Proper Names - Definition

Dominic,

Actually, in retrospect, the paper's solution is quite funny -- and for the reasons you cite.

Neil

The newspaper story I mentioned went the other way - they wrote "IPhone", which looked very strange but was the logical consequence of trying to enforce standard capitalisation on trademarks. In that case, they respected neither the trademark nor conventional capitalisation.

Dominic,
>Would you follow the rules of sentence capitalisation

Interestingly that very same point came up for the design firm I worked for, perhaps 35 years ago. A client at the time had the last name "de Bary". We had to design a brochure for his company of the same name. There were several instances where sentences started with his name. We discussed it at length, and in the end decided to preserve the integrity of the name, rather than sentence structure convention.

Neil

>There are many deliberate decisions we have to make that involve not doing what we want.

Well, since this particular digression was about whether your decision not to use the spell checker or a dictionary or to proofread your posts was deliberate, I take it from your comment above that it was indeed deliberate.

>Do you really think there are actually no limits at all? No limits before the bending or breaking of rules for art's sake just becomes farcical, and takes it into the poor category? In fact, is no art poor?

That's begging the question - you're assuming that I agree with you that breaking the rules makes poor art. So, let's be clear: I don't agree with you on that. Actually, I don't even agree with you that designing is art. As I've said before, if you want to discuss art criticism, find an appropriate forum. This is a typography forum. (I've said in the past that I considered some typesetting could be considered art, but these days I just regard it as a craft.) As far as branding or logo design goes, if it's not serving its purpose, it fails as a brand or logo. (But even that doesn't mean that it's necessarily without aesthetic merit.)

>Why would I not expect to be challenged on my statements or not expect the thread to wonder on a public forum?

I don't know why you wouldn't expect to be challenged on your views, but that's the impression I've got from your posts, and comments like "shouldn't we be discussing the use of lower case for proper names?" and that "*that* is what this thread is supposed to be about" seem to me to be expressing a desire to limit the scope of the thread. (Incidentally, "expect the thread to wonder" could be considered gobbledegook by your standard of not relying on context, but because I believe context is always relevant, I was easily able to understand it. In other words, what is gobbledegook to one person is perfectly clear to another.)

>As for unicase fonts ... I can't see the point in such fonts.

For a designer, I do think you impose too many limits on yourself.

>If they do work in certain designs for the target market well, so be it. I still think it's a poor design though, and I'm not sure you can be certain capitals wouldn't also have worked in such cases.

Any number of designs may work, but they would likely all convey slightly different impressions. For example, Halfords may have gone for all lowercase because they found it more lighthearted, irreverent, and less formal than using either a capital "H", all capitals, or a cap and small caps. Quite possibly, they tested a number of options and this is the one that best conveyed the image they wanted.

>I don't see how it can be considered to have 'worked' if I think the London Olympics logo text is poor.

I'm not saying it's worked because it's poor - I'm saying it worked because you understood what it meant and you found it memorable, for whatever reason. Also, you may well have given it wider exposure by discussing it here and (assuming this is not the only place you've raised the issue) by talking about it among your friends and colleagues.

>Is there any point in producing good art anymore?

As I said above, I don't regard logos as art - they are a commercial tool and I think you're missing the point by rating them solely by whether they meet your (somewhat selective) standards of grammar.

Here's another question for you (prompted by an article in the paper): How would you treat "iPod" or "iPhone" when it's at the start of a sentence? Would you follow the rules of sentence capitalisation "IPods are selling well this year" or do you think it's okay to break that rule if you like the result? ("iPods are selling well this year.") And how about if you had to set the word in caps and small caps? Do you find IP OD acceptable?

Hey, I've just seen Neil's post (don't know why but missed it before), Msg 73:-

>Unless the responses here turn south, or you two get tired of the back-and-forth, the topic can go on and on and on and on and....

Whey hey!!!! Hold onto your hats folks .... here we go!!!

No, I'll try my best to bring it to a close, really I will.

>That still implies a deliberate decision (ie, not to check the text) on your part

There are many deliberate decisions we have to make that involve not doing what we want.

