ABOUT & AUTOBIOGRAPHY

Susan Elizabeth (Suzy) Rice, a painter and writer.

There are several persons with presence on the internet, in media and world affairs, who use the identity of “Susan Elizabeth Rice” and also “Suzy Rice,” none of whom I am affiliated with, nor their websites and issues promoted, nor am related to any of them, to my knowledge (and my family relations are well known to me for many generations past – there is an extensive history of the Rice surname that I may add to one of my sites at some future time, but none of that history identifies any family relationship between me and the various other persons currently known by my same birth name). My work is identified by the use of Suzy Rice and/or Susan Elizabeth (Suzy) Rice and always in some combination of those two — if that doesn’t appear, it’s not my page or project or item. Because of this intermingling by several persons using my full, legal name, particularly on the internet, providing a bit of history here as to who I am is hoped to be clarifying as to issues, projects and associations.

Part I.

History As Is My Name

I attended Western Illinois University in Macomb, Illinois, the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida and the University of California in Irvine, CA. I married Daniel H. (Dan) Vining, screenwriter and novelist, while still enrolled at the University of Florida, and Dan and I moved to Northern California when Dan was awarded a Stegner Fellowship from Stanford University.

I was employed as Designer and later, Assistant Art Director, during that time by Rolling Stone magazine in San Francisco, CA and was originally known there and credited as Suzy Vining and later reverted legally to my name of Susan Elizabeth Rice as also the use of Suzy Rice, which I continued to use while later employed as Art Director by Seiniger Advertising (as it was known then) in Los Angeles, CA and Lucasfilm, Ltd. After a marriage to Anthony S. (Tony) Lane, I became known as Suzy Rice-Lane. Years later, after a divorce from Tony Lane, I again reverted to my own name, Susan Elizabeth Rice and the use of my nickname, Suzy Rice.

No One Said History Was Simple. Least of All, Me

To further complicate these issues, there are several persons with media presence who use the name of Tony Lane and a few more who use the name of Dan Vining.

The Tony Lane I was married to is self-described as “painter, photographer, designer, former Art Director at Rolling Stone and Sony Music, Oakland, CA” (and was also the Art Director of Fantasy Records, Elektra-Asylum Records and Forbes’ magazine’s “FYI” publication).

Among the Tony Lanes I was not married to are the following:

– songwriter and musician in and of Nashville, TN (”Tony Lane and the Fabulous Spades”);
– a Christian theologian/writer/editor in the U.K.;
– former make-up artist and internet creative personality who manages or managed a fan club for Jackie Chan;
– the Chief of Police in Castle Rock, CO;
– a football player;
– this nice guy in Cleveland, Ohio;
– a make-up artist;
– a critic/columnist who writes about various entertainment and cultural issues;
– a freelance photographer and digital artist; and,
– a painter in New Zealand (whose paintings I like very much).

And those are but a few who resulted after a simple Google search.

The Dan Vining I was married to is the only Dan Vining who has written and received screenwriter credit for the film, “Black Dog,” and authored the novel, “The Quick“, so, that part of history is quite simpler presented than the rest.

Part II

As one of the two Art Directors at Seiniger Advertising, I provided creative design services for the development and application of many feature film print advertising campaigns, and among one of the first films I was assigned was “Star Wars,” which was still in production. None of the effects were available to view — there were production stills but those didn’t include the special effects seen later in the published film(s) — so, the area of the print advertising for this film in which I was involved was done predominantly based upon concepts and ideas as described to me during a few meetings with George Lucas as to what the effects would look like and from statements made to me by Charlie Lippincott — who was handling the publicity for the film at that time — about, mostly, the characters that would appear once the film was completed.

So I designed the logo for the film, “Star Wars” with a minimalist directive from George Lucas: he said he wanted “something very fascist” as to the film’s logo. The film later became known as “Star Wars, Episode IV, A New Hope,” but my work was for and about the main title at that time, “Star Wars” (upon which the rest of the titling later has been constructed and which appears in the main titles of each Episode beginning with that first Episode IV release in 1977).

This title at that time was limited because not only did the first film not yet exist (”Star Wars, A New Hope” or “Episode IV”), but none of the sequels existed yet, either. So for those of us working on the one and only not-yet-completed film at that time of production, it was just “Star Wars”. It later became “Star Wars, A New Hope – Episode IV”.

