Interviews med Roozbeh Mashhadi Zadeh

I grew up with art and design around me. My father is an art teacher and sculptor, and my mother is a graphic designer. Art books, design books, drawing and painting were part of my childhood, and I learned the word "logo" very early through my mother.

So my education in design started long before any professional training. A large part of what I know today has also come from years of working, observing, making mistakes and continuing to learn.

I think curiosity is still my biggest motivation. I enjoy taking something that does not have a visual form yet, an idea, a name or a problem, and trying to give it one.

I did not really make a conscious decision to become a designer. I grew up surrounded by art and design, started doing it very young, and somewhere along the way I simply fell in love with it.

Neither, really. Nobody forced me, but I also do not remember making a big decision to become a designer. It happened very naturally. I grew up with art and design around me and started designing very young. It gradually became part of my life and then my profession.

My main work is logo design and visual identity, and that is still what I want to do more of. I especially enjoy projects where I can start with the core idea and then develop it into a complete visual system.

At the same time, I am becoming more interested in designing physical objects for the home, especially lighting.

I would not call myself a design legend, so I am probably the wrong person to give instructions on becoming one. But I would tell a young designer to train their eye, stay curious, make a lot of things and not be afraid of making mistakes.

Learn software, of course, but spend even more time learning how to see and think. Tools will keep changing. Your eye and your judgment stay with you.

A good designer can make something work. A great designer understands why it works.

For me, the difference is not mainly technical skill. It is the ability to see relationships, ask the right questions, remove what is unnecessary and recognize the moment when a solution feels right.

First, it has to solve the right problem. Then I look at the idea, structure, proportions and how all the elements relate to each other.

A really good design often feels simple and almost obvious when you see the final result. But usually getting to that simplicity was not simple at all.

Good design makes things clearer, easier to understand and easier to remember. For a company, it can create recognition and trust before anyone has even spoken to them.

I do not think everyone needs more design. Sometimes they actually need less. But what remains should have a reason to be there and should be done well.

I would spend more time designing and making objects for my own home. Lighting especially interests me because it combines form, material, function and atmosphere.

I would like to experiment more with wood, metal and light without having a client or a brief, just making things, testing them and seeing where they lead.

Probably developing my own small collection of objects for the home, especially lighting. I am slowly creating a workshop where I can combine wood, metal and light with my experience in design.

I have already made a few things for my own use, but turning that curiosity into a more complete collection is something I would really like to explore.

I do not think there is a secret recipe. If I had to choose one ingredient, it would probably be curiosity.

Keep looking, keep asking why something works, keep learning and do not become too comfortable with what you already know.

I am attracted to simple and geometric design, but honestly, the name behind the work is not very important to me. A great piece of design can come from a famous designer or from a student I have never heard of. If it makes me stop and look, that is enough.

Of course, there are designers and studios whose work I follow and admire, especially Saul Bass, Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv, and Pentagram. But I prefer to be inspired by the work rather than by the reputation of the person who made it.

I do not really have a fixed list of favorite designs. I am naturally attracted to work that is simple, geometric and intelligent, especially when a very simple form carries a strong idea.

I often find that quality in the work of Saul Bass and studios like Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv and Pentagram. But I can be just as interested in something made by an unknown young designer. For me, the work always comes before the name.

I am not sure I would call any of my designs my greatest, but Altavita is one of the projects I am particularly happy with.

The visual identity came directly from the architecture. Geometry and perspective became the basis of a simple symbol and then grew into a complete visual system. I like it because the final result is simple, but the simplicity comes from the idea rather than from trying to create a minimalist style.

Look at things consciously. Not only graphic design. Look at architecture, photography, painting, films, nature and ordinary objects. Ask yourself why something feels balanced, why one composition works and another does not.

That is what I have always done. I keep looking, learning and making. I think training your eye is something that never really ends.

Probably something where I could still make things. I enjoy working with my hands, tools and materials, so maybe something involving wood, metal, objects or lighting.

Apparently I would still find some way to design, even if I was not called a designer.

For me, design is understanding a problem and finding the clearest visual or physical answer to it. It is not decoration.

I like reducing things until what remains has a reason to be there, without removing the personality of the idea.