>Okay, so your previous statement was really saying "BUT ..... as I've stated many times, Richard Archer-Jones has set a limitation to bending the rules for art's sake, and *that* is what this thread is supposed to be about."

Do you really think there are actually no limits at all? No limits before the bending or breaking of rules for art's sake just becomes farcical, and takes it into the poor category? In fact, is no art poor?

>Well, if you just want to pontificate on your view of acceptable design, write a blog.

Sorry, blogs are beyond me at the moment. I have a vague idea what they are but not sure.

>If you post on a public forum, expect to be challenged on your statements and expect the thread to wander.

You've lost me on this one. Why would I not expect to be challenged on my statements or not expect the thread to wonder on a public forum? And why would such a thing not also happen on a blog (whatever one of them is)?

>Here's a couple more questions for you: if someone came to you to do some work with a predesigned lowercase logo (or with something that transgressed another of your limits), would you refuse to work on it? And how do you feel about unicase fonts?

Oh I would do the job. As much as I consider it's a poor design I wouldn't jeapordise my job for such principles (but I might do for such principles as Neil suggests). As for unicase fonts (I presume a unicase font only has one case, as opposed to the word 'unisex' which is ridiculously taken to mean both sexes), well, just as I can't see the point in lower case proper nouns I can't see the point in such fonts. The reasons that you state as 'the point' don't work for me for the reasons I have stated. If they do work in certain designs for the target market well, so be it. I still think it's a poor design though, and I'm not sure you can be certain capitals wouldn't also have worked in such cases.

> ....... and (as I've previously noted) the Olympics logo has certainly lodged itself in your brain, so it's worked as far as you're concerned.

Mmmm ..... do you really call that 'worked'? Does the saying 'Any publicity is good publicity' always work? I think we're back to this 'limits' thing again. I don't see how it can be considered to have 'worked' if I think the London Olympics logo text is poor. By that reasoning the whole logo itself can be considered to have 'worked' because I think it's poor. How does that reasoning work? Is there any point in producing good art anymore?

If I may step in for a moment with a point of view...
>if someone came to you to do some work with a predesigned lowercase logo

Interesting question, and I'd like to offer my take...although the answer should be pretty easy for most experienced designers. Unless you, as designer, are also being paid to redesign the mark, or you're quite comfortable financially, it's a commercial design assignment, and that's what you're trained to do to put food on the table. You put personal feelings aside, do the job to the client's pleasing (even if not to yours), take the check and move on.

On the other hand, if the job is to promote, say, a political candidate, religious doctrine, medical or environmental process that goes against your beliefs; or if you feel that the client will be difficult to work with or you will not be able to get a fair fee for the job, you should feel free to walk away.

Neil

>This is a very strange statement for an artist to make.

Why? Are artists not supposed to be able to understand the concept of a rule? (By the bye, I'm not an artist and I've never described myself as one. I'm not even a designer. I'm a typesetter.)

>I thought you agreed with artistic license and the bending of rules for such a cause.

I don't have a problem with people breaking rules, depending on context. Specifically here, I don't have a problem with people designing logos using lowercase instead of an initial capital ("london", "halfords") or using capitals within a word ("iPod"). But I'm not trying to pretend that one or both of these don't break the rule about correct capitalisation, because they both do.

>They are either broken or not, and artistic license therefore involves breaking rules, not bending them?

In this case, yes.

>It could be that I want to but just haven't got the time

That still implies a deliberate decision (ie, not to check the text) on your part.

>There's still no capitals involved, and as far as I recall it's only capitals that can indicate a proper name.

(Only *initial* capitals, according to the norms of English capitalisation.) I was just trying to establish what "some indication that those words are special" could encompass.

>Yes, but what's the point? What's the point in making the viewer rely on context and not using one of the few means of expression that the written language has over the spoken word?

