Perhaps I see things more clearly than others or I fancy logic a little more than some, but I feel that all of the readings are over-analyzing and complicating an idea that is pure in and of itself.
The pictogram, by nature, is a straight-forward, simple, understandable image that conveys one specific meaning (if it is successful). Heller, Abdullah, Hubner, and Lupton all take the time to remind us of the unnecessary baggage that modern icons carry with them today. Now, we don't see just the icon, but its color, surroundings, formal qualities, and subconscious meanings. Heller, especially, tears apart the Olympic icons formally - touching on functionality only a few times.
It is confusing for a young designer (much like myself) to be bombarded with formal analysis that deals with the "attractiveness" of the icon or the "appropriateness" of color or placement. I believe an icon, pictogram, or the like should be simple enough to convey its message in all places, in all colors, and perhaps even in all styles. Icons cannot be selfish - they are for the masses. They are tiny socialist images working to communicate to the greater whole for the greater good.
I'll reel myself back by saying in our current project, we are communicating a culture/group of people. A complex concept such as culture needs special thought and consideration in regards to formal stylistic choices and methods of rendering - however, it should never take away from the universal concept of simple communication.
If icons/pictograms are all about simple communication is it truly necessary to have an entire book analyzing them?
Hi Sam, why don't you come to office hours sometime and we can discuss this more.
ReplyDelete