Another stuff to share ~
When you've had enough, can't tolerate your job any longer and are ready to quit, perhaps you could try one last thing.
Quilt instead.
You've got nothing to lose, right? I mean, you're going to quit anyway, so what's the worst that could happen to you?
So quilt. Spend hours every day integrating the people you work with into a cohesive group. Weave in your customers as well. Take every scrap, even the people you don't like, and sew them together. Spend far less time than you should on the 'real' work and instead focus on creating genuine connections with the people you work with. Including your boss. After all, once you quit, you're never going to see them again anyway, right? Might as well give it a try.
Careful... it might change everything.
From Seth's Blog
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Banksy's Exit Through The Gift Shop
In an extended five minute teaser for the film released today, Banksy for the first time sets up the film's storyline.
Until today, the only footage online was the trailer which intentionally makes it clear that Banksy doesn't want to give too of the film's storyline away
Banksy says in the clip: "The film is the story of what happens when his guy tried to make a documentary about me but he was a lot more interesting than I am, so the film is now kinda about him."
That guy is a French filmmaker named Terry Guetta. What happens to him in the film is a true case in which truth is stranger than fiction.
The film opens in cinemas across the United States beginning April 16th. For exact cities and theaters check the film's official website here.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Branding - IdN
The Terms Branding and Identity - Jason Little (creative director of Landor Associates, Paris) - source from http://idnworld.com/mags/
I thought this article is good to share as a knowledge and to be applied throughout every branding project we have. Hope we all can learn from it. This is what Jason Little thoughts of the terms 'branding and identity'
:I think the terms branding and identity are often confused and seen to mean the same. However there is a difference. Identity typically refers to the name/symbol of a brand. Sometimes it more broadly covers other design elements that signal the brand(typeface, imagery, style, sound, etc) and the organising principles.
Branding is typically set of activities, some of which involve identity and some of which don't. When we look at brands, we're not just talking about logos and visual style. Brands have far more depth than that. They are what a company, service or product stand for, and in turn, a person's perception or emotional response toward said company, service or product - simply put, it can be likened to a reputation, built through one's actions, behaviour and personality.
So the goal of branding is to positively influence the perception of an entity in the mind and heart of a stake-holder (customer, employee, investor, etc). Identity is one of the tools of branding. We create identities for our clients. We also help them with their branding process, which includes things such as employee engagement, strategy, measurement, tracking, etc - each of which is branding, but usually doesn't include identity work.
With today's ever-increasing homogeneity and visual clutter vying for our attention, the key is to differentiate. Standing out from the crowd is nothing new to our ears, yet in the sea of sameness, only the smartest follow this advice. Standing out is a lot harder than you would imagine. For most companies and organisations, to radically differentiate is to do what nobody else is doing. The uncertainty of following this path is what prevents the majority from such as move. You can't be a leader by following the pack.
What mainly differentiates designing an identity from any other design project are scale and scope - developing a branding programme is no small feat, especially when it is for a large-scale company, organisation or destination. The commitment required and implications are massive. The stages involved in a brand-identity programme are multiple, often with so much happening long before scribbling put new ideas for the identity.
One of the most intriguing aspects of these projects is the knowledge and skills gained through working with companies and organisations of different scales, sectors and countries. Each client and project throws up a whole new set of challenges, parameters and requirements. It's continually challenging and rewarding at the same time.
Identity design has really evolved, and it's very exciting to be part of this new era. There's a real energy in the industry as designers continually try to push their own thinking and pre-conceived ideas of what they can and can't do. We've already begun to see the emergence of 'ugly' design as a means to be different - a deliberate move by companies, organisations and designers to do the unexpected, to be loud, harsh and imperfect, and seek originality and newness by any means. Breaking the status quo is far better than disappearing into oblivion - just look at how perceptions changed over time with the Centre Pompidou in Paris, and in the future, no doubtm with the 2012 Omlympics logo.
I also find it fascinating how the frequency of public discussion about design and branding has increased in recent years. Granted it's nearly always critical discussions about costs, ugliness or irrelevance to the world, but at least they are engaged. You only have to look at the recent debates on City of Melbourne and AOL to see the amount of opinion and thought applied by everyone from industry leaders and students to cab drivers. For too long in the public eye, commentary and discussion on design has been domintaed by architecture, fashion and industrial design. They say that any Press is good Press, right? At least it's not indifference.
The challenge for identity design is that it must now simultaneously become more flexible yet more profound. The uncompromising, rule-book approach doesn't cut it any longer. Identities are adapting to the altered media landscape, and over-controlling, rigid systems don't work. By no means do I suggest that an identity should be all song-and-dance over simple and iconic. In fact I'd say the opposite. The old adage of it must work in black-and-white still has a role, but a logo can now be seen as being alive. If we metaphorically treat is a person. for example, then, like a person, it can be dressed in different clothers afor different occasions. It's the same person with the same personality at the core, but is now adaptable to more situations and opportunities.
