So some one recently sent me the Oscar winning Logorama video and I felt it was a little bit heavy handed and lacked any real commentary. There's an artist in particular I'm thinking of who did a series of pieces with logos and the one I can remember most clearly was the NIKE Michael Jordan AIR logo hanging from a TIMBERLAND boots logo which is a tree. If any one can remember who made this piece and could possibly link me an example of it would be very helpful. I would really like to show my friend why this "logorama" video fails to entertain me and why to an extant I actually find it very bothersome and I might even say tacky. I'm not sure if that's the best word for it or not.
Also, this is my first post here and I'm sorry if it is inappropriate this is one of the only art related forums I could think of that I could ask this. My apologies if this type of post is frowned upon or something like that. Feel free to simply discuss the Logorama peice as well of course, and if you disagree with me or do agree with me let me know. Or if you want to mention other artists who uses logos in a more useful way than this animation.
Trying to remember artist name..
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Warhol did a lot of logo based pieces, but it's not what you are thinking of; just thought I'd mention that. Also, I thought the lack of a story or concept, combined with the onslaught of logos, was kind of the point of the piece (hence the 2012 destruction of California). I thought it was pretty impressive for 3D animation with cell shading, without cast shadows.
But there was a story, a full on holly wood thriller type scenario. With an added generic animation sense of humor that really takes away from anything besides it being a quirky fun time for the viewer. Rather than any sort of contemplation or worry about logos, commercialism or consumerism. Again I could be all wrong but that's how it comes off to me.
oh I just figured it out, it was Hank Willis Thomas.
[img]http://swarmstudios.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/dscn4576.jpg[/img]
I'm not sure why you think there had to be, "contemplation or worry about logos." I think that the fact that it was a typical Hollywood blockbuster action sequence, but was proliferated with logos, was the point; the significance of Logorama is that the vein of the expression (logos) in which it was created was the commentary on the vehicle (Hollywood action/destruction-movie flick) itself; if you had a bunch of actors walking around with no facial features, and logos on their faces, that would have been too literal.
I feel that a huge part of Logorama's concept was the 'over the top' perspective of the commercialism in every day and film life, to where the point of reality and film is blurred to the viewer/consumer; nothing really matters in the narrative of the film, because as a viweer, you are forced to recognize every logo in every scene. That is what I thought was impressive.
I feel the idea you had that would be "too literal" would be far better, because it actually would have an illustrated critique. You would know directly what it's targeting. Logorama instead comes out sloppy, with an almost random selection of logos with their only relation being how they look and not what they stand for. Quickly it becomes a gimmicky tool that is only celebrating the visualization of logo's rather than contemplating or presenting these logos in any meaningful way.
Illustrated critique? That is your interpretation of the piece. YOU feel that there should be a critique of logos in Logorama, as if there should be an inherent moral implication of logos and of the film, which is spoon-fed to the viewer? I'm glad that it is open for interpretation…