Is Unique Creativity Dead?
I am a designer, not the best designer and not a trend setting designer by any means. I use stock photography, icon sets and even reproduce past elements on occasion. What is creativity though? Is it unique, groundbreaking, or influential design? I am not here to define creativity, but I do know what it is not. Creativity is not reproduction of someone else’s work without their permission – it is not creating a brand identity that can’t be easily distinguished from others simply because it so closely resembles others work.
So, I wonder, in this post Web 2.0 world we design in – is there room for creativity or have all the good ideas been thought of and now we are tasked with just recreating the same? I came across six logo designs recently that really got me fired up as a designer and prompted this rant.
Picasa, Fancast, Graphics.net, SparkPeople, MatchPoint and WireHydrant all share very similar brand logo designs; ridiculously similar I’d say. No design is a direct illegal copy of another – but that doesn’t make it right, from a creativity or branding perspective. I’d like to think Google’s Picasa is an original and the rest were influenced; but this proves a very big point – copy-cat designs are bad both for the originator and the copier (most times, more so for the originator) with respect to identifying brand uniqueness.
Where is the line between being influenced to be creative and copying to avoid being creative? It can be hard to tell; especially when you are using similar fonts, font colors, icon shapes and brand colors within those shapes. I am not implying that any of the above organizations lack creativity – I just think they represent a shift in creative thinking.
I don’t advocate that we all go spend count-less hours and thousands of dollars on striving to be truly unique. As I prefaced, creativity is not directly tied to being a trendsetter; following trends and being inspired by successful design concepts is perfectly acceptable. We should just all be very careful of the line between being creative and reproducing someone else’s creativity.
- January 28th, 2008
- 58comments
- I am a proud member of the 9rules network
Guilty. I actually have a logo that I did that is also very similar to the ones listed above. Did I sit down and think I was copying those? hell no.
Speaking from this specific experience I actuality had done 20 logos for a client… just tried to really hammer out a broad spectrum of feels, and the client guided me to create the one similar to those listed above. The design was clean, the client was happy, and I did not realize how similar it was to anything else until later in the process. The thing is, we are all psychologically influenced by what we see. Somewhere down the line me or that client saw another logo and filed it in our subconscious. Its inevitable, humans repeat patterns and establish subconscious visual languages. Is it Innovative? No. Is it communication, yes. I would love to set out to change the world with an innovative min-blowing design every time I start a project. Most designers do. But there lies the question… what is the role of a designer… to change the world with a design, or to communicate changing the world using design?
As you can see I just went ahead and ranted back… but food for thought.
Thanks Samantha. I agree with you … I don’t believe the organizations listed in my example did anything intentionally — at least I want to believe that.
But, i wonder … the more and more these web2.0 brands get popped out quickly and on a budget with little to no time; does that fuel the fire for these similar design concepts? Is the industry, especially on the web, pushing us to these similarities?
If I create a logo, have so many logos been completed before it that someone out there will be able to find something very similar to what I had just done?
Can we even fight this? Is it even possible? Much to your example, you didn’t intend for it to happen, but the process took you in a direction that lead to a design concept that resembles many others.
My logo/icon looks a lot like that of John Hicks, but I swear I did mine before I ever saw his.
These are so close though. I would say not all of them know about each other, but some probably do. It also might be a case of “Frankendesign” where the client/exec says “make it look like this” and they won’t take anything less.
You know what I think happens when people consciously fight the dilemma we have here… you get logos that look like
THIS
Martin -
I think you are right about the current state of design - it is focused on looking good on a flat, fairly small, screen, colorful but without much contrast in values (think about how all those logos would look in grayscale).
However, I think that the design orientation will start to get shaken up soon, as we move from a 2-D world to more of a 3-D one - things like cheap household 3-D printers, holographic projections, wall-size display of websites, websites that are enabled to be perceived by multiple senses, etc. will require new types of creativity.
Victoria
@Doug, I agree with you (just like with Samantha) … I believe strongly there is nothing ill-intentioned happening with the creation of these similar brand logos.
How do we stop this, or control it though? Is it possible? Do we as creative designers need to self-manage our creativity and creative process — do many of us even have that as an option with many of the clients we have that provide us with mis-guidance and unrealistic expectations.
How is a designer to know the universe of designs before creating a concept? It is a hard thing and no mandate can be provided — but this further enforces the importance of the creative discovery process.
@Samantha, great reference! I think you are right-on .. forcing innovation from those that shouldn’t be forced often turns out horrible results. What is better, unique concepts that look terrible or beautiful concepts that so closely mirror five other organizations brand concepts that is on the verge of problematic.