My parents were very important because they are both artists and I grew up in that environment. I also had one or two university teachers who influenced me.

But a very important part of my education came from the companies I was lucky enough to work with early in my career. They gave me room to learn, make decisions and understand how professional work actually happens. I learned a lot from the people around me, not only about design, but also about professional behavior, responsibility and working with others.

Again, I am not very comfortable calling myself a great designer. What has helped me become a better designer is experience, curiosity and constantly looking at things.

Making mistakes has probably been just as useful as making good work. You learn something from every project if you stay open enough to see it.

I do not really think there was a point where I became a "design master." Design has always felt more like a continuous process of learning.

The obstacles change over time. Early on you need experience and confidence. Later, the challenge is not becoming repetitive or too comfortable with what you already know.

Show the idea, not only the final beautiful image. I want to understand what the problem was, where the idea came from and how it developed.

A good presentation should make the thinking easy to understand without needing twenty pages of explanation. The design should still be able to speak for itself.

More visual identity work, definitely, but hopefully also something quite different. I am slowly developing a small workshop where I can experiment with objects for the home, particularly lighting.

So maybe the next chapter will involve a little less screen and a little more wood, metal, light and working with my hands.

To keep enjoying it.

I want to continue being curious, keep making things I believe in and still feel excited when I find a solution I did not see at the beginning. I do not really have a final destination in mind.

Probably experience, good judgment and a clear point of view. But I think people should also expect honesty.

Sometimes the designer's job is not to add something. It can be to say that something is unnecessary, or that a simpler solution would work better.

Design can make information clearer, products easier to use and environments easier to understand. It can reduce confusion and sometimes reduce waste.

I do not think design can solve every problem in society, but good design can make many everyday experiences a little better.

Alongside my visual identity projects, I am especially excited about slowly building my own workshop and experimenting with objects for the home.

I have already made a few pieces for myself, particularly around lighting, and I enjoy the completely different experience of moving from pixels and vectors to materials you can actually touch.

Usually the projects that give me the most satisfaction are the ones where a simple idea can grow into a complete visual language.

Altavita is a good example, and I also enjoy projects where naming, logo and identity are connected from the beginning. The satisfaction comes from seeing many separate pieces suddenly become one coherent system.

I would like to see a little less obsession with trends and tools and more attention to thinking.

Technology is moving very quickly, which is exciting, but being able to make something quickly does not automatically make it good design. I hope we continue valuing ideas, judgment and originality.

AI and new technologies will make production faster and more accessible. I think that is inevitable and mostly exciting.

As tools become easier, the value of knowing what to make, why to make it and what to choose becomes more important. I think the designer's role will move more toward thinking, judgment and direction.

There is no standard time. Sometimes the central idea comes very quickly, and sometimes it needs much more exploration.

Finding the idea is also not the same as finishing the project. It still needs testing, refinement and development into something that works in the real world. Every project has its own rhythm.

Usually with words. I try to understand the problem and write down the important ideas around it. Then I look for relationships between those ideas and gradually start translating them into visual forms.

I do not start by asking what it should look like. I start by asking what it should mean.

Don't work more. Work smarter.

Work is important, but it should leave enough space for family, friends, nature, learning, good food, rest and all the other things that make life interesting.

Both happen, but I prefer design that does not depend too much on trends. Trends can be useful because they reflect what is happening around us, but following them too closely can make work age very quickly.

I would rather understand a trend than simply copy it.

Technology is a tool. A very powerful one, but still a tool.

If you develop your eye and the way you think, you can work with a pencil, a computer or artificial intelligence. Technology can make things faster and open possibilities that did not exist before, but it should not make the decisions for you.

My computer has been an essential part of my work for many years. Illustrator is still my main tool for logo and visual identity design, and I also use Photoshop, InDesign, After Effects and Figma depending on the project.

But I am not particularly loyal to tools. If something helps me turn an idea into the form I want, I am happy to use it.

They all affect how we experience something before we even start thinking about it consciously.

Color can change emotion, materials change how something feels, and the environment changes how we experience both. My growing interest in lighting has made me even more aware of this. The same object or space can feel completely different just by changing the light around it.

"Why?"

I like when someone asks why a shape is there, where an idea came from or why I made a particular decision. For me, those questions are much more interesting than simply asking which software I used to make it.

