Previously overlooked, it is now acknowledged that the 1960s-1980s was a key period for Ukrainian design. It is in these years that the profession and the disciplines were formed in the field that is now referred to as corporate identity design. Research into the history of local trademarks presents a multitude of challenges: the information is materially fickle, its significance is undervalued. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics broke up, most trademarks vanished along with the Soviet enterprises that they had been created for. Now we can only see the smallest parts of them in our daily lives; occasionally spotted at a flea market or discovered in a technology museum. The archives of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which has become the successor of the Soviet organization that was in charge of all the trademarks created in that period, have also undergone irreversible damage since the collapse of the USSR. Because of these episodes of turbulence, over the years, knowledge about these processes has been lost.

It is therefore with a documentary approach that we hope to fill in some of the gaps in the history of the graphic forms of local trademarks to complete the frame of reference of contemporary designers. We also propose to explore this “archive” as a working basis for formal exercises and interpretations. It is also by this way a possible reinterpretation and an informed appropriation that we have approached the task of recollection. Therefore, above all, we are interested in the significance and concrete consequences of this research within our own practices: the crystallised methods and possibilities of working today with the pre-existing forms we strive to research and document. Returning to specific authors and processes from the past allows us to learn from their practices and positions, question them and draw from their experience.

Although there are a few exceptions, namely amidst the design projects by renowned artists of the early 20th century, the “industrial art” which formerly occupied the front of the scene underwent the anonymization of its authors and consequently various forms of invisibility. Because of this, work in this field requires a special effort in its consideration, preservation and attribution. Architectural landmarks have faced vandalism and neglect in equal measure, but hardened in stone, they are irrevocably present in our visual environment. On the other hand, the marks and their material variations have difficulty obtaining the same level of attention as architecture, and are unlikely to be present in museums alongside the pieces of traditionally recognized art. To us, working on this archive has been in part a matter of critique of the insufficiency of the resources currently available and the shortcomings of design and conservation. As well as a hope for its improvement, this hope obviously jeopardised by this war.

The research Znak. Ukrainian Brands 1960-80 consists of collected resources and introductory notes which in part fill the gaps of history while comparing design in Ukrainian, Soviet, and worldwide contexts. Design researcher Olha Hladun examines how the form of the graphic mark is transformed in the Kharkiv tradition of specialized training in arts and industry. An introduction to the work and thoughts of the eminent designer and educator Volodymyr Pobiedin is offered.¹ He shares his insights into the process of creating graphic brands in Kharkiv in a rare book on the subject.² The designer and researcher Liia Bezsonova briefly traces the conditions and peculiarities of the work of graphic designers in Soviet institutions – branches of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Kharkiv, Kiev and Odessa – essential centres for brand creation.³ Another section presents comments from eyewitnesses of the design process in the 1960s-1980s: their accounts allow us to explore the daily life of this profession at the time. Eminating from another place – a Baltic country – and another time – our own –, the text by Rokas Sutkaitis, a Lithuanian designer and researcher, presents summary Soviet logos, and their correlation with similar projects of the time produced in capitalist countries.⁴

Our choice of material was not limited to the period 1960-1980, nor to the geography of graphic brands, nor even to commercial or institutional sources alone. Rather, since it was an attempt to trace the development of the graphic form, its context and subsequent transformations, the research, and the book (2019), which is also the catalogue of the exhibition that first disseminated this research in Kyiv (2017⁵), presents pieces by Ukrainian avant-garde artists from the 1920s, as well as logos created by graduates of Ukrainian schools in the 1990s, and living outside Ukraine.

The collection of these logotypes is therefore not only chronological, but also follows the similarities and differences in the formal approaches – sometimes used over decades, as well as certain developments, subsequent to the time limits of the research. In addition, this collection of resources also forms a kind of catalogue of techniques. Setting a process of documenting the past: we deliberately present the archives in their current state, preserving both the particular printing qualities of the Soviet catalogues and the casual digitisations that took place at different times, which today show only a fraction of the previously large collection of works. In this way, we emphasise the “life” of the logotypes, not only in the field of publishing but also with their presence on other types materials, from souvenir objects to aeroplanes.

It is important to note that, a visual narrative emerges in this which appears to us rather eloquent and autonomous. The materials presented in this collection of resources are sometimes universal, sometimes radical, but often bizarre and unique in their very marginal expressions.

As practitioners we are interested not only in the creation of this archive, but its practical significance: the methods and the possibilities of re-appropriation. Returning to specific authors and processes from the past enables us to draw from their experience, learn and even question.

In the editing for Problemata, we use the context of contemporary exercices, to show the issues at hang and cement our status as practitioners. The interview led by Professor David Crowley, graphic design specialist Véronique Marrier and research assistant Katya Hudson, sheds light on our approach very specifically.⁶ The publication of this research on Problemata also shows this stage, both methodological and cultural. Transformation and appropriation are two of the motives that transcend simple reproduction because they must show an understanding of the issues. It is with historical research that we have been able to approach them.