Category: WEEK 6: Lessons From IBM: Paul Rand

When I first started learning about the world of graphic design I remember faintly  hearing about Paul Rand and not knowing much about him but as time went on and especially  after reading this article and watching the videos I can see why he is so highly regarded and I honestly love his thought and design process and way of handling things.  I like the way how he took the way of designing as solving a problem and by solving it in a simple way but in a way that it became timeless and basically became the image of the company and  catch your attention with a certain amount of surprise, as said in the video. It still baffles me that it took ten years to perfect the IBM logo. His design process and approach is rather different from Paula Scher’s process due to the fact that Paula Scher is able to get it on the dot and capture everything  within a logo in a matter of minutes. Nonetheless It is a well known fact that both of them are masters of their craft and regardless of their approach, it does take a huge amount of time and dedication and years of practice to get to that level of mastery and they have always managed to pull through and shine.

After reading and watching the Lessons from IBM and Paul Rand I concluded there is no one way to design. Rand took his profession very seriously. His designs were straight forward but there was an element of play. He went into design as solving an issue using simple forms and different weights. 

At first it threw me off that he took 10 years to create the IBM Logo, (because it takes Scher one second and 37 years of experience) but I thought it impressive that when he presented his work it was complete in booklet form. It showed how the logo would be used and why it worked. He made sure the applications matched the aesthetic. It was mentioned in the video that if you made a mistake it was the company’s problem not Rands. If you wanted Rand to change or edit his work you had to present a rationale of why it did not work v.s. Simply saying blue isn’t the color they wanted. 

Also I did not know that Rand designed the logos for UPS and ABC. 

In comparison,  Paula Scher does three variations and felt if she did not grasp the concept then she would say she wasn’t a good fit for the project. Scher is so established her team helps put the completed applications together and Rand does it all himself. 

They both are similar in the way they use play. Years later, Rand remained on the IBM branding team the same way Scher did with the Highline and Public Theater. They both stand by their designs and agree that the logo should take on meaning. Without meaning the company and logo become second rate.

I am presently kinda recalling about Paul Rand since I was reading an article about him. And from what I’ve recollected, Paul Rand was a really organized and detailed designer. Cautious, but exceptionally detailed. The article talks around how the IBM symbol was made, and the diverse ways it can be utilized for. From what I’ve learned it took a whereas to create the IBM symbol but then I keep in mind how Paula Scher made the Interesting CITI logo in less than a few seconds. Both exceptionally well known and one of a kind artists. Both Paul and Paula are incredible creators but their encounters have instructed them to see at things in a different perspective point in the art eyes.

According to How to design an enduring logo: Lessons from IBM and Paul Rand, Paul Rand was a very serious and talented graphic designer. This is not surprise to me, but at the same time I did not know how much time he had put into one single project which was the IBM logo. It’s amazing how he spent ten years trying to perfect it. I kind of related a bit to him when in the video, they said that he wasn’t so convinced about the letters because they were not the same width, which i have once had trouble with when i was creating a poster. Even though the IBM stripe logo is pretty iconic, the one with the bee and eye is even more eye catching in my opinion. This is because of how playful it is compared to the other one. Some will think that because it’s so obvious and simple, that it might not have taken as long as it did, but they are wrong, because designs like these often take a lot of time and thought.

This reminded me of Paula Scher when it comes to the outcome of their work and how effective it is. The main difference would be the amount of time spent on the projects. For example, I remember from last week’s assignment, Paula Scher spent less than a minute creating the Highline logo, but it is one of the most known logos in NYC because it’s a well known tourist spot. Both designers won’t take no for an answer. For example when they asked Paula to change the logo to look like an “F”, she was apposed to it. She did not believe it would have been this popular now a day, but she did know that the “F” was not going to work, which is why she kept insisting on the “H”. Same like Paul Rand, he did not accept a no for an answer. Once he did something, that was it, it had to be that logo because he believed in it since the beginning.

Reading the article “How to design an enduring logo: Lessons from IBM and Paul Rand” it was revealed to me Paul Rand was a very detail-oriented designer. Rand would spend over a decade playing with variations of the IBM logo explaining there was a problem with  “the sequence, going from narrow to wide…without any rhythmic possibility.” This struck me as a stark difference from the designer Paula Scher who would do her designs quickly. However, both have a playful and deceivingly simple design aesthetic. In my design work, I tend to have a “loose” approach. However, after reading about Paul Rand I was reminded of the importance of meticulous design and a sharp eye.