Usually my first reaction is very simple: I wish I had thought of that.

Then I start looking more closely and trying to understand why it works. The best designs often make me curious about the thinking behind them, not just the way they look.

Absolutely. I love teamwork.

I started playing basketball around the same time I started designing, and I always enjoyed creating opportunities and making assists more than scoring myself. I think I carried some of that mentality into design.

My ideal team is made of independent people with strong individual skills and personalities who respect each other and become a committed team around a project. Strong individuals who know how to play together.

My mother probably had the biggest influence at the beginning. She was a graphic designer, and she was also the person who pushed me to go to university.

Interestingly, I do not think university itself teaches you everything you need to become a designer. For me, one of its biggest values was that it changed my environment. I started meeting people, building relationships and becoming part of a professional community. Those connections became an important part of my development.

At some point I became almost obsessed with logo design books. If I found a book about logos, symbols or visual identity, I wanted to have it.

I do not think there was one particular book that changed everything for me. It was more the habit of constantly looking through hundreds and thousands of different solutions. Those books became part of how I trained my eye.

Mostly by doing the work, again and again.

Looking carefully, trying things, making mistakes, comparing, correcting and then doing it again on the next project. I have always believed that seeing is a skill that can be trained. The more consciously you look, the better your visual judgment becomes.

That is difficult. Picasso would definitely be one. Jim Morrison would be another, for completely different reasons. And from the world of design, probably Saul Bass.

I think I would be less interested in asking them about technique or career and more interested in understanding how they saw the world and where their ideas came from. Those conversations would probably be much more interesting to me.

I definitely would not describe myself as famous, so fortunately that part has not been very difficult!

Awards and recognition are nice because they give you an outside perspective on work that you have been very close to. I appreciate them, but I try not to let awards become the reason I design. The pleasure of finding a good solution is still more important to me.

My favorite color is white, because it gives me the space to see every other color. After that, I cannot really choose one. Every color has its own world.

My favorite place would probably be a large industrial space of my own. One side would be a minimal, off-white design studio full of toys and objects I love. The other side would have workshops where I could build things with my hands. And somewhere in there, definitely a proper basketball hoop.

Favorite food: pizza.

Favorite season: autumn.

If I had to choose one favorite object, probably a camera. It helps me see, frame and keep what I see.

And for brands, Apple, Nike and Coca-Cola are probably three that I have always found interesting.

One of my first experiences of getting "paid" for design happened in high school. I used to make monograms for my classmates by combining their names with the names of their girlfriends.

There was no money involved. My payment might be a sandwich, someone writing class notes for me, or some other small favor. Looking back, it is funny to realize that I had already found both my profession and my first clients before I really knew I was working.

A great day for me is not only a great working day. It is a mix of doing some good work, learning something new, exercising, having time to relax and eating something good.

I do not really try to motivate myself to work all day. I would rather work well for a focused period and still have enough energy and curiosity left for the rest of life.

It was probably obvious that I would do something creative, but certainly not that I would become a "great designer."

I grew up surrounded by art. Looking through art and design books was entertainment for me as a child, and through my mother I became familiar with graphic design and even the idea of a logo very early. So becoming a designer later felt quite natural.

A thousand years is far beyond anything I could seriously predict. Technology may change almost everything around us, but I suspect some very basic human needs will remain surprisingly familiar.

We will probably still want to communicate, create, love, play, tell stories and make our surroundings feel like our own. The tools may become unimaginable, but I am not sure people will become as different as we think.

Design is an important part of my life, but I do not want it to become my whole life.

I think becoming better at what we do is important, but not at the cost of missing the simple things around us. Family, friends, nature, good food, learning something new, making things with our hands, or sometimes simply doing nothing.

I want to keep designing and making things for as long as I enjoy it, but I also want to keep enough space to enjoy being alive.

I grew up with art and design around me. My father is an art teacher and sculptor, and my mother is a graphic designer, so art books, design books, drawing and painting were part of my childhood.

I actually learned the word "logo" very early through my mother. Looking through art and design books was one of my favorite things to do as a child. So I cannot really point to a moment when I decided to become a designer. In a way, I grew up with art and design, and somewhere along the way I simply fell in love with designing.