@Victoria, thank you for your comment. I agree and disagree. I think “web design” on the new medium of the web has changed the design space a bit … but logo design will remain a constant for sometime now. Logos will always need to be printed, copied, faxed, etc.
At least the WireHydrant one differs from the others in both color and (to a lesser extent) general design style. I wonder how many of the logos for Web 2.0 companies are being driven by the 24×24 favicon size limit.
I totally agree. I was trying to show a progressive evolution of the same. I noticed a new one today that is varied enough that alone it wouldn’t catch my attention, but when you compare them all together, it very much matches the rest: http://www.stylefeeder.com/.
I don’t think any of these logos mentioned have a direct relation to the 24×24 favicon size — I say that because the similarities don’t stop at the icon graphic. The font size, font choice, font color and even display of the text are so similar (I mean, they are all close variations of black with the second word being lighter weight with no spacing separation from the first)
Building on comment #1 — If there weren’t a progression from logo #1 to logo #6 laid out one after the other, I’m not sure I’d say 6 was all that close to 1. It seems close because you see a lot of intermediate steps right next to it.
With that said, yes, most of these are more similar than I’d be comfortable with, as a designer.
I’m not a huge fan of some of the recent trends in logo design, in general.
@Brian, I totally agree with you — I put it last on purpose to show the progression (as you stated). I feel the same way as a designer … nothing illegal or unethical per say happening here, but doesn’t make me feel comfortable at all; from a designer’s perspective.
I’d also point out that Picasa uses a similar colour palette, but the image is designed to look like a camera shutter. It’s design is conceptual: the others aren’t (unless the companies all sell boxes).
@stolte-sawa, You make a great point — that is why I want to think Picasa was first … I know the rest are all new brands of about the last year (give or take).
Well, I wouldn’t say that either — the sparkpeople has a spark in it.
I thought about that too, Brian, but the four-point colours is just too much for me. It doesn’t say anything. A black-and-white closed box with a “spark” (looks like a star to me…:P) in it would be more effective, IMO.
Yeah, WireHydrant could certainly not be a copycat. But there are definitely some on there that have striking resemblances to each other.
I think the reason is that devs would rather program than design. So they get lazy and rip off a logo of a program they use.
Look beyond just the shape — WireHydrant has a similar shape, granted, not as similar as the others, but similar.
Look at the logo type — the choice of fonts, font colors and even the style of placing two words together with no spaces and make the second word have less weight in the font. And then the color palate of the shape it self … the similarities are too close for comfort.
You forgot Aperture Laboratories. ;-)
HA HA. Great find. I’ll that to my now growing list.
who came first? I mean both picasa and aperture labs, i would assume, have the same basic “field” of photography. While the logos are definitely way too similar I am not too surprised that they are so similar.
I’d love to know who came first!!
Does working in the same industry really mean your brand identities have to so closely copy others?
BT (British Telecom) isn’t too far off, either.
I totally forgot about BT .. I knew there was a big player in the mix somewhere. For some reason I feel like there is a Comcast sub-brand that follows this style as well.
It’s actually a parody of a corporate logo from an extremely clever video game, hence its obviously derivative nature. The Aperture in question isn’t just for light to pass through.
Have you ever looked at bank websites. A lot of the bigger national ones have the same look. That is white background, blue underlines links, and either red and black or red and blue logos.
Two of the ones I looked at are HSBC Bank and Citibank
They all seems to want to fit in and not be unique.
@John, good observation. We are actually talking with a bank right now about an upcoming redesign and this very point came up — the fear for change with respect to bank sites comes from a fear of alienating the older demographic. Everyone wants to play it safe.
What I find most interesting about these logos is how none of them say the slightest thing about what their brand means.
They’re just differentiated bits of colors in odd shapes.
Even Picasa with the camera shutter fails, because most people won’t know what that iris means. Without meaning, it becomes just another design element which again says nothing about the brand.
To be fair, the others are worse and not one of them inspires me to go find out what the heck they do or sell.
The Picasa logo is quite similar to the Chase logo, actually.
Mm. And a banana and an erect penis are also similar, iconographically speaking. :)
You may not want to invoke the banana. Others have noted the similarity.
