an unfiltered text from my Notes on "What is simple vs. What is clear" The issue that I have with the Bauhaus in general, is that they induced generations of trained architects and designers to conflate the notion of clarity for simplicity.. As if something that looks or has a “clean” appearance, is also “simple”, and therefore it is to be considered as the superior solution Every object carries a meaning. A building, a teapot, a website. Whether representational or “abstract”, it is “about something”; it represents its function to the eyes. The simplicity of such objects, involves, more than the visual appearance in and by itself, the relation between the image seen by the eye and the statement it is intended to convey I was thinking recently abt the Burberry Logo under Tisci tenure.. What does it convey? Does the no-frills design signify “rigidness” reflecting strict adherence to minimalism? or could the use of a modern typeface be a nod to “modernity”? Can't say.. Here's the 2023 Burberry logo under D. Lee… This resonates with a sense of elitism and nobility. It reflects a richness but also a soulful purity. Like an obvious and deliberate return to the chivalric virtues. The first logo might trick you into thinking it's "simple". But that's just on the surface. But there's a vast space between what it looks like and what it means. It's a riddle, wrapped in minimalism.. The second logo is the opposite. It looks complicated, but it's actually straightforward. Its elaborate design is a direct expression of the rich heritage it's meant to convey. It's like a sentence whose intricate verbal structure exactly corresponds to the intricate structure of the thought to be expressed.. Simplicity requires a correspondence in structure between meaning and tangible pattern.