Snarky and a fun read, just as part 1 and 2, but ultimately not very constructive... I'd be more interested in reading about what he thinks are great logos and why they work well.
They're certainly fun to read, but does he actually think this is a remarkable insight into anything? You can pick any shape you want and then point out how logos are all trending towards that shape. Obviously by just selecting the logotypes that fit your argument.
It's a weak argument (what is it, anyways?) presented in an unhelpful way (criticizing a kid's school project?). Not that I buy into the idea that you have to be an artist to be a critic, but I do think your overall output to a community should be positive. You can either contribute critically by making good commentary or you can contribute productively by making good work. Eli does neither, and by the 3rd or 4th post you read by him it becomes painfully obvious.
Entertaining nonetheless, I suppose.
Unfortunately I found there wasn't much there. Whilst some (most?) of the articles seem to dig into some depth, it's all over shadowed by a negativity that has nothing to back it up, just empty criticism. It's telling that I can't even determining if he's arguing from a pre or post-modernist perspective, or even from a different perspective completely.
I found it all a bit disappointing really. I think he has a point to be made in there somewhere, he certainly begins his arguments from a position that seems tenable, but for the life of me I couldn't prune it from all the dead-wood of negativity.
I really hope the author does dig in and argue a point, because like I said, it certainly feels like he's arguing from a position.
I just hope that after all that, his point isn't "design is art" because he can GTFO :)