Prtty Shtty

Photoschlock Friday: Chapter 2

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:00:00 +0000

It’s the first Friday of November, so it’s time for our second installment of Photoschlock Friday.

The yogurt may be Yummi, but the compositing is anything but. Proof positive not everything the Swiss do is well designed.

Truth be told, the more I look at this, the more I wonder if it’s real schlock, and not just Photoschlock. Either way, this a bona fide horror show. I know it sounds awful, but I’ve never wanted more than I do right now to punch a pregnant woman right in her Art Director.

Cars: Pixar Falls for Intelligent Design

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 13:00:00 +0000

The latest Pixar movie, Cars 2, was released on DVD on Tuesday. Some of you may have seen my essay regarding that franchise that was posted on Design Observer the week of Cars 2’s release in theaters. It stirred up quite a bit of controversy, and I was largely berated in the comments by people who didn’t get the joke, or didn’t like it, or both. And, in probably the oddest bit of fallout, the film critic and writer Roger Ebert, basically ripped off my idea and repurposed it for a piece about the Transformers. Needless to say, it was all interesting and (mostly) fun to watch that unfold. If you didn’t see it before, here it is, republished on my home turf for your enjoyment.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Like many people, especially creative types, I’m a big fan of Pixar movies. Their story telling, artful animation, and great voice acting are unrivaled in the realm of animation production. However, they do sometimes take missteps, especially in their design choices. Take for example A Bug’s Life, where the ant characters only have 4 limbs, or the bizarre conceit in Ratatouille that a rat can control a human’s actions by yanking on his hair. It’s perhaps easy to overlook such small things, but in otherwise well thought out environments and scenarios, they are poorly conceived and glaringly so.

Without question, their greatest misstep in design, and perhaps in general, is the film Cars. Released in 2006, this film follows the “stranger comes to town” adventures of stock car racing sensation Lightning McQueen. While it was less than loved by critics, there is no question it was a commercial success. In fact, some would say it is Pixar’s most obvious grab at a pay day, appealing to the NASCAR set without even the thinnest of veils. But I would argue its middle-American appeal goes much deeper than its subject matter. Indeed, I believe Cars is a vehicle for the conservative, science-denying belief known as Intelligent Design.

Rooted in the Creationist philosophy, Intelligent Design attempts to explain complex scientific phenomenon, especially biological systems such as photosynthesis, or the structure of the human eye, as being the work of a Designer, commonly understood to be the Christian God. In essence, anything that science has failed to yet explain is easily attributable to the work of a higher being whose intelligence, and rationale can never be understood via human empirical thinking.

Cars, more than any other Pixar world, is designed and built with that very premise as its foundation. It is a world populated entirely by cars, trucks, aircraft, and RVs. These vehicles are essentially stand-ins for human beings. Their only companions in the animal kingdom seem to be tractors (which are cows), combines (bulls), and little VW Beetles as winged house flies. Other than a pair of steer horns mounted to the front of a Cadillac, and the dinosaur logo of Dinoco Oil, there is no sign of any animal we would recognize... Not a bird in the sky, nor a squirrel in a tree. So one is left to surmise that sentient vehicles simply exist, and always have, independent of any other circle of life.

The design of the vehicles is devoid of any suggestion of natural selection. The cars have eyes in their windshield, and mouths, complete with teeth and tongues, between their headlights. (Apparently motorcycles don’t exist, presumably because the Designer couldn’t figure out how to give them a face.) They can flex and move their metal frames, undercarriages, and tires at will, and yet they’re undoubtedly made of metal, plastic and rubber. They are imbued with life, which apparently allows them to ignore the laws of physics. Conveniently, non-living fixtures made of those same materials (buildings, furniture, etc.), obey those laws. Indeed, it is those very fixtures that offer the most disturbing glimpse into the Designer’s machinations. It’s as if the world was made by humans, now long gone, and replaced by living, breathing autos. One might expect Charlton Heston to crash land on the planet and later discover that those maniacs blew it up.

On this Planet of the Cars, buildings not much different than ours awkwardly accommodate their four-wheeled tenants; gas pumps—again, like ours—operate with precision simply by pressing a button the ground; and farms, growing vegetables for goodness know who, line the highways. Even the cars themselves are at the whim of a seemingly human mind. They have doors and windows that never open. They’re alive and moving, but can only drive with gas in their tanks. Boy cars and girl cars are attracted to each other, raising awkward questions about reproduction (and yet, no kid cars?). Photojournalist cars are forced to use large, clumsy, tired-mounted rigs to hold cameras, and the racing pit crew chiefs wear comically huge earphones on their non-ears. Perhaps the greatest injustice seen is a minivan toting a mattress atop its roof down the interstate. Do I need to mention they don’t sleep in beds?