It's nothing new. Many of us grew up with MTV and witnessed this transformation on a daily basis. In fact, these days most television identities flex and change in some way. What about Google? The worldwide acceptance of its logo changing to fit a special date, or simply on a whim, has enabled the public to come to terms with, even embrace, the constant changing.
So how far will changing identities go before running out of steam and returning to a singular logo? Can identity design even return to this way of thinking, when the world is moving forwards so quickly? Brands such as Worldeka, a social networking site and platform of collboration for the greater good, encourage multiple design executions of their logo by the community that engages with it. And it doesn't stop there. As the search for new methods of creation and originality increases, the use of algorithmic-based or generative design is on the up. Already widely used in art and architecture, it continues to develop and evolve in use within graphic design and, in particular, identity design.
In his book Laws of Simplicity, John Maeda discussed how the iPod's shuffle feature has paved the way for greater simplicity in our lives by proving our desire for less control, effectively allowing technology to decide for us. Couple this thinking with the growing number of brands that transform and adapt to circumstance and the response has been the development of conceptually directed, but designer-independent means of generating logos and visual elements, such as that for the Casa da Musica in Porto, Portugal. Shifting parameters allow for an infinite number of iterations, without intuition, choice or personal taste to get in the way.
The question now is how far will companies and organisations be able to alter their own perceptions of brand management before it all gets tpp difficult. The problem they could face in this new order of identity design will be how to effectively manage the brand internally without falling back on strict rules, due to lack of understanding, training or limitations of internal staff.
-Quoted from Jason Little-
I thought this article is good to share as a knowledge and to be applied throughout every branding project we have. Hope we all can learn from it. This is what Jason Little thoughts of the terms 'branding and identity'
:I think the terms branding and identity are often confused and seen to mean the same. However there is a difference. Identity typically refers to the name/symbol of a brand. Sometimes it more broadly covers other design elements that signal the brand(typeface, imagery, style, sound, etc) and the organising principles.
Branding is typically set of activities, some of which involve identity and some of which don't. When we look at brands, we're not just talking about logos and visual style. Brands have far more depth than that. They are what a company, service or product stand for, and in turn, a person's perception or emotional response toward said company, service or product - simply put, it can be likened to a reputation, built through one's actions, behaviour and personality.
So the goal of branding is to positively influence the perception of an entity in the mind and heart of a stake-holder (customer, employee, investor, etc). Identity is one of the tools of branding. We create identities for our clients. We also help them with their branding process, which includes things such as employee engagement, strategy, measurement, tracking, etc - each of which is branding, but usually doesn't include identity work.
With today's ever-increasing homogeneity and visual clutter vying for our attention, the key is to differentiate. Standing out from the crowd is nothing new to our ears, yet in the sea of sameness, only the smartest follow this advice. Standing out is a lot harder than you would imagine. For most companies and organisations, to radically differentiate is to do what nobody else is doing. The uncertainty of following this path is what prevents the majority from such as move. You can't be a leader by following the pack.
What mainly differentiates designing an identity from any other design project are scale and scope - developing a branding programme is no small feat, especially when it is for a large-scale company, organisation or destination. The commitment required and implications are massive. The stages involved in a brand-identity programme are multiple, often with so much happening long before scribbling put new ideas for the identity.
One of the most intriguing aspects of these projects is the knowledge and skills gained through working with companies and organisations of different scales, sectors and countries. Each client and project throws up a whole new set of challenges, parameters and requirements. It's continually challenging and rewarding at the same time.
Identity design has really evolved, and it's very exciting to be part of this new era. There's a real energy in the industry as designers continually try to push their own thinking and pre-conceived ideas of what they can and can't do. We've already begun to see the emergence of 'ugly' design as a means to be different - a deliberate move by companies, organisations and designers to do the unexpected, to be loud, harsh and imperfect, and seek originality and newness by any means. Breaking the status quo is far better than disappearing into oblivion - just look at how perceptions changed over time with the Centre Pompidou in Paris, and in the future, no doubtm with the 2012 Omlympics logo.
I also find it fascinating how the frequency of public discussion about design and branding has increased in recent years. Granted it's nearly always critical discussions about costs, ugliness or irrelevance to the world, but at least they are engaged. You only have to look at the recent debates on City of Melbourne and AOL to see the amount of opinion and thought applied by everyone from industry leaders and students to cab drivers. For too long in the public eye, commentary and discussion on design has been domintaed by architecture, fashion and industrial design. They say that any Press is good Press, right? At least it's not indifference.
