Google Logo and Persistence of Imagetext
Submitted by nitaip on Sat, 02/23/2008 - 12:34.
Brand logos are probably the most evident examples of imagetext at work. Elements of text (language, words, names, letters) and elements of image (color, shape, visual structure) become co-dependent and create a new, instantly recognizable hybrid form, and ultimately, the logo itself becomes a standalone product, capable of manipulation while still retaining recognizability. Google, for example, changes its logo somewhat during important events. A snowman might adorn one of the O's during Christmas season, or a turkey and a cornucopia might decorate the G and E, for example. Since the basic elements of the Google logo (font, structure, color) remain the same, our minds still process the input as a play on the original logo, rather than an entirely new logo altogether. The most fundamental elements of imagetext persist.
The phenomena of persistence in symbolism can be, at least partially, understood through an epistemological perspective of language itself. In other words, the process of learning language can be seen as a process of internalizing symbols and images to represent completely abstract concepts. How can you represent "L" as a concept without a symbol? We even tend to read and process entire words, rather than letters. For example, the human mind can process most horribly mis-spelled statements so long as the beginning and ending sounds are the same. (Tihs snetnece, for exmalpe, siltl mkaes smoe snese).
Anyway, back to the topic of Google's logo. The logo is internationally recognizable, but there's a method and process to its aesthetic. Last month, the logo designer Ruth Kedar discussed her choices in aesthetic in an interview.
* It was playful and deceptively simple. The design subtle as to look almost non-designed, the reading effortless. The colors evoke memories of child play, but deftly stray from the color wheel strictures so as to hint to the inherent element of serendipity creeping into any search results page and the irreverance and boldness of the “I am feeling lucky” link. The texture and shading of each letter is done in an unobtrusive way resulting in lifting it from the page while giving it both weight and lightness. It is solid but there is also an ethereal quality to it.
* Times-Roman was the font of choice for the web at that time, while sans-serif fonts were the darling of the printed world. I wanted the readability of a serifed font, but looked for a typeface that had the same qualities we were looking for – subtly sophisticated, but with some humor and irreverence . The chosen typeface is a based on Catull, an old style serif typeface. Catull borrows elements from traditional writing instruments such as the quill and the chisel with a modern twist. Search, by nature, is an activity that requires we look into the past. Therefore Catull’s historical ties seemed appropriate, as did the bridging between the old analog world and the new emerging digital era.
* Visually, there were two main schools of thought at the time: those wanting to emulate the conventional non-web giants such as Sun and SGI (bold all-caps sans-serifed fonts), and those who viewed the irreverence of Yahoo’s non-designed approach as “the look" for the new medium. This design managed to break with the existing conventions landing Google with the unique visual expression it was looking for.
The logo does seem to embody some of the virtues of the Helvetica typefact, such as an emphasis on simplicity and clarity. However, Kedar also mentions "playfulness" and "irreverance" a few times. The differences are very subtle, and its a statement of Kedar's artistic ability to work with these subtleties. For example, while google's font "Catull" shares structural similarities with "Helvetica", small deviations create a more whimsical, charming effect than the clean, neutral, straight Helvetica that draws nearly no attention to its aesthetic attributes.
The negative space between the letters is skewed just slightly, for example, most visible in the "o"s. Serifs are modest embellishments, their practical use turned to elegant little decorations. In particular, the serifs are tapered and curved. Additionally, color and graphic design play a critical role. Kedar mentions wanting to break away from the 'color wheel', and placing colors together that were irreverent, even rebellious, to the idea of color harmony. The effect is a nontraditional sort of harmony, where the simplicity of color and the unpretentious embellishments (drop shadow, emboss) become an inseparable part of the logo identity.
Edit:
Shame on me. Forgot to cite my sources!
- nitaip's blog
- Login to post comments
Irreverance and Legos
So, I take it that you find the logo successful in conveying this idea of irreverence and playfulness? That is, it makes sense with Kedar's description, so how much of that comes through without having the explanation?
That's a really interesting article as it provides a unique insight into one of the most pervasive logo identities we deal with on a daily basis.
About the colors, I recently came across this picture of the first Google storage computer. It appears to use Lego bricks as the outer face of its casing. I thought the simple colors of the bricks were an echo of the Lego, but maybe it's the other way around?
I think so
Well, Kedar's explanation is a bit abstract. It's hard to definitively pin down the "playful" aspects in concrete measurements, but on an intuitive level, I had always felt that Google's logo had a friendly, almost whimsical "air" to it. Part of it has to do with, I believe, the subtly fancy serifs and color choices reminiscent of a pack of crayons (or legos, to echo your example).
I'm sure there's more to it than just the irreverent aspect, but Kedar seemed to focus on that in her interview. She did mention wanting to echo Yahoo!'s logo, but not quite to that extreme, but glossed over details as to why she wanted to avoid it.
Google does play around with it's own logo, though. Every page of links, for example, adds an extra "o", probably to emphasize Google as a phonetically silly word.