But there are a couple of crucial elements in the design of this world that point not to a human overlord, but an all-powerful Designer with a bad case of motorhead. The rock formations surrounding the movie’s main location, the town of Radiator Springs, resemble similar landmarks of our American Southwest, particularly Monument Valley, with one major difference: They are in the shapes of cars and car parts. That would be as if our Mount Rushmore was a naturally occurring phenomenon. But even more inexplicable than the Geo-logy: if one looks closely enough, cloud formations resembling tire tracks can be seen drifting through the sky. Certainly, it’s no mistake that this most befuddling design element is also the most heavenward. There’s something up there, and It won’t be explained. But It does have a name, and we can thank the tractor trailer character Mack for this revelation. Upon finding his lost friend McQueen late in the second act, he exclaims, “Thank the Manufacturer!” Must we?

This weekend Cars 2 opens. It will be the first Pixar movie I make a point of not seeing. It’s not that I even mind so much that it’s propaganda, or even that it’s propaganda for “The Manufacturer.” In theory, I could forgive that. What I can’t forgive is that director John Lasseter and his team hung their hat on Intelligent Design, and alas, it’s anything but.

Roadrunner and Jack Rabbit

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Pr*tty

Truth be told, there’s nothing too remarkable about this logo, but it at least speaks the right visual language. The R in the mark doubles as a little road, and one could even argue there’s a bit of a bird’s head in that shape too. Meep meep.

Sh*tty

This poor fella was running so fast he crossed the line from quirky/playful to cartoonish/ridiculous about a mile back, and didn’t even realize it. Silly rabbit.

Copywriting: Manhattan Mini Storage and Avia

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Pr*tty

This headline has nothing to do with storage, and everything to do with branding. Kudos.

Sh*tty

I’ll admit that a finely toned ass has its appeal. But I cannot imagine a more tragically unoriginal, lazy, childish headline. And the CLIO goes to Beavis and Butthead!

Photoschlock Friday

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000

I’ve decided that the first Friday of every month will now be Photoschlock Friday.

There’s plenty to hate about all these, but let’s just take this time to revel in their flawed Photoshopping.

Nevermind the god awful kerning, take a look at the spacing between these people’s feet and the luggage they’re “standing” on.

I realize finding miniature super model jackhammer operators is difficult. At least as difficult as being expected to buy this illusion.

I might be wrong about this one. Maybe that sheet is actually over their head. If so, they’ve done themselves no favors by making the color adjustments they have. Are a little girl’s fingers a fair trade for aromatic cartoon flowers? I think not.

Many thanks to P*S* Reader and iPhone user Troy DeRose for the first image.

Be like Troy! Go here to learn more about contributing. And here to get the P*S* iPhone App.

R.I.P. Steve

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:28:00 +0000

Clementine Art and Crayola Crayons

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Pr*tty

A clear case of targeting your audience and hitting your mark.

Sh*tty

Another clear case of thinking parents think their kids like sh*t like this. It’s mind boggling that Crayola can so openly crap on their heritage. The “just keep adding stuff” methodology is in full effect here and working as well as it ever does, which is never.

Many thanks to P*S* Reader and colorful character Travis Crisp for the images!

Be like Travis! Go here to learn more about contributing to the cause. And here to get the P*S* iPhone App.

Mam and Ergo

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Pr*tty

Mam makes plastic stuff for babies. Bottles, pacifiers, stuff like that. And I think they’re logo effectively communicates a lot about their brand. Crisp, well-designed, and simple, but still cheerful and soft enough to be a brand for kids.

Sh*tty

Ergo also makes stuff for babies. Baby carriers to be exact. They’re quite popular. I have one, and it’s a good product. But this sad, homespun logo isn’t helping them any. It’s always odd to me when a brand that prides itself on thoughtful product design utilizes shoddy graphic design. In this case, I’m doubly perplexed that a company that makes baby products—even wholesome, hippy-dippy ones—hasn’t yet realized the importance of growing up.

Perricone MD and Prevage Face

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Finally able to get back to it. Thank goodness!

