Understanding how things ‘strike’ someone – the innate, albeit intentional or not, effect given off – is the essence of powerful graphic design. The article very briefly explains the name taxonomies that one must verse his or herself in before considering how to construct or perceive a visual piece. Image-based design does not have a direct conveyance; it must rely solely on unstated mood. Type-based and image/ type-based hybrids are afforded an actual message because they utilize words. But the type itself has so many sub-communications as well! Size, orientation, color, shape, modifications, typeface – the all say different things.
If I could pose one question to the author, I would ask him ‘when does a logo become a symbol?‘. “Symbol” denotes something symbolic – a subtle, culturally-primed meaning behind a representative graphic or shape. Does a logo have to first assimilate societally, becoming so synonymous with a familiar brand that we innately understand its essence?