Getting Creative. Too Creative.
One of the reasons I agreed to join the SUSHI board was so our creative team would have the opportunity to do some really ‘out there’ work. It’s hard to find those opportunities with most clients. With SUSHI we’ve been able to stretch our creative wings a bit.
Francis, designer extraordinaire, has been working on a series of postcards for various special events. For the monthly Fresh Sounds series he came up with three very different approaches. The “smiling man” as we call him was ultimately selected, but I had to share all three with you. They were just too cool not to. What’s interesting is that it appears they might have been a little too out there for SUSHI. I didn’t think that was possible, especially after last weekend’s grand opening, but evidently the chicken just went too far. Which do you like the best? I’m really curious.
Since when is creative “too creative”? I totally love the chicken. Of course, I am a little biased (towards the creative, not the chicken).
I think I like the chicken…
If an organization is “committed to providing its artists and audiences with a laboratory where creative exploration, community engagement, and new ideas flourish”, then shouldn’t they select a concept which challenges conventional norms, and makes the recipient think in new and unconventional ways about ‘what is art’ ?
B’gok.
I agree—the raw chicken is a clear winner.
Advertising should reflect the brand it’s promoting. For an experimental performance company the edgier the work, the better!
totally the chicken. (please refer to my previous post about making your client feel uncomfortable!!)
The chicken is totally my favorite. I almost fell out of my chair laughing the first time I saw it.
I feel with the type of performances/exhibits that occur at Sushi, the more controversial card that can be created, the better!
I’m surprised and disappointed by the selection. The Cows or the Chicken are clearly stronger and fit with the rest of the brilliant work you’ve done for SUSHI. The headphone guy doesn’t fit at all.
Consider my complaint with Lynn filed.
The chicken. Hands down.
How can an organization called SUSHI — that features a fly as part of its logo — be afraid to show a raw chicken?
I don’t get it.
This is the very same ‘Center for the Urban Arts’ that helped launch the career of Karen Finley (and is having her back this year). If you don’t know who she is, just do a quick google search and then ask yourself if a raw chicken is over the line.
Just my two cents.
Wow, thanks for all your feedback. Clearly the chicken is kickin’ the other concepts booties.
I shared the love of the chicken at a recent board meeting and one person actually blurted out “Bleech”. Remember that expression from Charlie Brown? It was the first time in my life that I actually heard someone say that, not just read it in a cartoon strip.
Anyway, I still love SUSHI, even if the board isn’t quite as adventurous as the artists they present.
Conservative board or no, there’s something to maintaining consistency in the SUSHI brand development. I think it was a mistake to depart from the previous card and brochure designs, disrupting the continuity in typeface usage, etc., and going so far as presenting the headphone guy, which is so completely unrelated to your work previous. Serves you right that it was the chosen design. I’m kidding but there is a lesson in here somewhere.
Not a departure but a continuation and a flexibility to expand the brand. SUSHI’S an organization known for presenting rich and cultural diversity. Should the brand be an issue here, disrupting usages of typeface and design sense IS part of that brand. SUSHI disrupts the norm in ART. Stagnancy is not part of its vocabulary.
Let’s have all three of them out there! Why not? All three are asking the same simple question:
What is this?
A good question to lure the fishes!
Yes to all that, but one should establish recognition in an identity (we are just getting started here), and connect that identity with a public, or allow it to make the connection, before breaking with it. In this case, the designer offers the client a disparate aesthetic option, one that is safe, recognizable, almost cliche (I remember 90s rave culture meets Manga) and they will, often enough, take it without evaluating the impact to the brand.
And they shouldn’t, as this evaluation is rarely within a client person’s expertise, let alone that of a board. Articulating a message to an intended audience within a context of how an organization would like to be perceived is a job that dictates it’s own parameters, or limits, and it’s within these that a designer, programmer, interface designer, whatever, should operate. If those parameters are respected, then no complaint can legitimately be made by the designer (is it wrong to consider this blog post a complaint?) about the client’s aesthetic preference. The client gets to exercise their preference (and they must feel they have this agency) by choosing from a diversity of options, but not one that conflicts with a campaign.
To summarize what you just said, it’s too early to get what needs to get done so the members of the boards can get comfy with their new identity. WHO IS COMFORTABLE with who they are anyway? And who is SUSHI making comfortable? The public? I hope not!
CHANGE IS THE ONLY CONSTANCY.
Remember Coca-Cola? Well, SUSHI is not coke, but an establishment to make coke uncomfortable.
Lcorbusier – you think like we do. Our team wanted to use all three also.
Justin – We are focused on establishing a brand but at the same time, given the wildly different artists and programs we are promoting, it is unlikely that we will have consistency in all our materials. The postcards of the pre-opening shows were only for that time period.
What will remain branded and consistent are things like collateral and signage. But our design team loves the freedom to be inspired by SUSHI’s artists.
Thanks for all the great comments and feedback. I’ll continue to share the work in hopes of learning more about what you like and think.