Good News, Everyone!

You're now reading this in the voice of Professor Farnsworth!

Two bits of exciting news today.

First, the Classy Graffiti apparel store is open on Spreadshirt.com! Selection is limited for now, but look for that to change in the near future.

Second, the first page of my webcomic, Black Rabbit is up on Comicgenesis. It has capes, spandex, and people kicking giant monsters in the face. Check it out!

Tao of the Cash Register - Devil's In The Details

During the five years it took for me to earn a BFA in Graphic Design, I'd like to think I picked up a fair bit about the principles that go into making good graphics and signage and the like. Have a clear hierarchy, make sure the text isn't blending into the background, and be as sure as you can that nothing in the text or graphics forms unintentional dirty innuendos, which will inevitably be latched onto by the viewing public and either mocked relentlessly or used by watchdog groups to publicly castigate your work.

Oh, and don't use Hobo or Papyrus fonts, that's just wrong.

That the first real revision to these not-quite-rules came not from a graphic designer position, but from my job standing behind a cash register counting change and pressing touch-screen buttons like a trained monkey. You don't quite realize just how much graphic advertising material even a small convenience store uses until you have to help put it all up to herald the new Promotion O' The Month, or at least have to deal with a line of twenty increasingly-irate customers because everyone ELSE is busy tacking up vinyl signs and specially-cut cardboard boxes. Quite often, these in-store ads serve the simple function of informing the customer about the two-for-one deal on milk pints (skim and Vitamin D milk only, void on chocolate) or the newest variety of seasonal Reese's cups (now with peanut-butter flavor hat). Less often, the ads will talk about new programs created to breed a deeper customer loyalty without actually doing anything crazy like offering free discounts, like a deeply-hooded cashier waving their hand in the customer's face and intoning "You don't NEED to visit other franchises."

Either way, these ads all run the fine line of informing the customer and misleading them, keeping the little disclaimers unobtrusive without actually lying to the customer. The distinction is a subtle one, and the fliers and signs have reached the point of a sort of zen mastery in which they completely mislead the viewer while telling nothing but the unvarnished truth. I look on these ads with a mix of awe at the use of color and font size to achieve the desired effect so perfectly, and a mild disgust like I've sold my soul via proxy through my chosen career.

Here's the thing, though -- one thing I've noticed over the months of working retail and pushing king-sized candy bars on people who just want to buy their coffee and go.

It doesn't really matter.

Make the disclaimers and clarifications as large or unobtrusive as you want, and it won't make a lick of difference when it comes down to a customer angrily demanding their extra ten cents off. A customer will see exactly as much or little as they want. This is sometimes understandable, in a customer asking why they're not getting a discount on their gas, or why their second bag of candy isn't free (requiring a special program and coupon, respectively).

More often, this takes the form of a customer acting angry and bewildered that their bag of chips with the large, bright-orange, three-dollar price sticker on it is not ringing up at under $2.

So, if you find yourself in the position of being a designer asked to create this month's batch of in-store advertisements and POS signage, make the little details not so little. Work to make them something the customer sees immediately after the giant two-for-one text, instead of an afterthought. Leave no possibility that it can be ignored or forgotten. But don't sweat it, because the holy wrath of a customer in pursuit of a free Cadbury Egg is a nigh-unstoppable force.

The Good, The Bad, And The Overused Title 2

Book Cover Edition
Holy months-long hiatus, Batman! Yes, unfortunately school, work, and all the insanity those things entail and my own laziness have relegated Classy Graffiti to the wayside for a while. So, I figured I'd make my triumphant return to the lucrative world of blogging with a post nearly-identical to my last. Again, I'd like to make a disclaimer that I haven't actually read any of these books -- these critiques are based solely on a visual read of the covers.

