Editor’s note: I invited our Contributors to respond to Olivier Bouchard’s question, in the very first comment on this Forum. Here’s Marco’s answer.
Beyond esthetics, what is more effective: a 2D or a 3D logo ? Based on scientific findings, we have to accept that 3D is more suited to the human brain. Let´s see why.
The basis is an MIT research report titled “VISION: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information” published in 1982, based on research conducted by David Marr. I think it is a must-read for all designers. (The 400 page book is a free 98mb download).
Marr teaches that the visual image is a process:
- 2D at the eye’s retina;
- then comes the 2 ½ D sketch, a viewer-centered representation, which includes “volumetric primitives”
- finally a psycho-neural process generates a complete 3D image.
When this full process is restricted by the object of vision - as with 2D representations - the brain (the mind as consequence) is “deceived.” It comes out as “is missing something” or the image is not “completed.”
This conclusion is even more decisive when it comes to TV or Internet usage (low definition, remember McLuhan), making 3D an actual imperative.
From Marr´s research, we should conclude that 3D logos are more suitable to human perception (as a neural /psychological process). And that 3D logos are more effective as sign performance than 2D design - even if not pleasing to designers anchored in the absolute (obsolete?) Gestaltung way of seeing.
By Andrew Pourtov
22 JUN 2009, 20:11 GMT
Hi all! I’m editor-in-chief of Identity (branding and design journal from Moscow, Russia). I have a directly different opinion.
Scientific research does not define efficiency in real business.
Consider the 100 most known and influential brands in the world (Nike, Mercedes, Coca-Cola, Virgin etc.) and count the 2D/3D ratio. It also will be the answer. Certainly it is possible to say that now we have other trend. Correctly. Now logos become dynamic (as Identity Forum’s), but logo Mind Share (design by MovingBrands) thus not 3D. An attempt to unite three measurements and movement was already undertaken; Interbrand has made such logo, for example, for Troika (Russian biggest finance company). However there are no results and proofs that is an effective solution. I have never advised to the beginning company either 3D or motion graphics in logo. It is better to make good identity system. Time when logos defined all has already passed. Structures, patterns, typography and colours are now more important than logos.
Sorry for my english and thank you for attention.
By Humberto Carrero
22 JUN 2009, 22:26 GMT
Hi,
I think Oliver and Marco are talking about diferent things. please reply me if I´m wrong.
Oliver talked about a 3d version of a logo, the need of an adaption of a 2d logo to a 3d space.
I think Marco is referring to a logo with a 3d compound (a logo that, though designed in 2d, ‘activates’ your 3d mind side).
So in response, I think that a 2d logo with a hard 3d compound (you can see a fast example I have do if you click in my name, up this comment) can be attractive in terms of mind and also can work really well in low-res applications (dont think this of my example please!).
I think is really interesting the contradiction that Andrew proposes, is this really a time of change? Thanks for read!
By Steff Geissbuhler
22 JUN 2009, 23:38 GMT
I too am responding to Olivier Bouchard’s first post. Olivier, never mind your English, I’m Swiss and still struggling with English after 42 years here in the States. We’re happy that you pitched in to start a dialogue.To your question about 3D logos: I was asked a few months ago to “rejuvenate”, “update” and soften a logo I designed in the early 90’s, for a television network in Argentina, by creating a 3D version. The original logo is very angular and distinctly 2D with four identical crown-like shapes fitting into each other like a jigsaw puzzle, but it did not suggest a 3D version other than simply giving it depth like a cookie cutter form. In fact it was impossible to achieve the same effect. Well, first we tried to talk them out of it and argued for leaving the logo in 2D, but they insisted that a 3D version would be much more dynamic, young and more appropriate for the South American market. Well we rendered it as close as possible in 3D and animated it. The final logo is utilizing literally a freeze frame of the logo just slightly turned. It works and animates very well as a 3D object, but in print it lost some interesting attributes, which only the 2D version had. It got more ordinary and predictable. See them both here.
http://www.cgpartnersllc.com/projects-clients/artear-argentcanal-13/el-trece-brand-update/
What’s my point? Not many trademarks lend themselves to 3D and perhaps vice versa. Look at the “3D upgrade” of the almost 50 year old Chase logo, which my former partner, Tom Geismar, designed. The beveled edges and pseudo 3D decals applied cropped to flat surfaces and windows, look wrong and don’t add anything to that classic logo. In fact one looses the original concept of enclosure and safety.
The opposite is true for our logo for Telemundo, (Television world) which started as a 3D globe inside a flat letter “T”. Someone changed it to a swoosh through the flat letter T, which took away a truly 3D conceived idea and made it again more ordinary and joining the swoosh brigade. (See Google images for current Telemundo logo. For the original logo:
http://www.cgpartnersllc.com/projects-clients/telemundo/on-air-signature/
In other words, if a logo is conceived as a 3D concept, it probably should stay that way and the other way around, unless both 2D and 3D versions are conceived together as alternate versions, rather than as an afterthought.
Steff Geissbuhler, C&G Partners
By Marco Rezende
23 JUN 2009, 21:19 GMT
An effective logo is not enough for an effective brand: the logo is just a graphic device, while a brand -if it is effective - is a network of signifiers (or signifier net?) - not a static sign, but a sign process, a dynamic system. As such the performance of a single element is the result of multiple aspects, in a historic context. The practice and the process context defines the results of the whole investment (with a Freud meaning, not only Economics, in all aspects).
That is why there should be no fixed rules. Most of 2D logos should remain 2D, as they were created. And vice-versa, some 3D logos have to be used as 3D, always. Examples: Nike vs Microsoft Windows logos, and thousands of others.
Anyway, we can´t be conservative when it come to communication, as there was a move from stone-engraved letters to photoletters, an evolution which transformed design, I can see a trend from low performance 2D, suitable to graphic printing, to 3D suitable to low-definition media like TV, Internet and other eletronic paraphernalia. But I always have been clear that this trend is not a law (no exceptions) but a rule (with exceptions).
By David Airey
25 JUN 2009, 1:06 GMT
Hello Marco,
I think we all agree that an effective logo won’t save a poorly managed brand, and for me, Steff’s final sentiments ring close to what I also believe:
“…if a logo is conceived as a 3D concept, it probably should stay that way and the other way around, unless both 2D and 3D versions are conceived together as alternate versions, rather than as an afterthought.”
Personally, I don’t believe any logo should be conceived as a solely 3D concept, but must be accompanied by a 2D option to improve adaptability. That said, Steff has infinitely more experience in the field than I.
Thanks again to all involved for launching this blog. It’s a great addition to the site.
By Scott Lerman
26 JUN 2009, 15:03 GMT
Marco writes, “When this full process is restricted by the object of vision - as with 2D representations - the brain (the mind as consequence) is “deceived.” It comes out as “is missing something” or the image is not “completed.”” While that makes 2D logos sound inferior to 3D representations it is that “otherness”, the ability to stand out against photography, texture, and other 3D manifestations that make a 2D logo so powerful.
By Jevgeni Strganov
08 MAY 2010, 17:40 GMT
-
When this full process is restricted by the object of vision - as with 2D representations - the brain (the mind as consequence) is “deceived.” It comes out as “is missing something” or the image is not “completed.”
wrong… Only if the logo designer forgot to finish the design.
I see otherwise - when someone look on 3D logo, the brain is “deceived”. Something is missing?! Yes! The other side of logo!
As some IQ test shows, that people perception of difficult forms are different. And visual effect can be different.