The challenge for identity design is that it must now simultaneously become more flexible yet more profound. The uncompromising, rule-book approach doesn't cut it any longer. Identities are adapting to the altered media landscape, and over-controlling, rigid systems don't work. By no means do I suggest that an identity should be all song-and-dance over simple and iconic. In fact I'd say the opposite. The old adage of it must work in black-and-white still has a role, but a logo can now be seen as being alive. If we metaphorically treat is a person. for example, then, like a person, it can be dressed in different clothers afor different occasions. It's the same person with the same personality at the core, but is now adaptable to more situations and opportunities.
It's nothing new. Many of us grew up with MTV and witnessed this transformation on a daily basis. In fact, these days most television identities flex and change in some way. What about Google? The worldwide acceptance of its logo changing to fit a special date, or simply on a whim, has enabled the public to come to terms with, even embrace, the constant changing.
So how far will changing identities go before running out of steam and returning to a singular logo? Can identity design even return to this way of thinking, when the world is moving forwards so quickly? Brands such as Worldeka, a social networking site and platform of collboration for the greater good, encourage multiple design executions of their logo by the community that engages with it. And it doesn't stop there. As the search for new methods of creation and originality increases, the use of algorithmic-based or generative design is on the up. Already widely used in art and architecture, it continues to develop and evolve in use within graphic design and, in particular, identity design.
In his book Laws of Simplicity, John Maeda discussed how the iPod's shuffle feature has paved the way for greater simplicity in our lives by proving our desire for less control, effectively allowing technology to decide for us. Couple this thinking with the growing number of brands that transform and adapt to circumstance and the response has been the development of conceptually directed, but designer-independent means of generating logos and visual elements, such as that for the Casa da Musica in Porto, Portugal. Shifting parameters allow for an infinite number of iterations, without intuition, choice or personal taste to get in the way.
The question now is how far will companies and organisations be able to alter their own perceptions of brand management before it all gets tpp difficult. The problem they could face in this new order of identity design will be how to effectively manage the brand internally without falling back on strict rules, due to lack of understanding, training or limitations of internal staff.
-Quoted from Jason Little-
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Monday - 5th '10
* trying harder is impossible when you're already trying as hard as you can, but you can always try different *
:)
Nice Business Card Design by Emmanuel Borgarelli
Nice business card by Emmanuel Borgarelli
Graphic and web design.
L.o.v.e it ~
^^
Graphic and web design.
L.o.v.e it ~
^^
We Can Do It
I received an article few days ago in my inbox and now that I have time to share it with everybody. I believe even simple things/beliefs can really change our mindset or even our lives.
Hope all of us can learn from it. ^^
Too often, it seems, this attitude is missing from teams, organizations or the community.
It's missing because people are quick to opt out of the 'we' part. "What do you mean, we?" they ask. It's so easy to not be part of we, so easy to make it someone else's problem, so easy to not to take responsibility as a member of whatever tribe you're part of.
Sometimes it's missing because people disagree about what 'it' is. If you don't know what you're after, it's unlikely you're going to find it.
And it's missing because people confuse cynicism with realism, and are afraid to say "can". They'd rather say 'might' or even 'probably won't'.
Just about everything worth doing is worth doing because it's important and because the odds are against you. If they weren't, then anyone could do it, so don't bother.
Product launches, innovations and initiatives by any organization work better when the key people agree on the goal, believe that they can achieve it and that the plan will work.
Do we have a cynicism shortage? Unlikely.
Successful people rarely confuse a can-do attitude with a smart plan. But they realize that one without the other is unlikely to get you very far.
More articles can check out on Seth's Godin Blog
Hope all of us can learn from it. ^^
Too often, it seems, this attitude is missing from teams, organizations or the community.
It's missing because people are quick to opt out of the 'we' part. "What do you mean, we?" they ask. It's so easy to not be part of we, so easy to make it someone else's problem, so easy to not to take responsibility as a member of whatever tribe you're part of.
Sometimes it's missing because people disagree about what 'it' is. If you don't know what you're after, it's unlikely you're going to find it.
And it's missing because people confuse cynicism with realism, and are afraid to say "can". They'd rather say 'might' or even 'probably won't'.
Just about everything worth doing is worth doing because it's important and because the odds are against you. If they weren't, then anyone could do it, so don't bother.
Product launches, innovations and initiatives by any organization work better when the key people agree on the goal, believe that they can achieve it and that the plan will work.
Do we have a cynicism shortage? Unlikely.
Successful people rarely confuse a can-do attitude with a smart plan. But they realize that one without the other is unlikely to get you very far.
More articles can check out on Seth's Godin Blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