I have now been working professionally in graphic design for almost 40 years.

Roozbeh Studio is basically me. It is the name I use for my independent design practice, not a traditional agency or a large studio. I work directly with my clients and I do the thinking and design myself. When a project needs another specialist, I collaborate with someone I trust, but the core idea and visual work come directly from me. My main focus is logo design and visual identity.

For me, design is solving a problem visually. It is understanding what needs to be communicated and finding the clearest and simplest form for it. I always try to remove what is unnecessary without removing the character of the idea.

Definitely logos and visual identities. I love starting with something abstract, a name, a story, a few words or an idea, and finding a visual form for it. Turning words into shapes is probably my favorite part of being a designer.

It is difficult to choose one, but Altavita is definitely one of the projects I feel very connected to. The identity came from the architecture itself. I used the geometry and perspective of the building to create a simple visual idea that could become both a symbol and a complete identity system.

I like projects like this, where the final result looks simple but there is a clear reason behind every element.

My first "clients" were actually my school friends. When I was in high school, I started designing monograms by combining their names with the names of their girlfriends. They would pay me in their own way, buying me sandwiches, writing class notes for me, things like that.

So I was basically earning something from logo design before I even thought of it as a profession. In a funny way, I started doing then what I am still doing today: taking names and relationships between words and turning them into visual forms.

For my work, probably vector graphics. I like the precision and simplicity of building forms with points, lines and geometry. Illustrator has been my main tool for many years, but the tool itself is secondary. What matters to me is having enough control to build exactly the form I have in mind.

In the morning, definitely. My mind is much clearer then. If I can have a few hours without messages, meetings or interruptions, I can do a surprising amount of work.

The idea comes first. After that, I pay a lot of attention to structure, proportion, balance and the relationship between shapes. I can spend a long time moving something a very small distance because sometimes that tiny change makes the whole composition work.

Curiosity is probably the strongest one. I enjoy not knowing the answer at the beginning. There can also be frustration when something is almost working but not quite. Then suddenly you make one change and everything connects. I still love that moment.

I enjoy seeing something that existed only on my screen becoming real. A logo on a building, packaging, a website or even a business card feels different from the design file. But I also immediately start looking at it critically and noticing things. I think designers never completely switch that part of their brain off.

It has to solve the problem first. Then it should be clear, recognizable and have enough character to be remembered. For me, a successful design also needs to survive outside the presentation. It has to work in the real world, in different sizes, situations and applications.

First I look at it. Before reading an explanation, I want to see whether the composition, proportions and visual relationships work. Then I want to understand the idea behind it. A beautiful explanation cannot save a weak design, and a beautiful design is not enough if it does not solve the right problem.

I think our first responsibility is to be conscious of what we are putting into the world. Designers influence how people understand information, products and companies. We should communicate clearly and honestly, and we should avoid producing unnecessary visual or physical waste when there is a better solution.

Tools are becoming incredibly fast, especially with AI, and I think production will become easier and easier. But producing something and designing something are not the same thing. When everyone can generate images quickly, the ability to see, think, select and judge becomes even more important. I think the designer's eye will matter more, not less.

I do not regularly organize exhibitions because my main work is commercial graphic design. Most recently, Altavita was presented as part of the A' Design Award exhibition in Italy in 2026. I do not currently have a plan for a personal exhibition, but I would be interested if the right opportunity and context comes along.

Almost everywhere. Architecture, photography, painting, typography, objects, nature, films and everyday life.

I am also very interested in how things are made. I enjoy working with my hands, and materials like wood, metal and light can inspire me as much as something I see in a design book.

I think after many years you build a large visual library in your head, and when you start a new project, different parts of that library somehow connect with the problem in front of you.

I do not want every project to look like it came from the same designer, because every client has a different problem. But naturally I am attracted to simple forms, geometry, strong structure and reduction. I like designs where there are very few elements but the relationships between them are carefully considered. My approach is always to find the idea first and the style afterwards.

I grew up in Tehran and now live in Copenhagen. I think both places are part of my visual background. Iran has an incredibly rich visual culture, from calligraphy and geometry to architecture, crafts and color. Denmark has a very different tradition, with simplicity, functionality and restraint. I do not consciously try to combine them, but naturally everything you have seen becomes part of the way you see.

