In this brief excerpt from the book Civiltà dello sguardo, Francesco Dondina explores the methods of designing visual identity, analyzes the evolution of corporate identity, and its shift from rigid models to more dynamic systems. He ultimately emphasizes the transition from the concept of corporate identity to branding, with a focus on the role of the designer in the digital age.
February 27, 2025
Identity can be defined in different ways depending on the point of view. From the subject’s perspective, identity is the set of elements that constitute its essence, its appearance, its character, and how it presents itself. From the observer’s perspective, however, the identity of someone or something is the perception that one has of that someone or something.
Visual identity is the visible perception of an entity, meaning the set of elements that characterize it and make it perceptible.
In the realm of design thinking, or Design as a practice and discipline, the visual identity of a subject should ideally be designed and built through a series of logical processes and carefully thought-out steps, involving analysis, interpretation, validation, and organized through communicative tools and linguistic supports, starting from thorough research to gather all possible information about the subject in question.
If we focus on the large corporate identity systems developed in Europe and the United States between the 1950s and 1970s, it will be evident how they were a well-structured expression of Western capitalist society, within which the coordinated image project unfolded according to a controlled, sequential, linear narrative, strongly hierarchical, with typically didactic applications.
These were impeccable visual architectures in which there was no room for interpretative ambiguity, and the logo was always at the top of this structure.
Between the 1970s and 1980s, with the crisis of the Modern Movement and the large political/economic changes that led to new social and cultural frameworks, a season of greater dialectic and openness followed, even in the field of visual communication. By the new millennium, we reached a scenario in which identity systems themselves seemed to reflect the fluidity and precarious structural nature typical of the current historical moment.
Suggested articles
Visual identity in liquid society
The phenomenon of fluidity was first discussed a few years ago by the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman when he presented his theory of the liquid society, recognizing among the typical characteristics of postmodernity the disappearance of solid references, such as the great 20th-century ideological narratives that for more than a century had influenced philosophical thought, literature, art, architecture, and political action.
The term ‘fluidity’ can be understood both in the sense of ‘flow’, ‘movement’, ‘dynamism’, as well as in the sense of ‘instability’, ‘provisionality’, ‘precarity’, and there is no doubt that both of these dimensions can be observed in today’s society.
Over the past ten years, we have seen a proliferation in the design of visual identities, with systems inspired by a dynamic balance that have produced highly appreciated and effective communicative results, such as the visual identity project for the contemporary art exhibition Documenta 13, developed by the Milan-based studio Leftloft.
However, over time, it seems that in some cases, there has been an excessive extremization, with new media platforms like websites and social networks being used to fully or partially replace conventional communication supports, resulting in the creation of rhizomatic structures in which the connection between different communicative layers no longer necessarily follows predefined logic, but often develops in a spontaneous or self-generating manner.
Homogenization and International Style
In this new landscape, those engaging in the design process are not always visual designers or communication designers, and when they are, they often find themselves sharing experimental strategies closely with the client or with new figures, in a promiscuity of roles and skills of extraordinary ambiguity. In this generalized and shared precariousness, form seems to have taken precedence over ideas and content.
Too often, designers are more concerned with finding the design that most aligns with the language of the international design community, rather than focusing on the message or object of communication. This attitude risks leading to extremely subjective viewpoints and standardizing signs in favor of a new, globalized international style.
Today, with rare exceptions, it is very difficult to distinguish a Chinese designer from a Mexican or a Dutch one, because local connotations are overshadowed by the aspiration to participate in the large hyperconnected community. In the age of social networks, the brand and its variations no longer play a central and hierarchically primary role, but it seems that they have been relegated to accessory functions in relation to other forms of visibility.
The brand or logo must be present—make no mistake—but they have been reduced to a kind of passive sign, label, or cover. Historically, the brand has always had the function of identification, primarily to declare a state of existence and then to express a state of belonging, or the social position of the subject in a given context.
These declarations could only be formulated in terms of differentiation from other subjects. This is the function historically played by all the archetypal forms of identity representation, from body markings to tattoos, from signs to coats of arms, from family crests to guild marks, and from commercial trademarks to large identity systems.
A large part of the brands designed and used in our time, however, seem to be inspired by almost opposite principles, and are highly variable depending on circumstances, contexts, and different narratives.
From corporate identity to branding
In the last few decades, there has been a shift from a model of rigid, unchanging, and static systems/brands to a system/brand that is variable, dynamic, and predominantly fluid, generated and disseminated with extreme speed.
