Did Goodby's Silverstein Destroy Creativity as We Know It?

TalentZoo.com | Flack Me | Digital Pivot | Beneath the Brand

Archives | Categories

By: Dwayne W. Waite Jr.

There has been a lot of talk going on about the recent logo redesign of Goodby, Silverstein & Partners. Apparently, according to Adweek and Agency Spy, Silverstein, co-namesake and co-founder, sent a memo out to his staff about the rumor that the new logo is actually based on a logo from a defunct company 100 years ago.

Silverstein's response? Absolutely so. So what? A quote from his memo states:

"Appropriation is a big part of our culture. Sampling is part of the modern music scene. Andy Warhol’s most famous silk screens were made from other people’s photographs. And Richard Prince blew up cigarette ads to make art. Making something old new again was my full intention and I’m very happy with the outcome."

Did Rich Silverstein ruin creativity as we know it? From the nasty, negative, and disappointing comments found on Agency Spy's article, the answer appeared to be an overwhelming HELL YES.

But before we all pass judgment on Silverstein and tar and feather him, or feed him to the wolves, let's consider what exactly creativity means. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defined creative as "marked by the ability or power to create." It should be noted that "originality" is only a synonym, and not a characteristic, of being creative. Silverstein pointed out that it was not original, but he used something already there and made it his own. Could that be considered creative? Possibly. Let's continue.

Let's look at the word "creativity." We'll skip the definition to avoid duplicity, but let's look at the synonyms. Synonyms for creativity include "innovativeness, cleverness, ingenuity." Does Silverstein's act of taking a company's logo from 100 years ago and modifying it to fit his agency fall into one or all of those words? The argument could be made so.

So why are these creatives so upset? Perhaps its the way we framed the argument. Since it can be proven that Silverstein may not have destroyed creativity, maybe he bastardized art? Merriam-Webster's definition (the fourth one, if you're looking it up) is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."

There, you see, is where Silverstein's argument does not quite hold up. Was there a "conscious use of skill" in making the logo? Doubtful. Creative imagination? Maybe not.

Silverstein is correct when he says that our culture is full of copycats. The hyperbolic male figure. The nuclear family commercial. Humanistic objects. To call that art, would be misleading, but to call it uncreative is just as unjust.

The advertising purists that are hating on Silverstein's actions may want to get their arguments in line. It can logically be proven that the new Goodby logo was creative, but it cannot be considered artful.

Your thoughts?

blog comments powered by Disqus

About the Author

Dwayne W. Waite Jr. is partner and principal at JDW: The Charlotte Agency, a marketing and advertising shop in Charlotte, NC. He enjoys consumer behavior, economics, and football.

Beyond Madison Avenue on