Wednesday, May 12, 2010


We have a conversation going over on Persist: The Blog this week about "branding." Do you have any thoughts about this? Does the idea of branding appeal to you? Is it a necessary evil for one who's involved in creative work--perhaps even for a blogger--if one wants to be "successful"? Or is it anathema? I'd really love to have the input of The Buddha Diaries readers, since so many of you are clearly creatively-inclined. If the topic pricks your interest, it's an easy hop over to Persist: The Blog, where you can either "comment" as usual, or send lengthier thoughts to me vie the email address given in the sidebar. It's my hope to make the site as interactive as possible, and not just a place for me to bloviate!

1 comment:

CHI SPHERE said...

I've worked in the branding industry for 25 years but think it's been with us since we began to make marks.

My friend works as a physical anthropologist and identifies early marks and symbols as well as those used today in still existing isolated tribes. Identity and quality are survival tools used to come to quick choices re food, flight or flight, safety or risk etc.
It often takes the place of introspection or discovery as long as the archetypal mark is easy to relate to and has previous reinforced experiences related to the image.

Artists risk the stigma of branding themselves too early in their development. It really pissed Rothko off when a collector asked for "5 more purple ones", thinking that they were painted like shirts are manufactured.

I know many artists who had a good idea, worked through it and when the concept was exhausted changed to investigate another way of working only to be dropped by their dealers for not making more of the same.

Remember 'The New Coke'? Even corporate giants can't change once the branding has taken.