This change occurred because, starting from the late 1970s and especially in the 1980s, corporate identity was replaced by branding strategies, shifting the focus from corporate identity to the fleeting dreams and aspirations of the consumer.
While corporate identity corresponded to a model of identity assertion, branding identity corresponds to experiential and narrative models aimed at stimulating the emotional sphere of the user/consumer. To give a concrete example, today the Gucci brand has more than thirty million followers on its Instagram page and over twenty million likes on Facebook.
The logo appears as a label on the cover page, and the historic ideogrammatic logo with the two crossed and mirrored G’s is used in changing and uncoordinated forms on products. While the brand is relegated to a simple label, most of the communication is entrusted to ever-changing visual narratives, interconnected across one network and another.
Where once the brand was the privileged tool of corporate communication, today this role is played by storytelling, built on brand values and audience expectations.
Globalization and the Standardization of Taste
It is now well-known: the contemporary era is characterized by globalization, which refers to the phenomenon of the absorption and global diffusion of ideas, feelings, needs, and issues, strongly conveyed through new mass communication media, the accessibility of which is now widely spread.
Contemporary society, subjugated to digital technologies, is consequently projected towards homogenization, which unifies thought and standardizes behaviors, because homogenization essentially means thinking in a single way and behaving according to shared models.
From here, it becomes evident that the very concepts of identity and differentiation are being put into crisis, as they are experienced as obsolete phenomena or even out of time. What appears to be different because inspired by differentiated identities compared to the shared standard will inevitably be perceived as disturbing, if not even hostile.
Differentiation as otherness or simply as diversity seems to have become a value to avoid. The totalitarian ideology of global homogenization that drives global markets and the manipulation and control strategies operated on the bodies of consumers can only declare itself hostile to the idea of identity differentiation, perceived as a dangerous form of freedom of thought.
All of this happens in the economic sphere but with dangerous repercussions also in the political realm, within the relationships between individuals and communities. We are facing an anthropological and social phenomenon of planetary dimensions with pervasive effects capable of contaminating entire cultures, if not even reconfiguring the very paradigms of contemporary civilization.
New categories of thought and new maps of emotions are today redrawn through bits, pixels, and likes, under the banner of a single thought that inspires our choices and is capable of guiding our consent.
The control of consumer masses is carried out through a constant action of homogenization of taste and needs. Therefore, not only is the commodity product standardized according to recurring canons, but even the signs that identify it, starting with the brand and the logo, are standardized.
Some exaples
Emblematic in this sense are the design outcomes of recent restyling of historic brands in the fashion industry such as Yves Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, Burberry, and many others. The new logos created are very similar to each other and seem to be inspired by the same typographic atmospheres.
They are all logos with a neutral and linear character, designed to work well on smartphones and mobiles, targeted at a contemporary audience raised in a context dominated by the supremacy of images, which no longer has time for details and, above all, is in a hurry.
According to this logic, no narrative concession is made to the history or origin of the product/brand, nor to the memory of a time, because everyone is projected into consolidating the idea of a permanent present without yesterday and without tomorrow.
These brands, once distinct and distant from each other both historically and culturally, today seem to be united only by their belonging to the same merchandise category.
In reality, today they appear only as the idea toward which contemporary consumption models are directed, designed to recognize and appreciate what is similar: if you like Balenciaga, then you will also like Burberry and probably Celine, but also X, Y, and maybe even Z, because what matters is to create and maintain a consumer culture of consensus inspired by recurring configurations.
Popular
For an Ethics of Communication design
Nowadays, thinking is often framed in terms of community and sharing, meaning groups of thought and taste connected by a common sentiment of appreciating something for the sake of belonging. Each group will be oriented to cultivate the same values or desires within itself, and the more similar the communities are, the more shared values will emerge. The more values are shared, the more controllable the market will be, and the more similar the solutions will become.
In light of these scenarios, I believe it is increasingly necessary to engage in serious and historically aware reflection on the role of communication designers in the contemporary era. The goal is to rethink, with a sense of responsibility, a new theoretical and ethical framework for the profession, starting from schools, universities, and associations that still believe in the graphic design profession.
The idea is to promote an open discussion by initiating a permanent dialogue with the business world and public institutions, not only to disseminate the history and memory of visual cultures but especially to raise awareness of what is currently happening in visual communications under our very eyes, all over the world.
Francesco Dondina is a visual designer, educator, and curator. Here is his bio.