I like working directly with the people behind the company. At the beginning I ask questions and listen a lot. I need to understand what they do, where they want to go and what problem they are asking me to solve. After that I prefer to present a small number of strong ideas rather than many weak options. I explain why I made each decision and then we develop the chosen direction together.

Look at how the designer thinks, not only at whether you like the colors or style of their portfolio. A good designer should be able to work on different problems without repeating the same solution. And once you choose someone, tell them clearly what the problem is and give them enough trust to do their job. Trying to design the solution for the designer usually does not produce the best result.

I usually start with words. I write down the important ideas around the project and look for relationships between them. Then I start translating those relationships into shapes.

For many years I have thought about design through what I call Eye, Brain and Hand. First you have to learn to see consciously. Then your brain connects and understands what you see. Finally your hand gives that thought a form. With experience, these three start working together almost automatically.

I would choose the Philips Hue lighting system I use throughout my home, the simple and functional Vipp kitchen cabinets, Apple products that I have worked with and enjoyed for many years, the Eames House Bird by Vitra, and definitely the paintings and artworks around our home, some made by my friends and some by me.

I like living with things that are simple and functional, but I also need objects around me that have a personal story or emotional connection.

For me, an ideal day is a good mix of learning something new, working, exercising, having time to relax, and eating good food. Sometimes working also means making something with my hands rather than sitting in front of a computer.

So I try to fill my days with a little bit of all of these things. I do not always get the balance exactly right, of course, but that is what a good day looks like to me.

Learn how to see. Really see. Do not spend all your energy learning software and following trends. Draw, take photographs, look at architecture, paintings, films and everyday objects. Ask yourself why one composition works and another does not. Software can be learned quite quickly. Training your eye takes years.

The best part is that after almost 40 years I can still sit in front of a new problem and not know what the answer will be. That keeps the work interesting. The difficult part is that design is not mathematics. Sometimes you have to explain or defend something that you can see immediately but another person cannot. Communication is a big part of the job.

Working a lot can make you better and more experienced at what you do, but it can also make you miss many other beautiful parts of life, like spending time with family and friends, being in nature, traveling, or simply doing nothing for a while.

So my golden rule is very simple: Don't work more. Work smarter.

Seeing, thinking and judgment. Curiosity is also very important. You obviously need technical skills, but software is just a tool and tools change. A trained eye, a curious mind and the ability to recognize when something is working are much harder to replace.

Tools themselves are not that important to me. If you develop your eye and the way you think, it does not really matter whether you are holding a pencil, using Illustrator or working with artificial intelligence. They are simply different tools for turning an idea into something real.

Of course, computers have been a huge help throughout my career, especially Adobe Illustrator, After Effects and other digital tools. But I also love real tools and working with my hands, especially with wood, metal and light.

For me, the thinking always comes before the tool.

I try not to manage my time by simply working more hours. Experience has taught me how to recognize good directions faster, make decisions earlier and avoid spending time on things that are not going anywhere.

I prefer to work in focused periods and then leave enough space for the other things that are important to me, learning something new, exercising, spending time with family and friends, enjoying nature, good food, or simply resting.

For me, managing time is really about working smarter, not working more.

There is no standard time. Sometimes I find the main idea for a logo in a few hours, and sometimes it takes much longer. But finding the idea is only part of the work. Then I have to test it, refine it and make sure it works as a system.

Experience has definitely made this process faster for me, but every project has its own rhythm.

Probably, "How long does it take to design a logo?"

Sometimes the final idea can come very quickly. But if I find it in three hours, those are not really just three hours. There are almost 40 years of looking, working, making mistakes and learning behind those three hours.

I do not think there was one single job that was the most important. My real education has been the accumulation of many different projects over the years.

Different clients, different industries, good projects, bad decisions, mistakes and successes all added something. Experience is cumulative. You carry every previous project into the next one.

I actually prefer working with medium-sized companies because communication is very important to me. I like having direct contact with the management or the team involved in the project. It makes the process faster, clearer and more personal.

Over the years, I have also had the opportunity to work with larger international companies such as Tetra Pak, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Bayer, Roche and Renault. But for me, the size or name of the company has never been the most important part. A good relationship and direct communication with the people behind the project matter much more.