It is not creative designers that decide what gets used by a business. It’s some corporate business person who is mostly lacking any artistic or creative skills. There could be many other unique designs that were submitted but the corporate big guys have the final say and that’s what stifles creativity in the advertising and logo market. I work for an interactive web design company and a lot of people here have great progressive and groundbreaking ideas but we cannot implement these ideas into a website without a client’s approval. Don’t blame the designers we do the best we can with what we’re allowed to do.
I do and I don’t buy that. I am a designer and we do have some control. It is all in what you present … yes if the powers above dictate to you to rip-off someone else’s work, then I suppose you are right, there is little choice.
And I am not blaming anyone specifically — I am just curious if an over-saturation of brands into a market at a very quick time leaves designers struggling for how to be truly unique. Is there so much branding happening in this post web2.0 era that even when you think you are being unique, it is easy to find someone else that already incorporated a very similar concept?
It also depends on who you are as a designer. Firms which achieve a certain level of success are going to be sought out for their expertise, and are less likely to accept (or be approached by) clients who want to dictate the process.
I totally agree. The responsibility lies on the designer, the agency and the client equally. But, the sad realities are that some clients just don’t care.
I worked with a group that had another designer do their brand logo concept — the concept came back and they asked for my professional opinion. I spotted the iStockPhoto illustration a mile away. Nothing wrong with using iStockPhoto — expect their terms of use specifically says you can’t use their imagery for branding purposes. That, and anyone with 3 credits now has the ability to mimic your brand with no legal repercussions. The worst part was that the graphic from iStock was downloaded over 2,000 times .. so, someone out there somewhere is already using your brand mark … actually, 2,000 someone’s are using your brand mark.
“I do and I don’t buy that.”
Well that’s what happens a lot of the time. Clients usually ask for multiple designs to choose from. I know specifically a guy who wrote six lines of copy for the client to choose from. One of the lines was completely awful and not very creative but he submitted it because it was one of the lines he came up with and he was sure that they were not going to pick it. There were many vastly superior lines of copy but in the end the client chose the least creative one. There have also been times when the client tells us what they want. When they’re paying millions of dollars for their website design you’re more likely to grit your teeth and submit even if your designers believe that it looks awful. One of the downfalls of working for a large company.
A lot of it also comes down to the fact that there is a trend in how things look in web 2.0 and that narrows the field to keep designs that are trendy and in. And sometimes two (or more) of the 6.5 billion people on the earth come up with the same idea. Seperated At Birth
I agree with that … that is what I am really getting at here. Are there so many organizations needing designs and so many designers designing that we eventually repeat each others work unknowingly?
As a designer of one of these logos, I can assure you that the creative process was done entirely independently of any of the others (although, I can only speak for myself!).
But the characterization of this apparent similarity between disparate companies and their logos as “bad” or “not right” is a judgement call, and nothing more.
History is replete with examples of similar–if not identical–ideas popping up at the same time in different places, having no connection with one another other than their appearance in time.
It’s interesting to consider, in light of the fact that you presuppose that Picasa was somehow the deserving archetype here, that Google’s own logo was itself a derivative of http://www.googol.com’s logo in 1996 (check it out on the Web Wayback machine)…which itself was no doubt a derivative of others before it.
Ah, what wicked webs we weave.
Which logo? Instead of telling him he’s wrong, provide a perspective, as a designer, that explains your inspiration, your process, etc.
You have a chance to educate, so it would be nice to have your perspective, as it relates to your process.
With that said, I do see “me too” trends in logo design to be bad, on a personal level. As a designer, wouldn’t you prefer that someone not be able to stack your work against 7 or 8 other logos, with the (justifiable) claim that they share a certain similarity?
Oh, and you omitted two of the best-known examples: (the MS butterfly)
and Microsoft Windows
Now I wonder where on earth their designer might have found their ideas..!
I thought about mentioning the MS Butterfly and Windows logo — Windows more so than the Butteryfly — but I felt I was reaching with MatchPoint and WireHydrant as it was. The butterfly is only similar if you look at the colors, and Windows has the same color similarity and font similarity — I excluded Windows because the “Microsoft” brand lives on its own and is unique (as bland as it might be). That and the “window” imagery is more apparent then the shutter imagery of Picasa.
I would also be curious of what logo you did — I don’t think there is anything wrong in saying it … especially if you stand strong it is a unique design. And to re-iterate, I don’t claim to suggest that any of the above mentioned logos are rip-offs or copies — but there is either a direct influence from one another or a decay in the design industry as over saturation has us repeating “history”.