The Good: The Girl Who Played With Fire

This one's pretty basic, but I like it. The colors are bright and vibrant in a way likely to catch your eye from a distance, but without being garish, or eye-burning. The photo used evokes a fiery image without being literal about it the so many artists seem to go. Alternately, it's not so obscure that it seems to have no connection to the plot at all ("Hey, this book is about vampires. What should we put on the cover?" "Let's use a chess piece." "BRILLIANT!").
My one problem with this is probably that the arrangement of the text might be a little hard to read, but I consider that fairly minor. The viewer's eye bounces back and forth down the cover fairly easily, and the motion adds greatly to the cover's visual interest. The less-than-conventional arrangement also adds a minor sense of unease, which enhances the sense of danger the cover seems to be promoting. The text and illustration loses some points for the overall-centered nature of the cover, but the individual elements are asymmetrical enough that it doesn't bother me as much as it usually does.

The Bad: Wheel Of Time, The Gathering Storm

A cover with a bunch of people standing around posing dramatically in a way that may or may not actually relate to the plot. Wow. NEVER seen that before. I suppose it could be worse. It could be a bunch of heads floating around, but this kind of thing seems unfortunately common in fantasy novels in particular. This one isn't quite as bad as usual, with there at least being some implied action and tension, what with the gaping hole in the house and Rand's (I'm assuming that's him, unless the series switched protagonists after I stopped reading) rage-against-the-heavens pose there.
Of course, this is ruined, just a bit, by the way the fact that the house appears to be built at an angle, relative to both the text and the characters. Not built into the side of a hill, or built with slanting walls for some reason, but, in fact, like one side of it is sinking into the ground. This might be an attempt to create a sense of unbalance, or visual conflict, but it honestly just looks like the illustrator couldn't be bothered to use a ruler.
Secondly, what the hell is up with Rand's left hand, there? A quick look at Wikipedia says he lost it in one of the books, but it just looks like the artist forgot to paint it in. And if it really ISN'T there, what the hell is keeping that bit of cape over his wrist? At that angle, it looks like it should be sliding off, but no. Maybe one of his numerous powers is now telekinetic manipulation of cloth.
Flaws aside, this actually isn't that horrible of a cover. It is, however, really really generic, and probably isn't going to do much in the way of grabbing the attention of someone who isn't already a fan.

The Ugly: Inherent Vice

Okay, remember the garish, eye-burning colors I mentioned in the section about The Girl Who Played With Fire? Here's what I mean. I have nothing against purple and green. And I'm sure they could be used together by a sufficiently competent artist without searing off the viewer's retinas, but that sure isn't the case here. (Oh yeah, your retinas are now charred disks of carbon. Anything else you think you're still seeing is a figment of the imagination. My bad.) On the one hand, this cover does a good job of evoking the feel of a seedy, trashy little roadside diner or strip-club or something, which I'm sure was the intent. The problem is that it was done in colors designed for use in flagging down passing aircraft.
Honestly, I'd be afraid to read this book in public without a plain brown cover to go with it. That title, in that font and those colors, really makes it look like that car's gonna be rocking around within five pages. Like the Gathering Storm cover, this seems to be banking on people already being fans of the author. That might not be a problem, but you shouldn't try it with a cover that conjures images of a Las Vegas bar featuring topless dancers. Finally... I don't care what anyone says, that car is the Ecto 1. Unless this book involves a pair of surfing strippers strapping on personal nuclear reactors to investigate the paranormal, it should not have Ecto on the cover. Bad illustrator. No cookie.

Honorable Mention

I love this series. I really do. And I like the covers; they do a good job capturing the atmosphere of the novels, or at least a fairly major part of them. My complaint? They all look the same. Every one of them. It's all Harry standing there looking dramatic, against a backdrop that may or may not actually be indicative of the plot. I know it's probably a publisher thing, but please, how about a little variety in these covers?











Disclaimer: I do not own any of the images displayed. They are displayed for entertainment purposes and not for profit. All images property of their respective owners.

