Or is that all a bunch of over-intellectualized bullshit? (Attached are examples of the kind of stuff one sees in the academic literature on the effects of logo design.)Ī: I do kind of agree the more I think about it, but I think design, and creativity in any field is a process of elimination. Circular = soft = comfortable = compromise = “interdependent self-construal”… That sort of thing. really work the way the psychologists say? As in: Angular = hard = confrontational = “independent self-construal” (great academic jargon!) vs. legibility, angularity, complexity, balance, etc. Do you think the aesthetic approach required to reach that audience as described in the psycholinguistics literature is accurate? In your experience/opinion do the techniques of structure and logic of design, e.g. Q: The sociological literature on metal scenes talks about masculinity and tribalism and confrontation.
0 kommentar(er)