After the film’s release — that first Episode IV — all the characters, the story, the effects, names, places, all became well known in our culture but at the time I worked on the film, all of that existed entirely in the realm of the imagination with exception for the live action that had already been completed (as could some of that be seen in production stills, sans all effects and including production roughage that would later be removed in editing). I did get to see many of the original props, including “The Death Star” (it was a very large table model, flat, scanned by a camera moving overhead which would simulate the flight-footage seen in the finished film), the “stars” in the “universe” (large, curved-glass matt-painting) and several of the “space ship” or craft models, so, again, what the film was to become was entirely to be imagined at that developmental stage. And there’s a funny story about being greeted at a nondescript, urban stage door by “Greedo” when in the course of meeting with George to show him the print-advertising progress; such story, though, I’ll save for later.

I’m going to now delve into details that some may find tedious, but, there are many more who really want to know these details, right down to the angles involved and attitudes that inspired them, so, thus, details that follow.

The STAR WARS Logo

I’d been (randomly) reading a book about German type design the night before my first meeting with George Lucas, a book that provided historical information about a few now-popular typefaces as to how they’d developed into what we see and use in the present. And so, when I first met with George and he described what he wanted as to a logo for his film (that was still in production, so what was available as reference rested mostly in his imagination and as to that, he described what he had in mind, waved his hands and pointed his fingers and such), I returned to the office and used what I reckoned to be the most “fascist” typeface I could think of as reference: Helvetica (Helvetika) Black. Because I’d been reading the night before about Helvetica (”Helvetika”) and how it came to exist.

Helvetica is the contemporary family name of the typeface, and “Black” is a secondary font within that font family: a modified, emboldened weight of the original (there is also, then, similarly, an italicized version of Helvetica, “Helvetica Italic,” and several others within the font family of Helvetica.)

Helvetica is a relatively contemporary typeface, protected by Trademark owned by Linotype, that was designed in 1957 by Max Miedinger for the Haas Type Foundry in Switzerland. However, there existed an earlier typeface that was designed and put into use by Joseph Goebbels for the German Socialist Party and it is Goebbels’ type design that is regarded as being the forerunner of what was later the derivative typeface (re)designed by Miedinger and named as Helvetica.

George told me he wanted “a logo that’s very fascist,” and so, I referred to the fascists.

There have been a few books written about Helvetica recently from contemporary perspectives and although well written, they revise the history involved. Reading a few, I see an effort to both minimize if not avoid a past creative venture and to deny that it occurred and for contemporary, political reasons. It was a dreadful politic and time, best to sweep it away, or so many have thought.

However, in Literary Theory, there is an understanding of arts apart from troublesome political pasts, creative works as later having been “cleansed” (it’s a term used in Literary Criticism today) as to the conceptual and theoretical and in relationship to any problematic politics associated with their origins, and, thereby, considered on their creative merits without association to offensive political characteristics. The idea is that creative works can stand alone on their own characteristic merits, apart from the political aspects originally associated with them or with which they were associated. A typeface becomes what it literally looks like and emotes, it’s value and definition what is visible, not who with what awful deeds designed it or what historical time produced it, as also a painting, same, and so on.

Again, I’m referring to creative works — visuals, films, not ideologies in or among which those works were created.

Helvetica in it’s original permutation is a work of art that has been cleansed in this regard and it is a disservice to rewrite the history of the art involved out of fear for the climate in which the art was created; and, using the art or making reference to it does not thereby imply nor make reference to the now-removed, offensive originating circumstances — not in the case of this typeface nor in the case of other, similarly considered creative works.

The word, “Helvetica” (“Helvetika” is the German spelling) is an adaptation of the word, “Helvetia,” which is the Latin word for “Switzerland.” The official name of the typeface, as it was credited to Miedinger, is “Confoederatio Helvetica,” which in Latin means “Swiss Confederation.”

But, the forerunner typeface version, Helvetika without patent, was designed for use in culture-wide signage — road signs, license plates, “official” statements — to implement a standard of appearance by a fascist government for purposes of both organizing and monopolizing culture through a uniform statement (uniformity of expression and style). Repetition in usage expresses an absence of difference, a lack of variation, an insistence or demand of the similar (not inherently a negative thing but certainly a fascist application to ensure a fascist congestion of message).

And, the later modernization and redesign of Helvetica/Helvetika into acceptable use as later, then, patented as Helvetica as designed by Meidinger, suggested a solution to my sense of things as to how to fulfill the request by George Lucas for a “very fascist” logo for his film. There seemed a parallel sentiment there from a perspective of drama.