Logo and visual identity design is still what I enjoy most professionally. I love starting with words and ideas and gradually turning them into a visual form. A good logo can be a very small object carrying a surprising amount of meaning.

But I also really enjoy making physical things with my hands. It is a different feeling when something you have imagined becomes an actual object that you can touch, use and live with.

I want to continue designing logos and visual identities for as long as I can. I still love doing it and I do not see a reason to stop as long as my mind and body allow me to continue.

But I also have another side that loves making things with my hands. I am slowly building a small workshop where I can design and make objects for the home, especially lighting. I love the idea of combining wood, metal and light with what I have learned from graphic design.

It is still at a very early stage, but I have already made a few pieces for my own home. I do not know exactly where it will lead yet, and that is part of what makes it exciting for me.

I love teamwork. I started playing basketball around the same time I started graphic design, and even as a player I always enjoyed creating opportunities and making assists more than scoring points myself. I think that way of thinking has stayed with me in design as well.

Roozbeh Studio itself is basically me, but that does not mean I want to do everything alone. The model I really like is bringing together independent people with different skills and personalities, creating a committed team around a project, and then working together toward the same goal.

For me, a good team does not need everyone to think the same way. It needs strong individuals who know how to play together.

I am always working on new identity projects, but I usually prefer not to talk about client work before it is finished and public. Part of the pleasure for me is showing the complete idea when all the pieces are ready rather than explaining it too early.

The easiest way to find me and see my work is through my website, roozbeh.pro. I am also active on Behance and Instagram, and you can find me professionally on LinkedIn.

I am based in Copenhagen, but I work with clients internationally, so feel free to get in touch from anywhere.

Maybe just one thing. While we are working hard to become better and more professional at what we do, I think we should be careful not to miss the simple things in life.

Spending time with the people we love, being in nature, enjoying good food, having time for ourselves, these things are just as important as professional success.

At the end of the day, becoming a better designer should not mean forgetting how to enjoy being alive.

The direction became clear when I stopped thinking about the logo as a separate graphic element and started looking more carefully at the architecture itself. AltaVita is an interior architecture brand, so I wanted the identity to come from the same visual world rather than simply adding an architectural symbol to it.I began reducing architectural perspective and spatial forms into simple geometry. The isometric structure gave me exactly what I was looking for. It could suggest space, volume and architecture while still remaining simple enough to work as a strong graphic symbol.That was the important moment for me, because the idea did not stop at the logo. The same geometry could continue into layouts, typography, patterns and other applications, so the identity started to grow naturally from one central idea. Seeing that happen is always one of the most satisfying parts of a project for me. When one simple decision begins to solve several different problems at the same time, I usually know I have found the right direction.

The challenge was to avoid creating a logo that looked like a drawing of a building. I wanted the identity to feel connected to architecture without becoming descriptive.For me, architecture is not only about buildings. It is also about structure, proportion and organization. Instead of illustrating an architectural object, I focused on these underlying principles.The isometric approach helped create a sense of depth and space, but I was careful not to let that become the main story. The logo still needed to function as a strong visual mark, not an architectural illustration.The result is a symbol that suggests space and construction while remaining simple, memorable and commercially effective. This balance helped the identity speak naturally to architects, designers and builders while remaining accessible to a broader audience.I wanted people to recognize a sense of architecture rather than recognize a building. The goal was to communicate the logic and discipline behind architecture, not to illustrate architecture itself.

I still begin most identity projects with a pencil and paper. Sketching allows me to think freely and explore ideas without being influenced by software tools.The early sketches for Altavita helped me discover relationships between shapes, proportions and spatial forms. Some of the most important decisions were made during this stage, long before I opened any design software.Once the direction became clear, I moved to vector software where the idea could be refined with precision and consistency.I believe this combination is important. Hand sketching encourages discovery, while digital tools provide control and accuracy. If I had started directly on screen, the result might have been technically correct, but it would probably have lost some of the exploration and spontaneity that helped shape the final mark.

