From our earliest sketches and concepts, Daniel Ting Chong has been a part of the FIELDS journey, designing a visual language that feels both grounded and quietly distinctive. As the creative behind our CI, Daniel helped shape the way the brand would come to live in the world: through thoughtful brand marks, considered typography, and a philosophy that favours clarity over noise.
In this conversation, we catch up with Daniel to reflect on years of collaboration, explore what makes a CI truly meaningful, and hear his thoughts on where design is heading next.
FIELDS is rooted in intentional design and understated elegance. What drew you to working with the brand back in 2018, and how did that shape your approach to the visual identity?
When Mikael first approached me, the brief felt unusually clear, not rigid, but thoughtful and deeply considered. The brand aimed to explore identity through clothing, grounded in local production and creativity, something that immediately resonated with me. Mikael had a strong vision for where he wanted to go, but he needed creative direction to help frame and articulate it.
As designers, we can sometimes get carried away and put our own view on an identity and aesthetics but this identity needed to be subtle yet confident. The goal was to elevate the product and not overshadow it. The branding had to serve the beautifully constructed garments, not compete with them.
Your work often blurs the line between function and artistry. What aspects of the FIELDS brand did you find most creatively rewarding to bring to life?
I love every aspect of brand identity, but the part that stood out most in FIELDS was the name development. Mikael came to me with a vision and business plan, but no name yet. Naming is such a powerful part of identity and it often communicates so much before any design is even made.
He spoke about the sub-labels: Soul, Art, and Outdoor being unified under one system, and described the tension and harmony between city living and the outdoors. That sparked a range of ideas, but FIELDS was the one we all felt aligned with. It captured that ephemeral, in-between space where we spend our time and energy. It just felt right and encapsulated the brand’s values and direction.
It was also rewarding to create a system where even the smallest tag or inner label carried meaning. We often include hidden messages on labels, which I love. Beyond the structure, the tactile expression and how the brand lives through garment labels, embossed cards, or matte tags was where creativity and function came together beautifully.
Where do you typically look for inspiration, and how does that feed into your process, especially for a project like this?
For identity work, I begin by spending time with the client asking lots of questions about who they are and how they see the brand. We review polarising references together: logos, typography, colour systems, and other brand fundamentals. This helps build a clear framework and also gives me insight into the client’s preferences and their journey so far, which often holds narratives and ideas that can inform the brand direction.
From there, I begin with sketches or written thoughts, which evolve into visual explorations. I constantly check back against the original brief to ensure we’re not just meeting the objectives, but going beyond them. I typically explore a wide range of directions before distilling everything into a consolidated, functional system.
While identity design always involves practical considerations, in the case of FIELDS, it was about building a brand system that could grow sustainably and something that could adapt and evolve alongside the brand itself.
Collaboration is a core value at FIELDS. Can you share what the design process was like, and how your ideas evolved in partnership with the team?
We weren’t just designing a logo, something people often confuse with identity. We were shaping how the brand would behave, communicate, and present its product to the world.
Working with the FIELDS team has always brought a strong sense of direction, but also left room for experimentation. That’s essential if you want a brand to evolve while staying grounded.
From the very first identity presentation, the feedback was minimal but constructive. Over time, we refined the wordmark, adjusted the brandmark, and tweaked the colour hierarchy, all through a careful and considered process. I really appreciated that we didn’t rush. Every refinement was thoughtful, and that collaborative spirit is what shaped a system that now feels inevitable.
Over the course of 14 collections, how have you seen FIELDS evolve, and how has that influenced the visual language?
The core identity we developed in the beginning still holds and what’s evolved is the confidence in how it’s been applied. Each collection has added new layers, textures, seasonal colours, and photography that brings deeper narrative expression.
The original system was designed to be flexible, and it’s been great to see how it has stretched and adapted without losing its integrity. The typographic structure still holds the same tone, but its expressions have grown more expansive and nuanced.
For every collection, we put a lot of energy into the lookbook. Each one is treated as its own piece, aligned with the collection's theme and built out as a campaign shoot, then supported by unique colours, icons, or graphics that go beyond the core brand elements but still live within the same universe. It’s a space where we can continue telling stories while keeping the brand’s foundation intact.
Looking ahead, what design trends or movements are exciting you right now, and how do you see them influencing brand identity in the next few years?
You can’t talk about design today without mentioning AI. In the identity space, there’s a clear split, some embrace it, and others resist. I think we’ll start to see a lot more “self-generated” identities, where clients use AI tools to build something themselves. In a way, this could be a good thing, it gives designers an opportunity to really show the depth and nuance of what true identity design is (and what it isn’t).
The risk, though, is an influx of surface level identities systems that look good but lack depth or meaning.
To me, great identity work comes from human connection. It’s in the textured conversations, the offhand remarks during a call, the quirks and oddities that emerge over coffee. It’s about listening, empathising, and translating all of that into something that feels real and rooted. That’s what gives a brand its soul and that’s something no tool can replicate.
