<?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>A look at the spectacular logo-remix aesthetic of a rap culture style pioneer : Responses</title>
<description>Design Observer ::Â Join the Discussion</description>
<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/on-dapper-dan/37068/</link>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Design Observer Group</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2012-11-15T08:11:46-05:00</dc:date>
<copyright>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0</copyright>




<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "A look at the spectacular logo-remix aesthetic of a rap culture style pioneer"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[ I absolutely love this posting! I am surprised that the students who were exposed to this were not equally as impressed. I understand the negative connotation to imitation design, but I think that Dapper Dan is a representation of the subjectivity of iconography. I especially like that this designer realized that he could recreate these designs and give lucrative brands a run for their money. If you can't beat them, join them, but do it better! Dapper Dan's satirical representation of high-end fashion is just what the industry needed. I think it makes you think about what a logo really represents and questions the objectivity of the logo. In the end, good design is good design and if you are causing a stir then I think you are doing something right. Isn't memorability a big part of the structure of branding in the first place? Hats off to you Dapper Dan!]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/on-dapper-dan/37068/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2012-11-15T08:11:46-05:00</dc:date>
</item>



</channel>
</rss>

	