One of the biggest challenges was balancing clarity with character. A visual identity must work in many situations, from a small business card to packaging and large environmental graphics. At the same time, it needs enough personality to be memorable.For Altavita, I tried to solve this by relying on a strong geometric structure rather than visual effects. The symbol needed to feel architectural and distinctive while remaining simple and functional.Another challenge was creating a system that could support many applications without losing consistency. The logo, typography, colors and layouts all needed to work together as parts of a larger visual language rather than as isolated design elements.Simplicity became the tool that allowed all these requirements to coexist. The more complex the challenge became, the more important it was to remove anything unnecessary and focus on the essential idea. In the end, the strongest decisions were often the simplest ones.

Three weeks is a short timeline for a project of this scale, but I have learned over nearly four decades of practice that constraints can often improve decision making.The schedule forced me to stay focused on the essence of the brand rather than exploring endless alternatives. From the beginning, I concentrated on finding a strong core idea that could extend naturally across all applications.Because the identity was built on a clear geometric system, many later decisions became easier. The pressure of time encouraged clarity and discipline, and in many ways helped the project become more coherent.

The research phase confirmed something important: Altavita was not simply selling products. It was helping shape living spaces and everyday experiences.Many competitors focused on showing furniture, kitchens or architectural details directly. I felt that approach was too literal. The research encouraged me to move toward a more conceptual solution that reflected the thinking behind architecture rather than its visible outcomes.That insight strengthened my confidence in developing a symbol based on geometry, structure and spatial relationships rather than representation. It helped create an identity with a longer lifespan and greater flexibility.

The color palette was intentionally restrained. I wanted the identity to communicate confidence and precision without relying on a large number of colors.Red was chosen as an accent because it adds energy, visibility and a sense of confidence, while black and gray provide balance, neutrality and technical precision. Together they create a professional tone that feels equally comfortable in architectural presentations, printed materials and digital environments.The interaction between these colors became an important part of the visual identity. The contrast between the strong red surfaces and the neutral gray and black elements helps reinforce the geometric structure of the logo and strengthens the overall visual language of the brand. In many applications, the colors work almost like architectural materials, helping define hierarchy, depth and emphasis.A strong identity should not depend on color alone. The structure of the logo carries most of the communication. The colors support the system, but the underlying geometry ensures that the identity remains recognizable as it evolves into new formats and applications.

This project started as a local design assignment in Tehran and eventually received international recognition. For me, that journey reinforces a simple idea: good design is not defined by geography. It is defined by clarity, relevance and the ability to communicate effectively.Throughout my career, I have learned that designers working in different parts of the world often face different limitations and opportunities, but the fundamental principles remain the same. Strong ideas, careful thinking and attention to detail can come from anywhere.What I hope Altavita communicates is that locally developed work can meet international standards without losing its own character. Designers do not need to imitate trends or follow fashionable visual styles to be recognized globally. They need to develop their own voice and focus on solving real problems in a thoughtful way.After nearly four decades of working in logo design and visual identity, I still see every project as an opportunity to learn something new. If this project sends a message to younger designers, it is that curiosity, persistence and continuous improvement remain more important than where you happen to be working.

The grid was never intended to be a technical exercise. It was a way of bringing order and consistency to the identity.I often use geometric structures because they help me think more clearly about proportion, balance and relationships between elements. In the case of Altavita, the one-to-one square grid provided a logical framework that connected the symbol, typography and supporting visual elements.For me, geometry is not decoration. It is a way of thinking. The grid helped transform abstract ideas about architecture, proportion and order into a practical visual system that could be applied consistently across the entire identity.The benefit goes beyond the logo itself. The same structural thinking influenced layouts, spacing and alignments throughout the identity system. This helped create a sense of coherence across different applications without relying on repetitive graphic effects.If I had allowed more organic or freeform proportions, the logo might have become more expressive, but it would have lost some of its architectural discipline. For a brand operating in interior architecture and custom-built environments, structure was an important part of the message. The grid helped transform that idea into a visual language.

For me, logo design has always been very close to problem solving. I often describe it as the successful solution of a puzzle. Every project begins with many separate pieces: the client's goals, the market, the audience, functional requirements and visual possibilities. The challenge is to organize those pieces into a form that feels simple, natural and inevitable. Geometry and structure help me do that. They provide a framework for turning complexity into clarity, which is one of the things I enjoy most about designing visual identities.