That whole concept of “history repeating itself” is not a positive thing .. it is a human nature thing and it is a direct reflection of our inability to learn, remember or explore the “past”. That is part of my underlining point — I look at dozens of logos everyday, read logo books and notice design outside, inside, on a menu and even when at the dog park … that is how I try and stay unique, by knowing what is out there.
I am not saying you or any of the other designers are not unique or creative … but I do think the examples speak for themselves. I do admit that WireHydrant is a bit of a stretch and I put it in last to show the evolution of the trend.
Brian, I didn’t say he was wrong; I said it was a judgement call. Chill, it’s all good.
My process? It’s no doubt comparable to the processes of 100,000 other designers. We’re all homo sapiens, dude.
What is to be learned other than that there are a finite number of geometric shapes, a finite number of workable color combinations and, above all else, a corporate imperative that supersedes any and all creative ones (read that again).
So long as you understand that designers don’t design in a vacuum–that they must answer to corporations, whose tastes are anything but enlightened, and whose motivations are entirely economic–then you’re more likely to understand this phenomenon. I’m not saying that I like this, but it is what it is.
The rounded “Cooper” font was fashionable in the 70s because it was fashionable, just as red and black were fashionable in the 80s because they were fashionable. Would this truth have de facto precluded me from using the Cooper font or red and black in either of those eras?
You might like to think that you can carve out your own pristine artistic legacy by swimming against the tide at any cost–and possibly even at the risk of your livelihood–but my guess is that unless you’re hiring yourself for every project, you’ll come to that fork in the road soon enough. Consider that there is method to the madness of fashion, and that if the corporate machine chooses to pay to become a part of a meme, then the designer can benefit from their empire-building machinations and feed his family.
It’s not complicated.
What is most amusing about this–an increasingly and maddeningly frequent phenomenon–is that people see something and presume, immediately, to understand it. My guess is that for each of these logos, there was an informed, purposeful, goal-oriented process at play, and that these logos look the way they do because they look the way they do. And when these designers aren’t paying the bills creating for others, they go back to doing what they truly love about art, like taking photographs, or writing poetry, or composing music.
But, again, I can only speak for myself.
I’d say you are wrong there. Just watch the movie “Helvetica” — you can see the hundreds of thousands of ways to use the same font and be truly unique and creative. There are many brands using that font and you’d never know they were all using the exact same font.
You say there are a limited number of color combinations and a limited number of geometric shapes — and yet everyday there is a new web2.0 brand that is amazingly creative and amazingly unique.
It is our responsibility as designers to tell those corporate entities overpowering us that their brand is too closely related to another — and if they entity says “who cares” or “perfect!” — then my post is warranted and the brand deserves to be called out.
I am not always truly unique and often pigg-back off popular trends, but the above examples are for brands and the similarities are simply just ridiculous.
“My process? It’s no doubt comparable to the processes of 100,000 other designers. We’re all homo sapiens, dude.”
Whatever. I asked you to expand on something, as someone who (apparently) designed one of the logos in question, and instead got talked down to. I can promise you that I know as much about the process of being a designer as you do — what I didn’t know was anything about being YOU, and the decisions you had to make as a person who created one of these logos in question, and who (I had hoped) would have an interesting perspective to add about the client, the reason why those colors were chosen, etc. As it stands, I still don’t even know which of the logos you created.
“You might like to think that you can carve out your own pristine artistic legacy by swimming against the tide at any cost–and possibly even at the risk of your livelihood–but my guess is that unless you’re hiring yourself for every project, you’ll come to that fork in the road soon enough.”
I can tick off the names of any number of design firms or designers who manage to create unique work, while living within the same trends and expectations of every other working designer.
No one expects a designer to swim against the tide. The best designers swim at the front of the tide. Anyone who is a professional should hope to do that, even if its not always possible.
“And when these designers aren’t paying the bills creating for others, they go back to doing what they truly love about art, like taking photographs, or writing poetry, or composing music.”
I think that’s wrong, on so many levels, and sad. People who love design don’t need other forms of art to truly love, they have design.
No, Brian, what you’re asking me to do is to spell out my creative process–ostensibly to prove how I arrived at a concept that I now call my own–so that you can then proceed to tear it down.
No thanks.
I wasn’t talking down to you; I spoke my mind. But this is about as constructive as discussing politics on craigslist. The internet seems to naturally provoke rude behavior–whether intentionally or by virtue of the fact that words don’t always convey meaning properly–and I have no interest in sticking around to fend off your jabs.
This might suggest, then, that a designer should not undertake logo design *unless* they know what’s out there already.
That’s a tough sell, in any industry.