Which isn’t to say or suggest that I was assuming similarities between past history and the politics of fascism with the project before me at that time, but that I associated the theatrical statements of fascist imposition by design with a request for a fascist dramatic statement.

The history of the typeface to include the origin and later permutation brought about “balance to the force,” for lack of a better way to express things here — good out of evil. I wanted to make the same statement, for the same reasons, and found the design history of that particular typeface, Helvetika in it’s origin into the later appearing and now acceptable Helvetica to be altogether fascinating design history.

And, so, I drew, by hand on vellum paper with a .05 lead pencil the original logo on page size 18 x 24”, the words, “Star Wars” in outlined letter characters, using the typeface, Helvetica in weight Helvetika Black as a reference, but hand rendered each letter character of the title to create a unique form, breaking the two words in the one title into two lines, stacked and squared.

My involvement at that point with the film was for purposes of designing a print project called an Exhibitor’s Bid Brochure, a marketing item that was to be mailed to exhibitors (film theaters, businesses that “exhibit” motion pictures) to encourage theater commitment to the title prior to release (a speculative, necessary process by film distributors — you arrange “bookings” with exhibitors to ensure a film’s exposure, prior to a film’s release), and the Brochure was designed to an 11 x 14” horizontal-read format, so the front cover area of that Brochure project was instrumental in how and where I was focused when considering the logo design. The Bid Brochure format reminded me of a screen and so the logo over-sized and emboldened on that cover in the dimensions and layout brought to mind a “big screen” display during that design process.

In the process of drawing the logo, I requested a few photostats of my hand-drawn logo and liked a reverse version — white outline against black background (the original drawn in pencil outline against a white sheet of vellum) — which emphasized even more so the forceful characteristic of the title statement (and also encouraged the severity, the force, as to impact of the logo). It was that first hand drawn vellum copy of the logo and a reverse stat of it for purposes of illustrating the cover for the Bid Brochure that I showed to George Lucas, who liked what he saw but remarked that it read like “Tar Wars” and asked me to modify the leading and concluding “S”s of the two-word, two-line title, to make them more immediately readable. So, returning to my office, I did that, modifying the two “S”s in the title — one at the beginning, one at the end — by foreshortening the two ligatures on those two “S”s. I showed that second, revised version to George, he liked it, and the logo went to finish without any further modifications.

In order to “go to finish,” the original logo — my hand-drawn artwork on vellum paper in pencil — had to be inked (traced over by an inking artist onto more permanent material). That is, an inking artist is studio talent capable in the drafting process referred to as inking: copying (tracing) without any variation, an original artwork onto translucent acetate and/or vellum paper (or similar clear film substances). An inking artist is relied upon not to make any content variations or changes to an original artwork, but to literally transfer an original artwork by tracing it in ink, onto a film or more substantial paper or plastic overlay. An inking artist doesn’t author an artwork but traces an original artwork as a technical step that progresses an original artwork from original drawing “to finish.”

At least, that was the technical process available at that time, when computerized renditions, revisions and finishes weren’t technically available: everything was done by hand, one stage, one process at a time. Walt Disney used this process in his garage when he put his first staff (including his family) to work, inking his penciled drawings of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, Mickey Mouse and, later, Donald Duck, but the finished work was and remained the creative, conceptual work of Walt Disney, not of the various persons who inked his drawings after Disney first drew them (technological times were radically different not so long ago before digital technology became available to the individual artist in recent decades).

So, about the Star Wars logo: from that inked, traced copy, the finished logo (or any work completed in the same process, as with the drawings done by Disney and other artists) could be reproduced in film and then, also, reproduced in various printing processes. An inked version of an original art work creates a reproducible version and it also enables greater longevity, especially when an artwork is intended for filmed or lithographed reproduction and replication. Again, such were the technical processes available during the 1970’s, although they are still used by some animators today. I heard years later that there was talk that the inking artist — person who “inked” my original logo drawn by me on vellum paper in pencil — that the inking artist had been suggested as the author of the logo design.

And, more confusing in the colloquial, there were other versions of logos that were created by other persons for the film but which were also not used or else used once or briefly while the film was becoming known, along with one by Dan Perri that was used on an earlier (than mine) poster version that was intended, as I understood it, for use in the film’s main title treatment but replaced by my logo after the title treatment was underway. I was hired and then assigned this film project, STAR WARS, for purposes of completing print advertising materials for the film after these previous logos were done and put aside and was not aware of these earlier visuals during my work on the print materials (for which my logo work was intended and soon finished).

