Here’s the cool intro, just how I remember it:

It’s stunning watching this and trying to comprehend how people did that kind of stuff without computers back then. I never thought about what kind of work must have gone into it at the time, but I can certainly appreciate it now. Below is a 10 minute documentary from the 80s on how they made the intro, and it’s really surprising to see the clever approaches they took to these projects without any computers at all:

And below is the modern, computer-animated version of the HBO intro. It’s more difficult to be impressed by an intro like this nowadays. We are so overwhelmed with having computer-generated effects in absolutely everything, that this stuff just doesn’t stand out the way that old intro did.

Let’s start with the nightmare – Kodak. This is the worst face-lift I have ever seen on a logo. Kodak has taken their well known logo, which I’ll agree needed a little updating, and they’ve reduced it to what you see below. It’s some kind of ugly russian futurist style thing. I’m not sure entirely what they were trying to accomplish here, but if it was an attempt to modernize it they have truly failed at that. In fact, it looks like it’s from the same era as the original, just not as good. The old logo at least had a very clear connection with photography.

The only thing this new Kodak logo has going for it is that the “d” in the logo looks like half of a film roll that would have been used in those old instamatic cameras. The worst part is that they likely spent an unbelievable amount of money on this redesign. I’m still technically a junior level graphic designer, and I could have come up with thirty logos for Kodak that are ten times better than this. They should show us the rejects. I’d be interested in what they turned down for this.

Now, Intel. Not too bad, it’s bearable. But wow, a swirlie thing around the logo? That was old and busted back in 1989, when Ameritech changed their logo. I think Intel might be doing themselves a bit of a disservice with this logo. The sunken “e” was exceptionally iconic and unique to the Intel brand.

The more I look at new logos like Intel’s and Kodak’s and compare them to AT&T’s new logo the more I actually begin to like AT&T’s new logo, even though it replaces such a great original. You see, minimalistic curves and swishes with sharp edges are getting to be somewhat annoying when every single company on the face of the earth is trying to use them.

Man, I sure can be negative about these things can’t I? Why can’t I say something good about something for a change, you wonder? Well, I can. I will say that I like what Sprint/Nextel has done with their combined logo. I’ve always liked the whole “pin drop” clarity concept and think it’s communicated really well in the new Sprint logo’s illustration. The yellow and black colors they took from Nextelwork really well for a tech/communications company, the colors are high-tech and commanding. They did a great job, especially since they were dealing with the merger of two very large companies. One is so large, it’s the title sponsor of a major sport: NASCAR.

But it seems that NASCAR fans shouldn’t get too used to the new “Nextel Cup” name that titles NASCAR’s top series. Nextel Cup replaced the Winston Cup name in 2004 when Nextel purchased the naming rights. The “Nextel Cup Series” name is reportedly continuing until the end of the 2006 season, but we can expect a name change for 2007. It will likely be something like Sprint Cup, as Sprint remains the main corporate name, and Nextel will just be a sub-brand. (Source)

NASCAR has a right to approve or reject any name change that could result from the merger between Nextel and Sprint. The 10-year contract Nextel signed also limits how many times they can change the name. I can see how NASCAR would have an interest in such a thing, as certain names might not test well with fans and may effect the sport’s marketing. (Source)

Overall, this trend of modernizing corporate logos, whether it’s UPS, AT&T, Kodak, Intel, or whoever else decides to do it next, it’s been very disappointing so far. Sometimes minimal works, but I feel like it’s going a bit too far. No wonder so many ad execs and corporate types have no respect for graphic design anymore. Apparently they can get what they want out of a logo at one of those $75 online logo factories. It’s very, very disappointing.

Recently I was asked to share how I come up with a design concept. They wanted a run-down of my whole creative process, which kind of felt like having a telemarketer ask for my credit card number and social security number. The little voice in your head starts asking, “Why do they need to know? What are they going to do with it?” You see, my unique creative process is what makes me, well, unique as a professional. I feel compelled to protect my process like a company protects a trade secret or formula. Maybe I’m just paranoid. In my competitive field I feel like I have to have an edge all the time. A lot of people think graphic designers are a “dime a dozen.” You have no idea how many times I’ve heard it – There are some people out there who are really quite cynical about my line of work. Unfortunately those people are usually those in the position of hiring or employing graphic designers, which as you can probably imagine really makes things interesting for people like me.