The Good, the Bad, and the Overused Cliche Title

Movie Poster Edition

Movie posters of late seem to follow a pretty predictable formula. There will either be a group shot of the main character(s), or whoever the producers would like us to think is the main cast, standing around and glaring at the camera. There's some variation to this, usually indicative of genre (grinning on a poster for a comedy flick, screaming terror for horror, etc) and some of the better-designed posters (ie, most by or imitating the style of Drew Struzan) get a more dynamic layout, usually managing to get across a good indication of the movie's tone even if they don't tell you too much about the plot or premise.
So, with absolutely no smooth segue at all, let's dive right in. If it really bugs you, just pretend it's some super-pretentious attempt at referencing film-technique and call it a jump-cut or something.

The Good: Daybreakers

This isn't the best poster I've ever seen, but it's certainly eye-catching, it gets the point across, and it's probably going to stand out when compared to the other, more photographic posters at the theater.
It keeps it simple and tells you what you need to know (vampires, presumably doing something that allows them to come out during the day) and gives a pretty good indication of what the tone's going to be like. This movie is going to be so violent and bloody, so terrifying, that very image on the promotional poster is going to leap off the paper and tear your throat out. It's not very pretty, but this is about bloodsucking monsters -- even if they're played by the most beautiful people Hollywood has to offer, they still eat people. Pretty probably isn't something that's going to be very indicative of the final movie in this case.

The Bad: Twilight

Okay, disclaimer time -- I have not seen this movie (or, in fact, any of the movies represented here), but I've done enough research to have a decent idea of the movie's premise and plot and so on. This movie HAS tried to take the more modern, prettified view of vampires, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not very well-executed here. I have it from some reliable sources that Robert Pattinson can be pretty attractive to people of the appropriate gender and/or orientation, but here he just looks like he's ready to kill someone, or maybe like he really needs some fiber.
What I get from this is mostly dark broodiness and teenaged goths, with a side of over-applied body-oil or something. I've read enough to know that the vampires are supposed to be all shiny and stuff, but the effect really doesn't work well. Again, the darkness does seem to carry over somewhat into the actual movie, but everything I've heard indicates that the main focus of the story is a romance. I'm not getting that here, except maybe in a really twisted sense of the word; Rob looks kind of like he's about to break Kristen Stewart's arms. And if the main focus of the story is supposed to be the couple, do we really need all the supporting cast shown like this?

The Ugly: Alice In Wonderland

I know, the Mad Hatter is a fairly well-known character from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, and that Johnny Depp is a very popular actor. But this can be seen as a case study in too much of a good thing. Or rather, a good thing done badly. There's showing off a weird character in an attempt to draw interest in a movie, and then there is terrifying small children on their way through the theater. The new Tim Burton movie doesn't sound like it's going to have children as its target audience, so maybe this is the studio's subtle way of flashing a warning to parents -- bring your kids into this movie, and they will be traumatized for months. But honestly, I'm just sitting here looking at it on a computer screen, and I'm getting a little scared. And not in that usual horror movie, ooh-what's-gonna-happen-next kind of way, but scared in the HP Lovecraft mind-rape-of-Cthulu-meets-Pennywise-the-Clown kind of way.

And I just wanted to give a special mention to this poster. It's not particularly bad or good, but THAT positioning of THAT particular title on a photo of the lead actor? It's like they actually WANT people to make dick jokes.









Disclaimer 2.0: All images displayed are the properties of their respective owners, ie, people who are not me. They are displayed here without permission but not for profit.

Logo Deathmatch 5 - Manufacturing: Bicycle Parts And Supplies

Or - Revenge Of The Overly Long Titles Part 2: Long Titles Strike Back

I want to start off by saying that this logo is, thankfully, outdated as of the writing of this blog. Whether it was a work-in-progress, the official mark of the company got changed, or someone just decided to upload a very bad recreation of Finish Line's logo to Brands Of The World, I don't know. All I know is, I'm glad that someone, somewhere along the proverbial foodchain, looked at the logo on the left and said "Oh HELL no."

Aside from the relatively bad craftsmanship displayed, I'm honestly not quite sure where to begin. The typography around the edge is pretty generic, but the text in the center -the actual company name- is in major competition with a less-than-spectacularly rendered flag. The flag, with all the little pockets of trapped white-space, is really the only thing generating any actual visual interest. And frankly, nothing here really says 'bicycle' to me. Auto mechanic, maybe. Car and general supplies, maybe. Racing company, perhaps. But not really bicycle, unless the generic and unmemorable ring in the background is meant to be a very out-of-shape bike wheel.