Staff-wise, at Seiniger Advertising, the person employed as the inking artist
at that time, who was assigned the task of inking the logo I’d drawn, also drew one of the earlier, unused logo versions. However, no one else, nor any previous nor even parallel rendition of the logotype for the film, was involved in the logo that I drew and that was used — and still is in use, as a Trademark image by Lucasfilm with the exception of a redraw of the logo by Lucasfilm a long while ago — for to represent the film. I shared a design office with the other Art Director at Seiniger Advertising — Barry Shereshevsky — who was present as and when I drew the logo during the course of both of our work.

Materials Used For the Star Wars Logo Design

Some people find these details interesting: the materials I used to draw the “Star Wars” logo (as I have also used on many other logos and concept projects):

- – a .05 pencil (KOH-I-NOOR Rapidomatic Fine Line — which continues to be my favorite pencil; irreplaceable, in fact);
- – a SANFORD Magic Rub eraser;
- – a ruler (this one);
- – a triangle, for to set a right angle;
- – a T-Square (this one), for to set parallel horizontal lines — in combination with the triangle, makes alignment of just about everything possible on a drawing table surface as long as you have a reliable straight edge to your table;
- – an 18 x 24” pad of vellum drawing paper; and,
- – a few enlarged photocopies of the typefaces, Helvetica Black on my drawing table for reference.

I still use these very same tools and resources today — save but for the specific typeface I’ve referred to here.

And, some hours later, during the course of one day with other film projects underway at the same time, I had the first version of the hand-drawn logo.

So, as described here, the only influences on what I drew were the book about early Twentieth Century (mostly Germany originating) type design that I’d read the night before the meeting with George Lucas and the brief but incredibly succinct directive and one revision request by George at that meeting. There was no plan or procedure involved in the references I used in this project — the book with it’s information about Helvetika, when I’d read the book followed by a next day meeting with Lucas, were entirely coincidental events.

Later, I received a call at work from the film’s producer, Gary Kurtz, a while after George made this final acceptance of the logo I’d drawn, telling me that the logo version that they’d planned on using for the main titles of the film “(didn’t) pan well,” and “(didn’t) read well” and that my logo “read better” in the animation they had planned for the film’s main titles, and because of this, they’d decided to use my logo design in the film’s main titles (my version had been designed for the Exhibitor’s Bid Brochure as an aspect of the print advertising for the film as earlier described here).

The bottom of the “W” of the second line of the logo, “Wars”, was flattened at that time to enable an improved read of the words during the animation of the logo on screen, and as appeared in that first release, “Star Wars, Episode IV” and has been used in the same design on the following Editions, in the main titles, in all the manufacturing, everywhere the film’s title appears since that first release.

Producer Gary Kurtz explained that the ending credits for the film were finished by that time of his call so that they could not include name credit for me for the design of the original logo used in the main titles, but I did receive an invite to the cast and crew screening of the film. And, further, about the possessory nature of the logo, I provided the design work and talent while employed by Seiniger Advertising, who was contracted to provide print advertising creative services for the film (along with me as the staff Art Director assigned to the film project), and so, because of that, the logo was and is the property of Lucasfilm, Ltd., protected by Trademark. About which I can only add, they have used it wisely.

Of interest here: Lucasfilm has published a wonderful book entitled, STAR WARS POSTER BOOK by authors Stephen J. Sansweet and Peter Vilmur. They sent me an autographed copy.

ADDITIONAL:

An interesting online discussion of the STAR WARS logo, from contemporary perspectives, can be found at the “Jeff Atwood” site.

Note as to that discussion, that Wikipedia (as it’s referred to there) is merely an online depository of, mostly, copied content from other printed sources (online or otherwise) as “filtered through” equally filtered educational materials — which site also excludes vernacular, colloquial information (about nearly anything) in it’s efforts to avoid online gossip. Which, unfortunately, prevents a great deal of colloquial information that shapes civilizations and other aspects of culture and knowledge from being shared. Colloquial does not mean “unfounded”.

And, online information as Wikipedia publishes is only as sound as is who writes, edits and publishes what as it is acquired from where — I write this because as the designer of this logo and the person present before and during it’s design, it’s unacceptable to read various denigrations and disparagements from some (as per that discussion, as also the misinforming content on Wikipedia about the remarks I’ve made here and on Jeff Atwood’s site) who appear to literally be grousing from an unaware, limited perspective based upon quite rudimentary knowledge of what “has to be what” while excluding what is.