Earlier today, one of my teachers decided to be bold and say "Logos and Graffiti are very similar." I understand where she is going, but they are different mediums, in both use, and application. Graffiti is a free form medium, while logos rarely change.
Some say that graffiti is Iconic, but in reality it's hard to find when the 'artist' will strike next... Or where... Or if it's even the same 'artist'. Graffiti, although free form, are all very similar. It's usually outside, and abstract, with a variety of color.
On the other hand, logos are strict, and they try to be very unique and straight forward, and they are designed to be placed anywhere and every where. Although we don't know the artist who made it, we recognize the logo for being unique, like how McDonald's arch and Burger King's burger are starkly different.
Some say that they both attempt to represent an idea, and although Logos try to represent the business, Graffiti is similar to painting in that it can represent a large deal of topics. You could design a logo for the democratic party, or you could spray paint 5 different things against the Republican party. Graffiti, being illicit already, can handle almost any topic you want to throw at it, while logos need to be professional, and usually will only represent an entity instead of a topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment