As mentioned earlier, I’m running a logo contest on Sitepoint. Part of what I’m asking all participants is to go deep into meaning, elements, not just create a pretty logo. The following was written by one of the participants, Steve of RetroMetro Designs, and submitted with his logo submission. As I felt as he was taking me on a journey into the essence of conceptualism, I feel you may enjoy reading as well.
The problem, as I see it, is to objectify that which is essentially un-objective and possibly even subjective.
At the very least, (in addition to “cogito ergo sum”) I am willing to allow that I know this, that a conceptualist is one who involves him/herself with concepts. Like the cogito, however, things get pretty fuzzy once we get past the first postulate. At issue is that grist for the conceptualist’s mill is intangible. We know or can easily find out what wheat looks like, but what does a concept look like?
We could reduce the problem to one of drawing a picture of this particular conceptualist. However, why bother since there is already a perfectly respectable representation of this conceptualist on his blog? Besides, the greater challenge, the one worth $2500 dollars (at least) is to represent what it is that conceptualists as a group do, or perhaps how they do it. Words like quick-thinking, unconventional, influential, outside-the-box, etc., perhaps capture much of the cogitation so far. A
fuller (”deeper”) understanding of the current problem must address what it is a conceptualist thinks about. Again, it is concepts.Now, it seems to me that the notion of ‘concept/s’ is virtually the antithesis of the ‘products’ we designers typically work with. Concepts have no physical aspect to point to. Designers regularly translate into symbolic language such things as products, services, places, groups, and so on. In cases like those, we often hitch our aesthetic wagon to specific aspects of the things we seek to represent, tangibles like size, colour, features/benefits, and such. The ‘product’ in this case, the “conceptualist”, is one who’s defining aspect resides in that place we call the mind. When my mind, at least, is working as I believe it should, it is doing things like creating and feeling. It is attempting to solve problems and it is feeling this way or that about what it has thought.
Currently, my mind is trying to give form to an intangible - an intangible that has never been unambiguously defined by either philosophers, psychologists, biochemists, or even artists, though the latter have perhaps had some success in conjuring the feelings associated with the concepts in their own minds.
My solution to the current problem then, is to ’suggest’ rather than assert. When the product is so ambiguous, when the terms are so loosely defined, the outcome will necessarily be a subjective one. There can be no gestalt, no “aha” or “why didn’t I think of that”. Instead, I ask you to think of questions, answers, the non-clinical brain, back-and-forth interplay, optimism, the letter ‘c’, non-linear roilings of the mind, thoughts and thinker, not to mention the need to objectify for the sake of communication, branding, marketing, etc. If I’ve managed to suggest some of these, then I’ve had some success solving the problem at hand.
Cheers,
RetroMetro/Steve
Comments most welcome, highly appreciated.
Sahar
Loading ...
a very good reading. agree it’s not about the conceptualist but rather what he/she does, the overall feeling about a conceptualist, the “aura”.
I found Steve’s comments intriguing as well. I think it’s a mistake to use the word “product” in this case, though. His writing shows that he senses the strain in applying this language of commodification to something that is productless and incorporeal.
To me, it makes sense to abandon language constructs in this case. The noun is not so important as the verb conjugations. A conceptualist is someone concerned with methodology, process, form over content–not to the exclusion thereof; there’s simply a difference in priority. This was suggested to me by your personal interest in domain names: you are trading in namespace, a world of symbols, associations, connections. Whether the domains lead to parked pages or to functional sites, your concern is manipulating and controlling the access, the way we refer to and CONCEPTUALIZE these regions of cyberspace. There is immense power in controlling namespace, but it’s a very modern development that can be confusing for those rooted in the traditional physical space which defined human reality for the majority of our history.
I see parallels between conceptualism/conceptualist thinking and quantum mechanics, as well. QM revealed to us that the reality we thought was solid, constant, and discrete was in fact the opposite. Without rhapsodizing too much about science (I take a hobbyist interest in physics
), QM suggests that the underlying fabric of what we think of as reality is nothing more than a clutch of probabilities…a framework of shifting ideas which, from our vantage point as humans, appears tantalizingly solid.
The Information Age fully embraces a quantum view of the world. Business across the globe moves from physical products to service economies. We buy and sell ideas, processes, modes, means of access, and touch the physical world increasingly infrequently. The credit system is the most potent example of this. We traffic in probabilities and likelihoods. My parents, in their early 50s, struggle with these notions as their job duties change and challenge them. To my late grandparents, it may as well have been a science fiction movie. And generations after me are being raised in this world of ideas from the cradle. It’s an absolutely fascinating time to be alive.
Steve says there is a need to objectify in order to communicate, but what does objectification mean in this day and age? To my parents, TV was the defining communications medium. For my grandparents it was the radio and telephone. For me, it is obviously the internet. And with the rise of the Information Age, our communications become increasingly abstract and dissociated from physical reality. We are dealing with graphic logos now, but who’s to say in 20 years that we won’t have progressed beyond this, and be designing sensory experience packages to sell a product or service? Taste, touch, smell, and sound could be incorporated into a brand logo.
From there we can extrapolate even more abstract, fundamental means of communicating–perhaps directly stimulating the brain (in an ethical way, of course!) to induce a person’s own personal, unique reaction. You may associate the color yellow with happiness, and the texture of wood as something that gives comfort and suggests solidity, but the next person may have negative connotations in regard to those stimuli. If I want to evoke happiness and comfort in relation to my brand, I might have the ability to personalize it and account for each individual’s personality, memories, and conceptual associations.
To think like a conceptualist is to think beyond first- and even second-tier levels of ideas such as these, and to reach ever higher for a purer essence. Hmmm…I think I just got a new idea for another entry.
With these things in mind, I find myself trying to illustrate process, method, action and result, etc. It’s quite liberating compared to the usual sort of commodity-based design I do, and I think the entries in your contest reflect that. I see a lot of people relishing the opportunity to free themselves from traditional product -> symbol iconography and to allow their creativity to soar.
It’s a great show. You’ve got us all thinking like conceptualists in trying to portray these ideas, at least.
[quote] I think it’s a mistake to use the word “product”? in this case…[end quote] I trust you saw the highlights I put around the word?
[quote]Steve says there is a need to objectify in order to communicate, but what does objectification mean in this day and age?[end quote] The fact that we can communicate between ourselves at all is thanks to definition and definition itself is a form of objectification. So by objectifying the present concept as we are, graphically and otherwise, we are helping to define a word which still has not made it into many dictionaries (or spell-checkers:))
[quote]We are dealing with graphic logos now, but who’s to say in 20 years that we won’t have progressed beyond this…[end quote] Indeed we are dealing with graphic logos now…
[quote]…process, method, action and result, etc.[end quote]
I’m feeling better about my iconographic symbol all the time. Thanks Leah;)
I’m not offended by any of what you say, by-the-way - your’s is a very good and well thought out bit of writing (and I especially like the view to the future.) My retorts are purely for the love of the game, so-to-speak. Cheers Leah et al.
God have mercy!! I didn’t realize Sahar created this $2,500 contest just to have sex with your minds.
Sahar, this isn’t so much about the logo anymore is it. Well, I guess I’ll go pour my skill out on someone else.
Next time be more clear about your real intentions. This is more of joke then a logo contest. Way to go Sahar. Journey into the essence of conceptualism? lol.
I think that person mught have been trying to be clever…or witty…or rude…or something…