Again, you speak of “decay”, as if the phenomenon of fashion–of a meme–can be proven to be a bad thing, or that it’s somehow anti-learning or anti-art. To be clear, logo design is not art. After all, if there cannot exist a means of communication–a lexicon–then how is one to communicate?
A question mark can only ever be a question mark. I can’t draw an exclamation point and insist that you consider that isolated example MY version of a question mark. I might get my name in an art history book for my incredibly unique vision, but I’ll never make my rent.
What is perhaps more confounding here is that the point of these logos has gone unobserved; that all of them are references to the concept of plurality–whether it’s people, colors, or photographs. No mystery there.
Yes, a designer should be as knowledgeable as possible about “what’s out there.”
I hear your point … and honestly, you are giving us a tough sell without being more specific to what logo you worked on and your process to get to that design. Like I said before, the examples speak for themselves — they are too close for comfort.
And, a question mark is not just a question mark — there is room for design, I found example after example after example after example after example of great unique question marks that are creative and use the base foundation and shape of the question as inspiration are still themselves highly unique and creative and even artistic.
This really comes back to point about the Helevetica font — if you have not seen the film yet, you will love it. It shows both how people are uniquely creative and obnoxiously similar with the use of that one font.
“No, Brian, what you’re asking me to do is to spell out my creative process–ostensibly to prove how I arrived at a concept that I now call my own–so that you can then proceed to tear it down.”
Apparently, it’s you who needs to calm down. You’re making assumptions about what I might or might not do once you explain your process, and — your assumptions are wrong.
The only person who has been rude in this thread is you, and I suspect it’s because your feelings are hurt that something you created was critiqued — despite the fact that the critique was never mean-spiritied or unfair, even if it wasn’t exactly favorable.
You’re being needlessly defensive, and the only person who is stifling a civil discussion about your process is you.
I have to agree with Brian here. You are being a bit overly defensive. As designers, everything we do is open to public criticism and critique.
The best way to prove your point or defend your work is to explain it. Sometimes we do have to defend our work — design is 50% selling.
I am making my own guess to which logo you designed, because only one of the companies listed actually emailed me a nasty little email.
Usually, when I get an email like that, about something I’ve written, I paste it into a comment.
I think it would be an interesting perspective, but if you don’t want to do so, that’s cool.
I think I won’t — because I don’t want to piss them off further. That and they were pretty apologetic after I responded. They did ask me, “are you a [design] evangelist for all things good?” … when did that become a bad thing? I’d like to try to be for sure!!
Yeah, sounds like a compliment to me. Most of the designers I respect fit into that category, and any designer who doesn’t WANT to probably isn’t worth anyone’s time, or money.
Design used to be a form of art, now it’s a means to pay the bills so for me I do what I am told. If that helps me keep my job then that’s cool.
Andimia, your comment is the underlying theme of this post — the sad state of affair that the “design” industry is in. We are in an over-saturated market and blending in seems to be more sought after than standing out … it is just one mans opinion, but it is a damn shame.
I don’t believe that it’s an over-saturated market so much as 40 - 84 hours a week of design can get old fast. When something becomes your livelihood it doesn’t retain as much glamor.
Luckily I have been moved around to many different things and am currently doing some coding which is a nice change of pace.
I’m currently searching for a logo design site offering professional logos. There are many sites out there but I’m not so sure which to choose. Has anyone heard of LogoDesignCreation.com (http://www.logodesigncreation.com)? I’m planning on using one of their services but still haven’t decide yet. Do you have any other suggestions? I heard logoismdesign.com is also good. Does anyones here has experience in using online design services? Thanks.
“Clients usually ask for multiple designs to choose from.”
This seems like a cop-out. It sounds like you’re blaming the client for picking the design, but if it was not presented to them, it would not be an option. If the designer or design team can’t think of anything new or different and reluctantly offers these choices up, you cannot shift the blame for that.
As a logo designer myself, I often do run into this problem. Many times this issue comes from pure luck of the draw. I sketch something out, take it to the computer and when the comp is finished, I may show someone who has seen something similar to it on the web. I think concepting original designs is a challenge on its own and requires a great deal of creativity. However, I do agree that those logos are very similar and are likely to become confusing…Do you think this is partially do to people trying to rush the branding process, or could it very well be coincidental?
I think a lot of it is coincidental … I don’t think of any these organizations did this intentionally. I just think there is a lack of desire to want to strive to be truly unique and creative — people are more and more settling for “the same”, sometimes too close of the same; and even large organizations are being okay with it.