I heard about that study on NPR this morning.  It occurred to me that IBM’s logo actually has something called “letters” in it, whereas Apple’s has a picture.  Thus with Apple’s logo the viewer has to (gasp!) translate a picture into a name, whereas with IBM’s logo he/she just says the letters silently or aloud (I doubt too many people automatically remember that IBM stands for International Business Machines).

Obviously (?) translation is more creative!

Piffle.

Well, beats me how it’s supposed to work. I didn’t feel any sudden bursts of creativity. But I didn’t sit down to think of all the different ways I could use a brick, either.

Do we look at the IBM logo and instantly break it down into letters or does the mind automatically translate the logo into an idea? I don’t think IBM has the same creative aura around it that Apple has created for itself, though. It’s all in the marketing. And, it appears, we have responded to the marketing in unexpected ways. Or some people have, at least.

I don’t know if it worked for me, but thanks for thinking about my state of mind.

I think when we look at the IBM logo we all think of those dreadful PCs and dreadful work and dreadful Windows. When we look at the Apple logo we think of excellent operating systems and a subculture of creativity and world harmony.

I’m just sayin!

Pablo, you have a Mac so you’re already in a heightened state of creativity. ;)

And yes, when I look at an IBM logo, I think of big business and mainframes and left brained stuff. When I look at a Mac, I drool.

I gazed ... and it broke. :/

LOL! Volkher, you looked at it too hard!