To be totally honest, the Ciari Parts logo doesn't say 'bicycle' to me, either, at least not immediately or obviously. The symbol does call to mind a wrench making a mechanical adjustment, but that could apply to any kind of mechanical supply. It does a good job of sending across its intended meaning in a way that's likely to be readable in all languages, the text is clear, and doesn't compete with the graphic, and it has a good hierarchy besides, drawing attention to the company name. It's compact, reproduces well at small sizes and without color. There are probably auto-supply and repair outlets that have similar symbols, but the C-wrench is still going to be memorable and recognizable. The trapped white-area creates interest without pinning the eye down, and it's easy to see this having many uses.

Logo Deathmatch 4 - Non-Profit Organizations: Health and Medical

Or - When Overlong Titles Attack, next on FOX.

Despite being the 'bad' selection for this particular post, this logo -technically speaking- does a lot right. It's contained, the typography is readable, the symbol, at least, is likely to reproduce decently at small size, it creates visual interest, and the color choice evokes trust and calm, both things that definitely fall into the 'good' category for a medical-assistance organization.

The downside, however, seems pretty major. Namely, representation and understandability. Take away the text, and I defy you to find someone who could tell you what this logo was for without just making a wild guess. I can sort of see a crouching person in the circle and three outer shapes, but with the little triangular symbol in the middle mostly destroys that image, aside from actively drawing your eye in, and away from the text. This would be more at-home in some futuristic first-person-shooter, probably on the side of some kind of container leaking a glowing, viscous liquid. Which could very easily be associated with shifts in health, but not in the way the AHAF would likely want.

Like the AHAF logo, the American Heart Association relies heavily on typography, and it has most of the same strengths that the prior logo does. The text is readable, and due to its size is likely to reproduce well at small sizes. The text and image are fairly well balanced, using white-space to draw and guide the eye without trapping it on one useless point. The color speaks -not of calm and trust- but at least of life, and vitality and passion. And frankly, if you're going to have an association with hearts, you probably don't want another color unless you're trying to be ironic, goth, or talking about gay rights. The torch isn't the most representative symbol in this case, but it can be read as carrying a light, or the cause, so it works. It's also going to be readable across most cultures and languages, and the simplicity is going to give it easily recall and make it easy to learn.

Logo Deathmatch 3 - Service: Utilities

I feel like I'm beating 'logos are a reflection of the company they represent' to death, but honestly, I keep finding logos that make me just sort of sit and stare, wondering why anyone would not only think that they would make a good first-impression on any customers, but would pay for the privilege of using them. The stellar example on the right, for one -- strung out and not well-contained, completely generic text, and a tacked-on symbol that both fights the company initials for dominance and has almost nothing to do with the services provided. I understand that RWE is actually based in Germany, so it's possible that in Europe, an intentionally-pixelated silhouette of a hand is somehow representative of gas and electricity, but I somehow doubt it. Maybe it's meant to represent the last outline of their customers after a natural-gas explosion caused by their services, it makes about as much sense as anything else I can come up with. Or it's implied that this will happen if you use a competitor's service; which might actually be kind of clever, but mostly as a late-night television parody. Either way, I find it highly unlikely.

This logo has its weaknesses; it's fairly long, and probably wouldn't reproduce well at a small size, but at least it seems to have some relation to the industry it's representing. Even if the flame-icon is a little over-obvious, it does its job, and the rectangular pattern it rests on suggests, at least to me, the colors at the heart of a candle-flame. Or the notches on a thermostat, and either way, it's a better indicator than the random hand on RWE's logo. The logo is balanced fairly well, the image and text flowing back and forth without competing, and the low, long shape gives it a sense of stability -- always a plus when talking about explosive gas. The loss of color would hurt a bit, but this logo would reproduce well in black and white, and could easily be placed on a letterhead, building sign, or other advertisement.