Simple - for effect. That result might be purely aesthetic or it might rely on some kind of visual pun or it might even have been done just to provoke a reaction. In terms of getting your brand out there and noticed, any or all of these are justified, and they all utilise the difference between the written word and the spoken word - namely, the former's visual nature. We're talking here about logos, not formal essays. If a logo isn't distinctive and memorable, it's not serving its purpose, and (as I've previously noted) the Olympics logo has certainly lodged itself in your brain, so it's worked as far as you're concerned.

>Of course those limits are Richard Archer-Jones's limits.

Okay, so your previous statement was really saying "BUT ..... as I've stated many times, Richard Archer-Jones has set a limitation to bending the rules for art's sake, and *that* is what this thread is supposed to be about." Well, if you just want to pontificate on your view of acceptable design, write a blog. If you post on a public forum, expect to be challenged on your statements and expect the thread to wander.

Here's a couple more questions for you: if someone came to you to do some work with a predesigned lowercase logo (or with something that transgressed another of your limits), would you refuse to work on it? And how do you feel about unicase fonts?

Richard,<br />>One of these days the host is going to step in with "Stop! Stop! I can't take anymore!<br /><br />Unless the responses here turn south, or you two get tired of the back-and-forth, the topic can go on and on and on and on and....<br /><br />Some topics have continued for many hundreds of posts.<br /><br />Neil <g>

Gosh, there's got to be a limit to the amount of postings a thread can take. One of these days the host is going to step in with "Stop! Stop! I can't take anymore! This thread's about to blow!" :)

Meanwhile .....

>I don't think you can "bend" the rule of capitalization for proper nouns (and I haven't claimed that you can), because it is a very simple, black-and-white rule (which is why I think the pregnancy analogy is appropriate).

This is a very strange statement for an artist to make. Most rules are black and white in nature are they not? I thought you agreed with artistic license and the bending of rules for such a cause. Pray do tell, are there no rules you think can be 'bent' for art's sake? Or is it a case of you consider you cannot bend the rules (or perhaps this one specifically) at all? They are either broken or not, and artistic license therefore involves breaking rules, not bending them?

>Perhaps you could tell us what those limits are and who set them? Or is it really just a case of what Richard Archer-Jones likes is acceptable and what he doesn't is exceeding the limits?

But art is subjective is it not? Of course those limits are Richard Archer-Jones's limits. I have given my limits, and my reasons, based on aesthetics and grammar.

>1. You have said that you can ensure correct spelling when you want to (eg, for finished pieces of art). 2. Your posts here contain numerous spelling mistakes. 3. Thus, I inferred that you didn't want to ensure that the spelling was correct in these posts, and I would have thought that that was a deliberate decision.

Well, I've been using the spell checker everytime (forgot once) since you pointed it out to me. If there are still spelling mistakes then it is going to take me even longer to answer your posts than it already does. From your analysis the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow that I don't want to correct my spelling. It could be that I want to but just haven't got the time (it takes me long enough as it is). It seems to me we are getting back into doggy ground again here, like the 'most' argument.

>Treating the first letter in a distinct way would also indicate that the words are special.

Well, personally, repeat, personally I don't think it would. There's still no capitals involved, and as far as I recall it's only capitals that can indicate a proper name. It's like dying our queen's (God bless her) hair gold instead of giving her a crown. She'd certainly look distinctive, poor thing, and people might consider her special (or nuts), but I don't think she would consider that much compensation for a crown. What d'ya think Heather? :)

You see, give a word a coloured first (lower case) letter and I think people would just wonder "Why's that first letter a different colour?". I don't think they would conclude "Ah, that must be a special word, it must be a proper noun".

>Which is precisely why I (and others here) have no problems with the use of lowercase under discussion. Context is always relevant.

Yes, but what's the point? What's the point in making the viewer rely on context and not using one of the few means of expression that the written language has over the spoken word?

You are right, the spoken word has no way of indicating a proper name and yet we seem to get along alright with that deficiency. Sometimes confusion can occur and I'm sure some jokes rely on such confusion, but how does that affect the written word? They are two different methods of communication and speech can convey many things that the written word cannot, but in this case the written word has the advantage. Why ignore that advantage?

Heck, I'm not doing a very good job of keep my posts short am I? Sorry folks, I just can't help myself.