Pr*tty

You have to appreciate the simple typographic identity, first of all. Sophisticated, professional, trustworthy. Secondly, the ad itself is striking. The photograph is beautifully shot, and it really tells a story, topped off with some data-oriented call-outs that feel official without being too egghead. It’s all very thoughtful and engaging.

Sh*tty

The typographic hodge podge is bad enough. Then they’ve taken this poor woman’s face and made it look like one of those diagrams of the cuts of meat in a cow. A weak attempt at pseudo-science that looks more like butchering instructions. Yum.

I've Been Cheating

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:49:00 +0000

Yes, that’s right. I’ve been unfaithful. During my month of internet woes, I strayed. What can I say? When blogging got too hard at home, and I couldn’t keep up with my usual P*S* format, I pursued better channels for publishing a couple long form essays I had in the pipeline.

One of them is a piece I wrote for my firm’s blog about being able to accept criticism, more specifically that our clients would do well to accept some along the way, too. You can read that here.

The other is a piece I’m really proud of, and marks my second post published over at Design Observer. It’s a “ten things” list full of advice for design students. Please go here to read it.

And that’s that. My long form mistresses. It doesn’t mean I don't love Pr*tty Sh*tty... she’s still my number one girl. I just can’t be tied down to one blog anymore. Don’t worry, there’s plenty of me to go around.

The Verizon Strike has Struck

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:17:00 +0000

Sorry I’ve been even more neglectful of my dear sweet blog than usual. The quiet time is due in part to a recent move from an over-crowded Astoria apartment to a spacious home outside the city, and all that goes with that (i.e. packing, cleaning, unpacking, more cleaning, and so on).

The other part of it is that, conveniently, coinciding with my scheduled install date, the good folks at Verizon have gone on strike, and left me internetless on the home front. No new FiOS triple play for me. Which is pretty much like living in a house with no running water or electricity, as you all know.

I’ve decided to use my surplus of time to reinforce the new house in preparation for the inevitable zombie horde. Anyone know where I can get some Claymores?

BumpShox and Bumper Bully

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Pr*tty

I have been waiting for years to see a well-designed alternative to the type of product shown on today’s Sh*tty side. Granted, the disadvantage of a more discreet design is that it doesn’t cover the full bumper, but I bet it still absorbs a majority of parking-related impacts and does so without looking like a lobster bib on your car.

Sh*tty

Man, are these awful looking. I get it. They’re practical. But what I don’t get is that if this thing is made of stuff that can protect my bumper, why isn’t my bumper just made of that stuff? It’s called a bumper, after all, not a ding collector.

And the name of this particular brand really irritates me. Bumper Bully? Last I checked, bullies weren’t in the habit of defending anyone. So I figure anyone who owns one of these intends to back into me, then take my lunch money.

Stolen "Cars"

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Some of you may have seen that I had a review of the Pixar movie Cars up on Design Observer a few weeks back.

Despite the many comments by folks who didn’t get it, the piece was intended as satire, and posited that Cars is propaganda for the neo-Creationist dogma known as Intelligent Design. The day after it was posted, the movie critic and active blogger/tweeter, Roger Ebert, tweeted a link to that review. Needless to say, I was pretty excited about that.

Then, last week, while enjoying a trip upstate to visit some family, I got an email pointing me toward something I couldn’t believe. On July 4th, Roger Ebert posted a satirical review of director Michael Bay’s Transformers franchise. In that review, he put forth the argument that the Transformers movies are Intelligent Design propaganda. Needless to say, I was less than excited about that.

I promptly picked my jaw up from the floor and posted a comment on Ebert’s piece, which went into his editorial filter to await approval. Surprisingly, he actually chose to allow it through, but offered up the lamest possible excuse for his obvious aping of my idea:

Lodged in your head? Yeah, no sh*t.

I also tweeted about this and posted it to Facebook (so, apologies to those of you who have seen this all before), all with no response to speak of. Design Observer also tweeted it. Still, no response. Later in the week, a friend left a similar comment on the blog and again Ebert’s response was equally lame:

As if tweeting my blog almost two weeks prior somehow excuses his “use” of it.

And, in one of the only other comments on this topic in the thread, we get a highly inaccurate analogy, but alas, a fairly apt summary of the futility of my fight:

I won’t ever get the acknowledgement I’m hoping for, obviously. Ebert has no reason to admit any wrongdoing. His is the prevailing blog, and therefore immune to any substantial outrage or public outcry. So, in a odd twist of fate, all I can do is this: teach the controversy.