After reading and watching “How to design an enduring logo: Lessons from IBM and Paul Rand I felt the big difference that stands out to me is the design of the IBM logo. The article talks about how the IBM logo was created, and the different ways it can be used for. ” The logo’s design did not happen overnight.” They spend much more time working on it. On the other hand, Paula Scher’s Citi bank design was just done in a second, on a piece of tissue paper. Like Paula Scher said sometimes you need to forget the brief and do what you’ve never done before.

After reading and watching “How to design an enduring logo: Lessons from IBM and Paul Rand”, i found out that Paul Rand was a very detail-oriented designer who loved to play around with logos using different variations until it was perfect in his eyes.For example, it took him 10 years before coming up with the strip on the IBM logo he wanted to make sure the detail and the conceptual thinking of both the client and consumers would get it and it must has did the job because the logo has remained untouched since then. Paul Rand said “A great piece of design catches your attention with a certain amount of surprise” and i feel he did that with the playful and witty a witty rebus poster Eye-Bee-M; it was simple symbols along with the letter M from his original logo, his quote really summed up the poster.

When Rand designed a logo for a company he only focused on creating one logo and fine tuning it  instead of coming up with multiple ideas to present to a client. However, he made up for the single designed logo by also creating booklets that showed how the logo would look on different spreads,he wanted to make sure that his logo worked in every thinkable application like stationeries,ads and packaging.Paul Rand made sure his clients couldn’t say no as he said “You hired me to do it , im telling you this is what you should use” he didn’t want to hear if the client didn’t like it so he made sure they did; wow is all i can say his level of experience and his value for precision made him the M.V.P in the graphic design world.

I feel when it comes to Paul Rand and Paula Scher they take designing anything seriously and have pays attention to  details but Paul Rand doesn’t like to create a logo in 20 seconds he wants to create it ,research it ,play with it in different variations until it fits both what he wants for the company and for the clients. Paula Scher is different when it comes to designing. She can design a logo in 20 seconds and still have the same effect as Paul Rands designs. Both Paul and Paula are great designers but their experiences have taught them to look at things a certain way.

After watching and reading “How to design an enduring logo: Lessons from IBM and Paul Rand An article with 2 embedded videos” I thought he was a strict designer when it came to critiquing him, as he did not give people design options. He gave people a single presentation or a single piece of what he thought to be a good recommendation. As it was also mention in the video “he didn’t want to hear if he didn’t like it he would say you hired me to do it and I’m telling you this is what you should use”, I really noticed that he was a genius and also detail oriented designer unlike Paula Scher she was a freestyle designer who went with the flow, he is way organized than her. As I remember she was more of a doodler and she made the Citi Bank Logo on a napkin even though Rand is the exact opposite of her he used to be more complex for example the IBM logo had more effort, study and thinking(research) done into it.

After watching and reading “How to design an enduring logo: Lessons from IBM and Paul Rand An article with 2 embedded videos” I thought he was a strict designer when it came to critiquing him, as he did not give people design options. He gave people a single presentation or a single piece of what he thought to be a good recommendation. As it was also mention in the video “he didn’t want to hear if he didn’t like it he would say you hired me to do it and I’m telling you this is what you should use”, I really noticed that he was a genius and also detail oriented designer unlike Paula Scher she was a freestyle designer who went with the flow, he is way organized than her. As I remember she was more of a doodler and she made the Citi Bank Logo on a napkin even though Rand is the exact opposite of her he used to be more complex for example the IBM logo had more effort, study and thinking(research) done into it.

I admire Paul’s feelings and his confidence in his work built because every decision he made creating the logo wasn’t made on a whim but by by his experience as a creator. 10 years is an insane amount of time to work on a logo that adds the explanation to his character and how he holds up his work and the company’s given history. Trying to understand the creative process isn’t something that is easily explained there logic in it but at the same time, there isn’t. One day I believe my experience will build the foundation of the creative process I will work with, but for now, it’s more like trial and error trying to understand between what’s needed and what can be more of a design.

the article on paul rand was quite interesting on the secrets behind IBMs famous logo that has helped the company be what it is today. the amount of detail and effort paul has invested into developing and rebranding the identity of IBM has had massive positive effects and the amount of work he has put in for about 10 years is immense tinkering with one logo for  10 years has definitely shown in its longevity. one of the most interesting things about paul rand to me is the fact of only coming up with one design and proving its the best solution to the client and why it would work by developing an entire book or deck to support his claims and really hit home to the client which I think is really brilliant in the design of using his status and experience to his advantage. and I someday hope I have the skill and knowledge as well as experience to do something as bold as that. another big takeaway from paul rand is his sheer playfulness when it came to designing and I totally agree design should be fun and entertaining to the extent in which some of my best work can happen when its fun and enjoyable wheres no longer work and more play. in which it is really shown in his work.

Identity Design – Paul Rand