Sure, you can probably find any punk off the street to lay out some text and place some stock photos onto a page using Adobe Illustrator. Thanks to software, a simple secretary can make a PowerPoint presentation look as if it was designed by a pro. But it’s all template driven. It lacks original thought and no one is really inspired by any of it. There is a difference between some secretary throwing together a presentation using some template designed by Microsoft and someone like myself going through a couple hours of research, a couple hours of thumbnail sketching and brainstorming. I’ll usually write each idea or line of copy and draw each sketch on a Post-It note and I’ll stick it up on a wall. I’ll usually fill up the whole wall, using 1-2 pads of Post-Its. What color do I use? Wouldn’t you like to know.

You’d think I’d be used to answering these questions about my creative process by now what with all the job interviewing and portfolio shows I’ve had in the last couple years. Still, I feel like I have to hold back. I just don’t feel like giving away my secrets. So I often just give the usual generic response, which is probably why some might find themselves hesitant to work with me. In the long run, it will probably be better if I just start sharing more of what I do with the people who need to know. After all, it’s the final result of a design that ultimately matters. Who knows, maybe my process wouldn’t even work for anyone else.

It almost seems impossible that Christmas is already behind us. And 2006 is upon us? We’re already over halfway through this decade? Unbelievable. Time is really flying, which means I’d better get my butt into gear and get some big things accomplished here pretty soon. More about those things another day…

To be honest, this was a really stressful Christmas. Even though it’s over, I’m still feeling really stressed out. I really envy those who can make it through Christmas stress-free. As much as I try not to, I’ve always envied those lucky enough to have all the material comforts of life. It’s hard to imagine what it would be like to be one of those people who whose backs are truly unbent.

Plus, It’s been kind of a long week back to work. That comes as no surprise, you get all built up to this big holiday and then it’s just all done in an instant and we’re expected to get back into the swing of things just as quickly. So it’s been one of those “I need a beer” weeks.

That aside, Christmas this year – although stressful – was great. I enjoyed my holidays very much. Had some delicious meals, received some wonderful gifts. Can’t ask for any more than that. Would have loved to have seen more of my family, but I guess I got that at Thanksgiving so I shouldn’t complain.

I do feel kind of bad about one thing, though, I messed up when shipping out some of my gifts. I mixed two boxes up and shipped one to Kansas, the other to North Dakota, but really they should have been reversed. So now as a bonus Christmas gift, those people get to make a trip to their local post office to ship them to the right place for me. Not to mention the gifts are late. What fun is opening gifts a week after Christmas? And I tried so hard to get things out on time. I guess this will teach me to not be in such a hurry at the post office. I’m confident they’ll understand.

No big New Years plans for us, and no resolutions this year. I’m not entirely sure what I’m going to do with my Monday off from work just yet, but I’m sure I’ll have no trouble figuring something out.

Happy New Year!

He goes on to say that modern art looks like it could have been created by a 4 year old. This is a tired and foolish point which apparently really resonates with people who are ignorant of what modern art is all about. Personally, I don’t care for the simplistic, conceptual, modern art that Stossel is talking about either, but I can at least respect and understand it for what it is. I can see what makes it popular among artists and art fans.

You just have to have a taste for it, and an eye for it. Kind of like you have to have a taste and an ear for certain music. Early Metallica solos can be recognized by somebody with a taste for it as extremely proficient and brilliant, but to my Grandparents it’s just noise.

Someone like John Stossel looks at a Pollack and only sees it as paint splattered on a canvas. Then they say “You call that art? A four year old could have done that!” Conversely, art fans looking at a Pollack see an immense intuitive sense of what makes the drips “work” as a whole, and to them it’s not technically brilliant like a skilled plumber is technically brilliant, but there’s a gut understanding of how all of the random elements work together that makes it a good work of art.

The story usually goes like this: someone finds some really neat stuff by a pre-adolescent and shows it to a gallery director, who ascribes some sort of intention to the really creative and joyful expression that a little kid brings to painting, and then all the art-haters come out of the woodwork and scream “we were right, modern art has lost all credibility!”

Yes, it is possible that some work by very young children can be mistaken for modern art. A gallery owner can pick up on some sort of wild enthusiasm that the kid brings to the work and map a bias onto it. But mostly, this reactionary crap just sounds like people 100 years ago complaining about that upstart Picasso, which sounded to people that “got” Picasso back then like those dusty academics who said anything since the Renaissance was crap.

To compare this to music once again, take for example the common case of a bunch of pre-adolescents recording a hit pop song. They’re regarded as “geniuses” and sell a million albums. Their age doesn’t suddenly invalidate all of pop music, it’s still credible. However, according to John Stossel’s useless protests for people who have nothing in their own far-too-fortunate lives to complain about: if a pre-adolescent makes a decent piece of modern art, it doesn’t make them a “genius,” it invalidates all modern art. Explain that one to me.