Thank you to Philippe Theophanidis, who tipped me off, and wrote a very generous blog post about it, in my favor.

Emeril English Muffin Tie-in

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Today’s post is a standalone item. It’s sort of one of those things that will just never have a good counterpart, but must be shared.

I mean, seriously? I guess no one at Thomas’ English Muffins knew that offering to make someone breakfast is shorthand for, “I’ll be spending the night... after we do it.” The look on Emeril’s big fat face pretty much says it all.

And who needs that image in their head? Throw in a few of his signature catchphrases and you’ve pretty much seared the optic nerve right out of your mind’s eye.

And yes, I realize this post is basically applying Rule 34 to Emeril. Sorry about that.

I'm Totally Gay for NY

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 03:34:00 +0000

Sorry Milton.

I'm a Design Observer

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:04:00 +0000

Just wanted to let everyone know that I was (not so) recently invited to contribute to the design blog Design Observer, and gladly accepted that invitation.

It took awhile, but I finally found the time to write something to post over there, and it’s published in today’s Observatory section. The piece coincides with the release of the new Pixar movie Cars 2, and offers a slightly tongue-in-cheek critique of the first Cars as a propaganda piece for the neo-Creationist movement known as Intelligent Design.

Please go check it out.

Don Cossack and Ketel One

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Let me preface today’s post by stating two things. 1) I don’t drink, so these counterparts have no value judgements rooted in flavor, brand devotion, or severity of hang overs. 2) What fun would this blog be without the occasional controversial pairing?

Pr*tty

I fully acknowledge that this is a pretty crude design. But damn if it isn’t a charming bit of pseudo-Russian alchemy. You just know it’s made in a genuine Ukrainian bath tub.

Sh*tty

Due to my nearly-total lack of knowledge about brands of booze, I pretty much had no idea what kind of alcohol Ketel One was until a few years back. Their notoriously obtuse ads didn’t help much. More damningly, to me anyway, the identity design always bespoke something not vodka. Something more of the European dark ages... a fine, monk-made sherry perhaps.

As a side note, I wonder if any mixologists or molecular gastronomists have tackled the idea of a vodka-popcorn mashup called Ketel Corn.

Brand Newish: Golden Valley Brewery

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Certainly the most local of all the rebrandings featured this week. I suspect not many people have heard of Golden Valley Brewery, but a P*S* Reader was kind enough to send them my way, and they fit nicely into this week’s theme.

Old:

New:

The old identity and label design are far from perfect, but they do utilize a degree of simplicity that conjures up a more traditional sensibility appropriate to a microbrew such as this. The GVB monogram in particular, while clumsy, carries some gravitas of establishment... the old school, if you will.

Apparently the new school involves rendering that monogram in a much more dimensional way, which I find very distracting. It draws far too much attention to the G and B being impaled by the V like a couple of vampires. Then they layered in the full name of the brewery, which creates some serious redundancy... apparently no one noticed they already had the name emblazoned across that ribbon on the lower third of the label.

And speaking of the labels, it’s remarkable to me that they have almost identical visual heirarchies, but somehow the newer one is much more muddled. Something about adding the illusion of depth, presumably in an attempt to make things “pop”, really just ends up making it harder to read, I think.

Thanks to P*S* Reader and iPhone user Kristina Franklin, for today’s pairing.

Be like Kristina! Go here to learn more about contributing to the cause. And here to get the P*S* iPhone App.

Brand Newish: Gray Line

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Old:

New:

Here’s a good example of a perfectly serviceable logo being changed to give it more character and ownability. Step One: Make those corners rounded so it’s “friendlier”. Step Two: Do some crazy sh*t with the typography, and make sure only some of the letters look customized to give it that pointless patchwork effect. Step Three: Add a globe, ’cause hey, we’re global, and that’s unique, right?

At least the new blue is nicer.

Brand Newish: Chips Ahoy!

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Old:

New:

I really don’t have much to say about either one of these. Neither was, nor is capable of engendering any sort of deep-rooted, fondly-felt brand loyalty. Which is a shame, considering chocolate chip cookies (even crumbly, sh*tty ones like these) are one of those things that we should store up tons of sentimentality about starting at an early age. It’s a missed opportunity to not weave a classic, distinct brand right into all that taste-bud driven nostalgia.

At least the old logo utilized some actual typography, and not some crudely drawn nonsense. Of course, that might just be my sentiment talking.

