1993 interview re: Paul Rand and Steve Jobs

19937:30English

Transcript

Machine transcript in the original language. It may contain errors. Select a timestamp to play that moment.

I had seen a lot of his work, but didn't know too much about him.
And when we were starting our quest for what our corporate identity was going to be,
a person that we had in-house gave me a few of his books and articles to read.
and I got up to speed on who he was and the immense body of his work,
which I wasn't familiar with at the time.
Was he the first designer that you approached?
He was the only one we approached.
He said he'd love to do it.
So he came out and visited us several times at Next
and got to know the company and the people
and I think solved a very difficult problem for us.
The problem he solved was,
Generally, most companies have their logo as just a logotype.
And every once in a while, a company has a logo that's sort of a little jewel, a symbol,
that can be used independently of the logotype.
And at Apple, we had such a symbol.
Matter of fact, at Apple, it was very rare because the symbol was the name of the company.
It was a thing that had the same name as the company in Apple.
Our challenge was that usually it takes, you know, 10 years and $100 million to associate a symbol with the name of the company.
Our challenge was how could we have a little jewel that we could use without the name to put on the product, etc.,
without spending, you know, $100 million and 10 years to make that association in the customer's mind.
And Paul solved that by making us a little jewel that had contained in it the name of the company.
And I think that he really approached it as a problem that had to be solved, not an artistic challenge for its own sake.
What was he like to work with?
Paul's a gem.
I think he personally kind of works on perfecting the exterior of kind of a curmudgeon.
I think he's perfected it to new heights, actually.
And it's all sort of a...
I think it's his way of dealing with the part of the world
that he doesn't necessarily want to deal with.
I found him to be extremely bright
and really have a heart of gold.
When I think of Paul, I think of a...
sort of a...
slightly tough exterior and a teddy bear inside.
But in particular, working with him, he is one of the most professional people I've ever worked with,
in the sense that he'd thought through all of the formal relationship between a client and a professional such as himself.
Obviously, very deep thoughts about this.
And therefore, he had very clear conclusions about what the relationship meant to both parties and how it should be conducted.
For example, I asked him if he would come up with a few options.
And he said, no, I will solve your problem for you, and you will pay me.
And you don't have to use the solution.
If you want options, go talk to other people.
But I'll solve your problem for you the best way I know how,
and you use it or not, that's up to you.
You're the client, but you pay me.
And there was a clarity about the relationship that was refreshing.
And again, really obviously the result of thinking about that relationship for many years or decades.
And it was evident in several types of things that came up throughout the relationship.
Paul's a phenomenal thinker, and I mean, he's a phenomenal writer,
and I think to be a phenomenal writer, that's just a reflection of his thinking.
He's a very, very deep thinker.
and you go visit him in the house that he designed and had built for himself decades ago
and you get a sense that this is a very deep, thoughtful person
who has tried to express in every part of his life what his principles are.
And you don't meet so many people like that today.
How would you describe his principles?
Paul is a very interesting intertwining of a pure artist and somebody who is very
astute at solving business problems.
And...
It's much easier to think of him as an artist,
but I actually think of Paul as much as a business problem solver as I do an artist.
And it's the marriage of those two things that I think,
the very, very practical and the artist that is unique.
So I'm not exactly sure if I could articulate his principles,
but you feel them when you're around him.
and that's probably the best I can say.
How would you describe his work?
His work for me is very emotional,
and yet when you study it,
it's very intellectual for me.
And so if you scratch the surface on any of his work, you find out the depth of the intellectual problem-solving that's taken place.
And yet when you first see it, it's wonderfully emotional.
And that's a consistency that's been throughout all of his work that I've seen.
Could you describe something that exemplifies that?
One of my favorite things that he's done, of course, is the IBM poster with the I, the B, and the M.
It was very powerful.
And it was that depth, again, that you find from Paul that I loved.
Thank you.
Thank you.

Transcript

Machine transcript in the original language. It may contain errors. Select a timestamp to play that moment.

I had seen a lot of his work, but didn't know too much about him.

And when we were starting our quest for what our corporate identity was going to be,

a person that we had in-house gave me a few of his books and articles to read.

and I got up to speed on who he was and the immense body of his work,

which I wasn't familiar with at the time.

Was he the first designer that you approached?

He was the only one we approached.

He said he'd love to do it.

So he came out and visited us several times at Next

and got to know the company and the people

and I think solved a very difficult problem for us.

The problem he solved was,

Generally, most companies have their logo as just a logotype.

And every once in a while, a company has a logo that's sort of a little jewel, a symbol,

that can be used independently of the logotype.

And at Apple, we had such a symbol.

Matter of fact, at Apple, it was very rare because the symbol was the name of the company.

It was a thing that had the same name as the company in Apple.

Our challenge was that usually it takes, you know, 10 years and $100 million to associate a symbol with the name of the company.

Our challenge was how could we have a little jewel that we could use without the name to put on the product, etc.,

without spending, you know, $100 million and 10 years to make that association in the customer's mind.

And Paul solved that by making us a little jewel that had contained in it the name of the company.

And I think that he really approached it as a problem that had to be solved, not an artistic challenge for its own sake.

What was he like to work with?

Paul's a gem.

I think he personally kind of works on perfecting the exterior of kind of a curmudgeon.

I think he's perfected it to new heights, actually.

And it's all sort of a...

I think it's his way of dealing with the part of the world

that he doesn't necessarily want to deal with.

I found him to be extremely bright

and really have a heart of gold.

When I think of Paul, I think of a...

sort of a...

slightly tough exterior and a teddy bear inside.

But in particular, working with him, he is one of the most professional people I've ever worked with,

in the sense that he'd thought through all of the formal relationship between a client and a professional such as himself.

Obviously, very deep thoughts about this.

And therefore, he had very clear conclusions about what the relationship meant to both parties and how it should be conducted.

For example, I asked him if he would come up with a few options.

And he said, no, I will solve your problem for you, and you will pay me.

And you don't have to use the solution.

If you want options, go talk to other people.

But I'll solve your problem for you the best way I know how,

and you use it or not, that's up to you.

You're the client, but you pay me.

And there was a clarity about the relationship that was refreshing.

And again, really obviously the result of thinking about that relationship for many years or decades.

And it was evident in several types of things that came up throughout the relationship.

Paul's a phenomenal thinker, and I mean, he's a phenomenal writer,

and I think to be a phenomenal writer, that's just a reflection of his thinking.

He's a very, very deep thinker.

and you go visit him in the house that he designed and had built for himself decades ago

and you get a sense that this is a very deep, thoughtful person

who has tried to express in every part of his life what his principles are.

And you don't meet so many people like that today.

How would you describe his principles?

Paul is a very interesting intertwining of a pure artist and somebody who is very

astute at solving business problems.

And...

It's much easier to think of him as an artist,

but I actually think of Paul as much as a business problem solver as I do an artist.

And it's the marriage of those two things that I think,

the very, very practical and the artist that is unique.

So I'm not exactly sure if I could articulate his principles,

but you feel them when you're around him.

and that's probably the best I can say.

How would you describe his work?

His work for me is very emotional,

and yet when you study it,

it's very intellectual for me.

And so if you scratch the surface on any of his work, you find out the depth of the intellectual problem-solving that's taken place.

And yet when you first see it, it's wonderfully emotional.

And that's a consistency that's been throughout all of his work that I've seen.

Could you describe something that exemplifies that?

One of my favorite things that he's done, of course, is the IBM poster with the I, the B, and the M.

It was very powerful.

And it was that depth, again, that you find from Paul that I loved.

Thank you.