How does form follow function in Branding Design? Let’s talk about it.
A few years ago I shopped for a tool to help me get rid of dandelions in my lawn. I have an
aversion to herbicides, and snipping the tops of dandelion plants doesn’t kill them. The roots,
which are several inches deep, must come out. I came home with a dandelion digger that looked
both sturdy and elegant, ostensibly a good design from a respected brand. But when I went to use it,
I found that getting each dandelion out was much harder than I had expected,
and it left gaping two-inch holes in my lawn. The next day, I exchanged the tool for one that
wasn’t as expensive nor as attractive, but was easier to use and left much smaller holes—more
like ones you get when you aerate your lawn. Since the primary function of the tool was not
appearance or fashion, I was fine with the way it looked. How it worked getting dandelions out
was the most important consideration—as well as how my lawn looked afterward.
One of the most ubiquitous maxims in art and craft is “Form Follows Function.” And it
contains a great deal of truth. If a form impedes function or creates new problems, it is a poor
design. While it is not wrong to re-evaluate the specific function we might be seeking, the form we
choose had better not impede that core function. What if I glued multiple thumbtacks onto a bicycle
seat to keep the rider from slipping? It might keep the rider from slipping, but I don’t know
anyone stupid enough to think this was a good solution. Who would want to sit on such a seat?
People who mistakenly define creativity by whether or not it’s new and different might
give it full marks. But that’s just because no one had ever been silly enough to try it before.
It is sometimes easy to get distracted from the essential function of a creative project.
This is especially true when esthetics are also an integral part of the function,
as with corporate identity or branding. But esthetics are not the only function of a corporate identity.
Clear thinking must override gut impulses in this area.
What is the function of a corporate identity? Here again
it is important to get our vision straight. The functions of any corporate identity are:
1. To be seen clearly and recognized instantly, 2. To appropriately and positively represent
the business or organization or product being identified,
3. To be consistently reproducible and maintain clarity across all media,
4. To be flexible enough to be used in a wide variety of design and media environments.
If we create a design that fails in any of these four functions,
we have failed to create a workable branding design. Period.
Some designers in our industry know instinctively how to make solid, useful brand identities.
Unfortunately, for most others in the graphic design industry–even
among the biggest and most expensive brand agencies in the world–the process is hit-or-miss.
Some designers seem fixated on doing something that has never been done before, not only in
their specific design, but in their very approach. Perhaps they believe that because they produced
something new, they have been terribly creative. What they may forget to do is test their finished
identity design against the four functions of a corporate identity. If it doesn’t pass
all four of those tests, such a creation shouldn’t even be presented to the client.
Maybe the reason why people never used that approach for a logo before, is that it doesn’t
work for a logo. Rather than being mark of creativity, making an identity in a way that has
never been done before may be the height of folly. Remember that in the end, creativity is NOT
doing something new, but rather the ability to find the BEST way to solve a problem. Period.
Creativity is often characterized as a new way of doing something.
That is because a new problem sometimes requires a new solution. That’s why we notice it.
But the core of creativity is not that it is new. That’s a common fallacy of logic called
Association with Causation—a false notion that because two events occur together,
one causes the other. Corn and pumpkins often ripen
at the same time, but the corn does not make the pumpkins ripen, or the other way around.
For any problem, there may be many new and different approaches that will NOT
provide a solution. Theoretically only a few, or perhaps even only one approach will succeed.
A problem does not always reside outside of the status quo. It may touch that circle tangentially.
This can mean that the most suitable solution may not require anything new to solve it.
This may be an irritant to those who desperately aspire to their notion that “creativity must
be new and different” at all costs. They insist that newness is an essential part of any solution.
This fixation is almost epidemic in creative fields like graphic design.
The tragic flaw is that the new and unusual approach may fail to solve the problem at hand.
Sad to say, many design annuals abound in examples of this kind of “bleeding edge”
design—the cutting edge that has gone so far that it doesn’t work–like my example of
thumbtacks on the bicycle seat. In other words, where the form does not follow the function.
And if a design doesn’t function in the client’s best interests,
it isn’t truly professional (even if the designer gets paid for it).
Sooner or later the client will recognize that the design just doesn’t work and go elsewhere
for a new design that does work. This happens all-too often in the field of branding design.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. The Core Principles of identity design
are now understood. Designing identities that work in all situations is eminently doable—if
you know the Core Principles of good branding design, which is coming up in future lessons.
For more information go to LogoDesignTheory.com. If you found this useful,
be sure to like this video and share it with anyone who needs to know about logo design.