Brand Newish: Louisville Ladders

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Continuing a week of low-profile, possibly very old rebrandings:

Old:

New:

I don’t know when this rebranding happened. It’s possibly very old. Ladders don’t spoil, after all, and you see them at use every day throughout the city, so I just happened to find these two about a year apart.

The old logo has a perfectly serviceable bold italic serif thing going on. But the script L is a bit clumsy and mismatched. Also, it seems redundant to use the ladder icon, and the words “LADDER”. Just pick one.

All that said, the new logo is probably more flawed. The logotype feels pretty fresh, and more high-tech, which isn’t such a bad thing, but what’s with the undulating cap height? Then there’s the forgettable, virtually meaningless arrow-shaped logomark to puzzle on. And just for good measure, it feels a little too crammed into that holding shape.

I’m tempted to say it went from meh, to meh-er. Tell me what you think.

Brand Newish: Eight O'Clock Coffee

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:00:00 +0000

This week I’m going to try something new. I seem to have collected a number of pairings that illustrate rebrandings, but most of them don’t really qualify as Pr*tty or Sh*tty, so thus far I’ve had trouble finding a home for them.

Rebrandings are, of course, the domain of my good pals over at Brand New, but the pairings I’ll feature this week are either too old and/or too irrelevant to have been covered there, or on their B-Sides companion blog. So hopefully they won’t mind if a tread around the perimeter of their territory for a few days and go ahead and show them here.

I’ll offer up a few comments, but otherwise I’ll open the voting and let my exceptional readers decide whether the old or new identities are better.

Let’s get started.

Old:

New:

Even to a non-coffee-drinker like myself, the Eight O’Clock brand is highly recognizable, thanks in large part to the the handsome and distinct Bokar font designed by letterer extraordinaire Daniel Pelavin.

All-in-all, the rebranding is pretty decent, I think. The logotype lost some of its charm and distinctiveness, and the leaf-shaped apostrophe, and associated kerning, are pretty awful. But it could be a hell of a lot worse, and I think it feels more contemporary at the end of the day.

What do you think? Did it go from Eight O’Clock to Eight O’Schlock?

Be sure to check back in every day this week for more!

Thanks to P*S* Reader, iPhone user, and good friend Domenic Pagalilauan, for today’s thought-provoking pairing.

Be like Dom! Go here to learn more about contributing to the cause. And here to get the P*S* iPhone App.

Smarties and North American Elevator Products

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Fri, 27 May 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Pr*tty

Candy. Sweet, sweet candy.

Sh*tty

Truly, this isn’t all that bad. In fact, it’s the kind of thing I usually like. But there’s something about the twisted-candy-wrapper-ends that bugs me. Good for candy. Not good for elevator products. Know what I mean?

Wednesday Waffler: Nuthouse Hardware

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Wed, 25 May 2011 13:00:00 +0000

I don’t get many image submissions via Twitter. And unfortunately cell phones don’t take the best images, so go here to see a slightly clearer version of this hardware store identity.

Image quality aside, I can’t entirely decide if I love this, or find it too clumsy and silly. You have to at least give it points for sticking to the concept of the type design, and for having a pretty great name... a worthy pun!

And what do we think about their rebranding?

Thanks to my pal Nick Chow for the image.

Be like Nick! Go here to learn more about contributing to the cause. And here to get the P*S* App, if that’s your sort of thing.

Rogue and Troegs Beer Labels

noreply@blogger.com (pr*tty sh*tty) — Tue, 03 May 2011 13:00:00 +0000

Pr*tty

I think there are some design choices specific to the execution of these Rogue labels that I wouldn’t have made. But I appreciate their simplicity, and variations on a theme that allows them to be distinct but hang together as a brand.

Sh*tty

Let’s assume for a moment that Revue isn’t a mostly ugly, clumsy typeface that is conceptually inappropriate to this bottle of beer. How are we supposed to understand that this flavor belongs to the Troegs brand? It turns out most of their labels veer away from the brewery’s brand, putting way too much burden on the neck label to tie them all together, and ultimately, this sort of tactic engenders flavor loyalty, not brand loyalty.

Also, Nugget Nectar is an unfortunate name. Right?

Cheers to P*S* Reader and iPhone user Kristina Franklin for contributing the Rogue image.

Be like Kristina! Go here to learn more about contributing to the cause. And here to get the P*S* iPhone App.