<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">

<channel>
<title>Swoosh. Repeat.  : Responses</title>
<description>Design Observer ::Â Join the Discussion</description>
<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/swoosh-repeat/31938/</link>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Design Observer Group</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-01-03T23:02:09-05:00</dc:date>
<copyright>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0</copyright>




<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Swoosh. Repeat. "]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[We shouldn't get too carried away with fetishising the logo and repetition in and of itself. The ubiquity of the logo is just as much a product of the industrial/corporate machine that is Nike. The aura of the logo is the deliberate product of targeted associations with, among other things, professional sport, Black American youth culture, and technological superiority. The design of the logo did not end with the graphic itself. It has always and continues require the broader economic, industrial, and marketing strategies of Nike, not to mention the function of the state in facilitating globalised trade practices and local copyright protections, in order to sustain its dominance. Concealing the machine behind the reigning effect of Nike by focusing on the isolated graphic is just as much a sign of, and contribution to Nike's success.  ]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/swoosh-repeat/31938/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2012-01-03T23:02:09-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Swoosh. Repeat. "]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[This is fascinating, and I believe repetition does encourage the perception that something has validity. Do we not repeat a science experiment, or recite a religious text for the same reason?]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/swoosh-repeat/31938/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2012-01-03T13:42:41-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Swoosh. Repeat. "]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[great question and article though, I guess if we knew the answer we could create meta-successful multi-billion dollar companies.]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/swoosh-repeat/31938/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2012-01-03T11:38:10-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Swoosh. Repeat. "]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Also worth noting is the symbols ability to teeter along the edge of abstraction. The graphic symbol is simple enough to be consistently recognized regardless of cultural language boundaries but has enough formal "styling" to contain an "identity". ]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/swoosh-repeat/31938/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2012-01-03T11:36:41-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Swoosh. Repeat. "]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[I have a feeling that if Nike was not one of the most successful apparel/consumer product companies ever that the logo would have much less meaning.  I always thought it was the company that made the mark and not the other way around.  I believe Paul Rand said as much.  The ubiquity of the swoosh stems from Nike's ability to innovate, reinvent and market.]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/swoosh-repeat/31938/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2012-01-02T14:53:24-05:00</dc:date>
</item>



</channel>
</rss>

	


