« wisdom | Main | windowlickin' good »


interesting thoughts
totally agree

what would you put forward as great examples of this way of thinking?

Keep frequenting this place. Simple isn't it :)

Hmm..right, so life in all it's glory is rather complex - and that bit about agency entropy..

Could you go on a bit about this, please?


It might be my computer - but i can hardly hear what youre saying on this video/audio. Unfortunately as it sounds really interesting.

Also, i asked you a question (under your first Pilchards post)and you said you'd have a think about it - if have an answer to if would be cool to hear what you thought.....

Since i'm growing more anxious and confused by the day...


More Anxious and Still confused

Er, well, the audio sounds OK here. anyone else having the same problem.

I will endeavour to answer your questions as soon as I can. Which might be a little while. I'm not made of time. But I'll really try to do it.

Russell- Thanks for touching on complexity. I enjoyed the video, and as a Seattle native, was happy to here you name-drop the library. Anyway, what I'd like to know is if you could elaborate more on the methods that you mentioned that may be used to do this "complexity compression." In your IPA paper for Honda, you discussed at great length the fabulous book WK London put together before beginning work on the final product. I am trying to use a bit of this method myself now (as an art direction student), but I would like to know if you have used any other techniques that us 'creatives' could put to use. If so, let me know. Kind regards- Croix

Sorry, I meant to say the APG paper.

I follow you, but I'm not sure that your argument isn't in a sense also reductionist in-so-much-that relationships vary and to state that we ought to be seeking the nuances and complexity in a brand when engaging with an audience reduces all relationships to one kind or form. unfortunately i think there's room, too much room, for the rather shallow, blink-esque, style intuitive engagment - the BIG SHOUT etc. the full range from simple to complex to deal with different 'contexts' and relationships. [sorry, i've had a day thinking about building industry products and brands where i was really trying to think of the nuances and the solutions were actually all pretty simple. i think.]

interesting thoughts james. Obviously there should be loads of different types of relationships out there. And what I'm trying to do is just tip the balance a little away from default the assumption that every thing has to be as simple as possible.

One thought though, just because something can be understood with an instant, intutitive, blink-style leap, that doesn't mean it's not complex. Instant doesn't have to mean shallow.

Infact a lot of what I'm arguing for is that we ought to spend some time working on the nuances and textures which work at the intutive level and illicit a blink response. Below (or above) the BIG SHOUTY message. So on the surface it might be simple, but there's a lot of complexity buried in there.

Or something.

It's late.

We should revisit this topic.

The comments to this entry are closed.