Image: Vacuum Cleaner ‘Fuck Off’ Logo Recall 

In terms of design strategy, the new stripped down Starbucks execution does make eminent sense. What was surprising was that it was out of step by a decade or more with other major global brands in the trend for reductivist logos as ubiquitous signature (you may have noticed the likes of Nike relying less on the old ‘swoosh’ and offering up heritage themed diffusion lines like Nike Sportswear, to get the hipsters back in tow).

The real design innovation is coming down the line (Digital Networks and Facebook tie-ins) and this little bit of
re-engineering just clears the path for that.

—————————

Anyway, this is where we’re at. A big logo gets thrown into an ocean of design blogs and a quickly polarised debate of “I liked the old one better” vs “Isn’t that clever” emerges*. But little else beyond.

I’m curious about how the design community reacts, evolves and positions itself in relation to the notion of ‘branding’ in the real, everyday world. I’m being honest here. I find it confusing, and hard to take a definite position sometimes – where are the ethical boundaries of what we do? What are the aims of designers –  to make things better? To make things look better? To just sell more stuff?

By the way, I’m not saying coffee is evil. Or design for branding is for that matter. That’d be stupid, I indulge in and rely on both on a daily basis. (In fact that might be a vicious circle I need to get out of). I did spend some formative years in the midst of anti-capitalist marches, Adbusters, and Naomi Klein. It’s good they’re still fighting and arming us with information, but ultimately I found their strategies to be laudible, but predictable and a little bit lame.

This is really just a call out, at the beginning of this ‘Focus On Design’ month, for an upping of the ante when it comes to online design criticism – here or anywhere else. Let’s scratch at the surface now and again. Stoically defending the industry in the face of lazy journalism about how much design costs is encouraging, but lets also be honest about the true value of what we do.

I’m optimistic about the development and redefinition of ‘branding’ and design. I enjoyed Neil McGuires recent link on here to Metahaven’s rebranding of Wikileaks, and their notions of ‘image economies’. Their apparent short-circuiting of a countercultural publishers is pretty funny. Ultimately I’m interested in how they’re signposting new strategies for design and branding, and their understanding of what happens online, and that maybe it’s less about ‘brand’ and more about identity.

Links:

Articles on Starbucks Rebrand:

http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/january/starbucks-new-logo

http://www.logodesignlove.com/starbucks-logo-evolution

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2011/01/12/17584-starbucks-to-bring-free-digital-network-to-uk-/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/poll/2011/jan/06/is-starbucks-makeover-worth-it

Vacuum Cleaner ‘Fuck Off’ Logo Recall

http://thevacuumcleaner.co.uk/recall/

http://www.starbuckscoffee.org.uk/sos/home/index.html

Metahaven

http://mthvn.tumblr.com/page/2

http://www.manystuff.org/?p=9986

A number of years back, The Sunday Times suggested that I was the first person in the world to create a piece of art using e.coli bacteria. Initially, it was a bit strange to be recognised for creating art out of a substance that is best known for its ability to make a human seriously ill, but I quickly got used to it as I realised that the story itself was an fascinating anecdote.

The process started when I was dealt the challenge of designing an interpretation of the MTV logo under the simple brief of the word ‘virus’. Before I continue, it is worth pointing out that in my final year of studies my aim was to experiment as much as humanly possible, and that included artistic mediums that had never been used before.

My idea was to literally grow the symbol using bacteria and record the process occurring with time-lapse equipment. Now, I suspect that some of you are wondering why I would choose to do this, so I will endeavor to explain. As a visual artist I am attracted to the investigation of the positive and the negative. In particular, I find it the greatest challenge to transform a substance that once held negative aesthetic connotations into something that is utterly beautiful.

Once I had fully resolved my concept, I approached various commercial and education bio labs to further research the practicalities of the work. After hours of e-mail correspondence, I was fortunate to get through to a professor by the name of Chris French at the University of Edinburgh, who said that growth into the shape of the famous mark would not be a problem using e.coli bacteria. I have to confess, at that point I was a little worried. The most dangerous strains of e.coli can kill, which puts a whole new spin on suffering for one’s art.

I pulled on a white coat and protective gloves and carried out several experiments by growing the fluorescent, genetically modified e.coli bacteria under controlled conditions. I continued the pursuit until ultimately, I was happy with the result. It was only then that I took the footage and carried out post-production on a Mac.

The Process

Stage 1
The invisible genetically modified e.coli bacteria was ‘drawn’ directly on to the petri dish.

Stage 2
Each experiment was carried out under ‘controlled conditions’ for optimum growth.

Stage 3
The petri dish was placed on top of a light box and the growth was recorded by using time-lapse equipment over a 48 hour period.

Stage 4
The successful result with accidental contamination.