demographic have attempted to co-opt an honest, organic, and real culture with a commercial one."

But the real message is actually a little more subtle than that. "Sponsorship" was organized by Ryan McGinness, a New York artist who also runs a commercial design studio called Ego. BlkMrkt, in addition to having a gallery space, is also the design studio of Shepard Fairey, who is probably best known for the famous "Obey Giant" sticker-and-stencil phenomenon familiar to urbanites all over the country, if not the world. Neither McGinness nor Fairey, then, is interested in blanket condemnation of commerce; instead they seem interested in provoking their audience to see that the lines between art and capital are blurry everywhere you look.

Some of the better-known participants are actually clients of either BlkMrkt or Ego. One major participant who bought in solely on the basis of a cold call was Scion, the new Gen Y-targeted car from Toyota. "Scion is branding by as many noncorporate methods as possible," explains Jeri Yoshizu, a Scion promotions manager. Major concert tours and sporting events are out for now, in favor of "communities and businesses and causes that are relevant to the core Scion segment. " So, depending on how you look at that statement, Scion was pumping its brand among the below-the-radar and ahead-of-the-curve market leaders—or trying to a appear "down" with a certain demographic. Or—and of course this is the correct answer—both.

Yoshizu's only complaint was that the company's logo in the show identified the car as the "Toyota Scion," rather than simply "Scion." "Other than that," she adds, "I thought it was super cool. I did feel that we were being mocked, but what the hell."

[angrykitty]

Originally posted by JuicyGoo
http://slate.msn.com/id/2079501/

i usually cite my sources, but it was already posted. plus, i thought it was obvious that i could never write that well.

[wonki wonki]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ch/1992/ch920219.gif

[La Dolce Vita]

As far as company logos go I find them to be very interesting. Just like respected visual arts and design they are reflective of the culture and time in which they are created. My design class last smester had to research various logos, combine two, then make a completely new one. I did some research and they are very interesting. Just as fun to look at as...graffitti. I am paticularly fond of ones from the 60's. Do they lack value and meaning? Perhaps somedo. I also see some tagging that is very uninspiring and absent of personality.

As fars as corporate sponsership goes I cannot say I object it. Like Iago said, it has created some great art. Because Michaelangelo (sp?) was commssioned to paint the ceiling of the Capella Sistina, does that make it less worthy of admiration, does it loose its value? Does St.Peter's Basillica loose it's wonder because it was built to prove the decadence and splendor of Roman Catholicism? I think it would be ideal that art could be untainted by greedy organizations, but is it that bad to begin with?

I just repeated what other in this thread have already said so nevermind.

[tsar nicholas]

http://www.didwedo.com/web/upload/imagesArticles/lacoste-logo.gif

YAS!

[YelloKitty]

oh tsar. *swoon*

[JuicyGoo]

I didn't dismiss the show as some feeble attempt by designers to get noticed as a valid artists. Certainly it is not unheard of that graphic design has been the focus of art exhibitions, like showcasing Milton Glaser's work. I'm not doubting the merit of design, which has resulted in amazing work whether it's Mucha or Rand, or its infusion into fine art like Warhol. But allowing the selection and size of the work that gets displayed be determined by the highest bidder bothers me. It negates the viewer's ability to judge a work's significance through it's artistic qualities. But maybe that's the point...

[JuicyGoo]

Are you referring to an all-encompassing Juicy Goo of irony? ;) My gut reaction to this article is that it IS trite and ridiculous and definitely not a new notion. I started this thread without thinking it would go into an all out discussion on the validity of design as art, which, in my mind, was never in question.

[acid_squid]

Bijoux13 and I went to this show- it was mentioned in the pop up on the GR site (if you missed it, that's what you get for going straight to the boards and skipping the home page!).
Honestly, it was more like a very crowded party than anything so dry as a critique on corporate influence on the arts. Everyone got a backpack from Scion that had a Zip Zap scion remote control car inside along with a product catalog/lifestyle magazine. They had the new 'Flip it' lemon 7-up for free and a micro brewery... Stubborn Bastard Ale or some pouty name that Bijouxbot got all excited about and had a big cup of.
I talked to Ryan for a couple of minutes because I have a lot of admiration for his work and he was very friendly.
Then he climbed up on a ledge and started calling out raffle ticket numbers and giving away DC shoes, Royal Elastic shoes, BlkMrkt books and bags, etc.... and not just 1 of each but like 20 of each thing.
It was so hot and crowded we could barely move, so we left before Mr. Fire Marshall pulled the plug.
The point is... this might have been a serious inquiry into the balance of money and art but for most people there, it was just a really fun party.

[tonybricker]

I agree with what Iago was saying in his first few posts. It's more interesting than it seems at a surface level. Sure it's irony-laden, but I think it's a statement worth making. Is it really any worse than letting a corporate sponsor dictate what's going into your museum/gallery? (especially interesting because this time the gallery dictates which sponsors GET to participate.) Can there be a doubt that some artists create their work with the thought that they should make it appealing to potential corporate sponsors? It's stuff worth thinking about beyond immediate dismissal.

[5.92]

Originally posted by Iago
Actually, this is very interesting. It's an extension of the cynical attitudes we have toward certain sectors in our society and is in some ways related to how postmodern artists fuck around with critics and historians. I wouldn't write this off as trivial.

What the Slate article fails to mention... corporate sponsorship of art events goes well beyond the 60s. Think Renaissance. Back then, it was called patronage. Without the Medici and the Pope's blessings, I seriously doubt Michelangelo or da Vinci would be where they are in history. And what was art used for back then? To advance the perception of certain prestige ad glory. Is that so different from coporate empires and corporate mobster families? Not really. What makes a family crest and a corporate logo different? Not much.
^^I love this guy^^

[Chocolate Robot]

Just got the book from the Sponsorship Exhibition of Ryan McGuiness. Is basically a collection of essays and interviews about the relation of art and corporations. More clearly about if art should be sponsorship by enormous corporations.

I can't believe how this thread begin... saying that what he is doing is shite?
Common yes, he is into the commercial design world but actually is doing something (together with Shepard F) to criticize the actual model of production of art supported as an extension of the image of a brand/corporation.

get this book please, read and i bet that maybe you can still thinking that the exhibit is useless but the whole concept behind this, is definetely something that we all have to start to consider very seriously as designers/artist/add your own.

Also Ryan McGuiness is a damn great designer. :p

[YelloKitty]

logo R.I.P. (http://www.logorip.com/introduction.asp)

[invictus]

The book's available at the Giant Robot store.

[YelloKitty]

All image files linked below are being hosted on BadDesignKills.com server. This is to ensure that LogoWorks.com does not remove the images before the public at large has the opportunity to view the stolen artwork.

The below examples show the original logo and define its source and then the rip-off logo created by LogoWorks.com. We have done this for no other reason then to educate the public in regards to online hack-design service.

http://www.baddesignkills.com/logoworks/xerox.gif
http://www.baddesignkills.com/logoworks/xeroxrip.gif
http://www.baddesignkills.com/logoworks/index.htm