Do designers
sometimes just get too clever? The thought arose when viewing the
Australian Open tennis this year. The graphic logo for this event is
what we are supposed to read as ‘AO’ - Australian Open. This
seems simple enough, but the designers have gone for a crisp and
cleverly simple expression, using what really is an inverted ‘V’
for an ‘A’ followed by a straightforward, geometrically circular ‘O’ reminiscent of Gill Sans. Just why a proper Gill Sans ‘A’ might not have been appropriate seems
unclear. One can only assume that it was seen to be too literal;
insufficiently ‘creative.' It appears that the odd use of the
letter ‘V’ has been chosen just to avoid an ordinary, obvious 'A'. Cuneiform script comes to mind, but
this seems an extreme reference/inspiration for such an occasion. One wonders,
what is letter ‘A’ in cuneiform? Unusually, the graphic can be read as the insert marker - ^
: alternatively, it can become the 'smaller/larger than' mathematical
symbols - <
and > when imagined sideways. Why not flip it again? Why
are these manipulations made to forms that have some general agreement in our society?
Gill Sans
Cuneiform script
'Australian Open' seems to have been included to reinforce the reading and define the baseline.
The graphic could easily become an obvious but undesirable 'OV'.
On 'OV' see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OV
The strange adoption of the clever 'A' used as the insert symbol that it is.
This smart game subverts the reading of the 'V' as an 'A'.
One can appreciate
the visual slickness of this logo, while being annoyed with its
awkward games. Is this acknowledgement why the image was chosen? While the designers
might see their efforts as being uniquely smart, the device has been
used before. The Queensland Board of Architects has developed a
graphic in which the ‘A’ is an inverted ‘V’ identical to the
‘AO’ use of the letter in its graphic.
An invented 'A' with other strange new letter forms.
There is something
about letters that makes one concerned about this game. Letters are
really forms that cannot be played with in such a loose manner, where
one letter becomes inverted to be read as another, even though
letters are remarkably resilient. Just look at all the numerous fonts
and see how the clarity of the reading remains in spite of the
enormous number of variations. The rules are maintained in font designs, but they are ignored in the ‘AO’ image. It is this break with known form
that annoys. Where might it lead? What other inventive inversions
might there be? Is there a word that can still make sense in another
way when inverted?#
Roll the ball and one gets a clear 'OV.' - Oh dear!: hence the 2020.
Little things are
important in letters and numbers. There is a story that tells that
our numbers are forms that have been developed from markings that
include the number of angles between the lines that equals the number
being represented. This is apparently why the number 1 has its top flash; and
why the number 7 sometimes has a crossbar on the centre of its leg. Change the
angle count, and the number is changed – its raw sense for being. 7
suffers the most with variations, but we survive, as we do with a
simple stroke as 1. These are subtle variations that keep the raw
basis of the form. It is not as though the one or the seven is an
inverted alternative number; but without the crossbar, there can be misunderstandings, especially with handwriting.
1 and 7
O and 0
So it is that we can
end up in a real shambles of uncertainty when lower case letter ‘l’s and
number ‘1’s become a muddle, in the same way letter ‘O’ is
confused with number ‘0’. There are other complications too, all
best seen in computer texts, and in the British postcode system when a
sans serif font is used. It really is impossible to interpret the
reading of some British post codes without checking on the standard
number/letter mix in less ambiguous codes.
An Australian 'tea party' classic
Code is the core
word. If one breaks the rules of the code, then there is no message
other than confusion. The ‘AO’ image survives because it is
promoted so heavily in its context. One does not immediately see an
inverted Iced VoVo biscuit, but it does arise as a possibility as one
considers the various readings. Why is there this effort to be so
clever by breaking the rules of letters? Good graphics can work on
many levels by using things ordinary and everyday: see the Jacobs
Creek graphic -
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2015/01/graphics-from-grapevine.html
This is a remarkable achievement that does not rely on being
creative in any smart, bespoke, personal manner.
Unique, individual
brilliance – “Look at ME!” - is a position that thrives in
architecture where one becomes a genius for breaking the rules –
see Gehry, et. al. The more extreme the outcome, the more exceptional
the person is considered to be. This approach gives us the ‘AO’
architecture that plays games for the sake of being different. We
need to find a way to be astonishing in an ordinary, everyday,
manner. We need to seek out meaning, not in clever inversions, but in
forms that can be clearly understood for what they are and what they
say, so that a rich, shared understanding can underlie our being, and
our culture. Existing in a world of individual geniuses intent on
sharing ‘selfies,’ only creates a tense schism that fragments,
when it is wholeness that enriches.
No 'Australian Open' when the ground establishes the baseline.
Slick, interesting
forms might grab attention, but they have little staying power;
lacking substance. They remain intriguing perhaps for only a few
minutes, until the next surprise arrives. Our architecture and
graphics need to be better than this, because we will only end up
with a world of distractions, with each seeking to outdo the other
for attention: “Look at ME: we’re the ‘AO’ ” - the dropped
iced VoVo of tennis. It is certainly an Australian reference! Given
the BOAQ graphic, maybe the ‘AO’ is ‘Architects Only’? Who
knows. It is only the sales promotion that is continually telling us
differently. Now this says something about how promotions change our
reading of things! Should we be concerned?
Variations on VoVos.
Perhaps a slick 'P' - a sick 'P'? Maybe a wounded 'A'?
AN 'A' IS NOT A 'V'
See also:
https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2017/06/on-graphics-make-america-grate-again.html
NOTE:
It is interesting to observe that KIA is a major sponsor of the ‘AO.’ ‘KIA’ shares
the idiosyncratic graphic inversion that is just as annoying, even with its quirky distortion. The bingo call, "Legs eleven" comes to mind, only here it is "Legs V." The graphic reminds one of the Johnny Walker brand; and walking fingers.
#
8 February 2020
The problem of an ad hoc inversion is one that is repeatedly experienced with number 6 and 9. Normal usage has no issue with the reading of these numbers. It is only in card games and similar situations where the direction of the number cannot be controlled, that we have the need for one number to be underlined. Usually number 9 is shown as 9 to differentiate it from an inverted 6 - 9 c.f. 9. The inclusion of some base text in association with the AO achieves the same outcome. The need for this device weakens the authority of the graphic, changes its inherent potency: exposes its weaknesses.
9 February 2020
For more on graphics, see: https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2020/02/aaca-graphics-questions-and-answers.html Here there are other examples where 'A's have been made by flipping the 'V', although both examples do make a gesture towards including the horizontal with the use of a swish form.
NOTE:
15 February 2020
Just drop the racket between a couple of balls, and one has: 'VOLVO'!
KIA may not be happy!
