Chicago Bears modernized alternate logo, wordmarks

[Go Red Sox!]

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions, guys. Much appreciated.

I decided to give the Bear some pupil highlights, as some of you suggested. I chose orange for the reflections because in this case white would have looked way too prominent.

I wanted to keep the wordmarks as simple as possible without any spikes or notches. Because when I think of a bear, I'm thinking of his massive body, the thick and dense fur first instead of his claws or teeth.

Update: Page 1

[sportsherald]

I decided to give the Bear some pupil highlights, as some of you suggested. I chose orange for the reflections because in this case white would have looked way too prominent.

You're probably right about not using white. I like it better with the added pupils, but if I may make another suggestion, try using a shape that isn't a perfect circle there. For example, one thing I did like in the official Bear is the pupils have a wedge taken out of the top right, which implies reflected light. I think you've got a great design as it is, but if you want to polish it a little more...

[Go Red Sox!]

I decided to give the Bear some pupil highlights, as some of you suggested. I chose orange for the reflections because in this case white would have looked way too prominent.

You're probably right about not using white. I like it better with the added pupils, but if I may make another suggestion, try using a shape that isn't a perfect circle there. For example, one thing I did like in the official Bear is the pupils have a wedge taken out of the top right, which implies reflected light. I think you've got a great design as it is, but if you want to polish it a little more...

Absolutely agree. Thanks for your suggestion!

I had a couple of drafts, including pupils and highlights, but I never really liked at even one of them, so I reduced the highlight to a simple circle. It's kind of working, but it could have been better and more effective anyway. I like the latest draft the most in order to call this one the final version.

Thanks for your input, guys!

UPDATE: Page 1

[FFWally]

What are you guys looking at when you say it looks like Memphis? Nothing like it. I mean, not even close.

Well... it is a bear.

[Buster]

What are you guys looking at when you say it looks like Memphis? Nothing like it. I mean, not even close.

I said a Memphis concept.

[Buster]

This may have been the one I remember, which ironically got accused of looking like someone's Chicago Bears concept!

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/103159-memphis-grizzlies-idea/?hl=grizzlies

It's a common approach I guess.

Another:

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/101413-memphis-grizzlies-concept/?p=2351630

Another:

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/103934-memphis-grizzlies-logo-concept-updated-621/?hl=grizzlies

[SiLeNt WaVe]

I see what you're saying, but it's hard these days to do a bear in a completely original manner. Just about every face angle has been tackled so some are bound to look "similar" to others. I just don't feel this one looks like the Memphis one at all. IF anything, it's along the lines of Northern Colorado's new one.

[Chazberg]

I like the concept, since as a Chicagoan I've never been a huge fan of that Bear head logo. However, I'm just not big on symmetrical logos–I think they tend to look mechanical and lifeless. That said, I think your logo is very nice and dynamic–you showed a lot of restraint with the fur and shadow detailing, and your head looks anatomically more like an actual bear than the current version. I think if you explored adding some shadow and detailing that gave the logo some depth and shape (i.e. making it asymmetrical), you'd really have a winner.

Lastly, I'd consider adding a tongue, since the mouth looks a little gaping–there's a lot of negative space there.

[Bear fan Minnesota]

I really like the new logo. The traditional "C" should still be the primary.

[TheScottyZ]

I really like the modern secondary Bear logo, except I think the eyes should be white, like this:

What do you think?

[TheScottyZ]

Also, I made a modern update to the primary logo

[Guest darkpiranha]

Great job on both of these logos. However, I'm not totally feeling the primary update. It's really neat what you did, but it might be a tad too much mental work to quickly parse it. It's nice that the football is hidden inside the C, but because the laces are so prominent, my brain is first trying to process what it's supposed to be. It's trying to make it a holistic part of the C, and it comes across as maybe something like an eye with the laces being the lashes, or it looks like an eye has been sewn shut. Really cool what you did, but for me, it needs an even further simplification. What does it look like with the laces on other parts of the C? Maybe on top? Or maybe straddling the lower arc right above where it is now.

[Guest darkpiranha]

There are far too many similarities for me to think you didn't take the Northern Colorado logo and modify it for this concept.

Yep, I overlaid the two and a lot of things matched up too well. Yeah, if this was a Northern Colorado concept for making it better, I could let it pass. However, taking a logo and passing it off for something else is a bit taboo in my book.

Hmmm.... I don't know. I don't see enough similarities to make this kind of accusation. It's a bear head. It has a distinctly shaped head that will be difficult to make something no one has done something similar to. I think this one is vastly better than Northern Colorado, anyway.

[sparkychewbarky]

The simple, 'block-y' font for the word-mark is perfect.

I like the bear head.

I know the eyes are probably dimensionally correct, but I'd like to see what they look like 50% larger,

and then raised up a notch or two along with the bottom forehead furrow.

[Go Red Sox!]

As far as I remember, this is now the third or fourth time that a CCSL member has more or less accused me of taking an existing logo, again more or less, to use it for my purpose. First, some members claim my Bears logo looks too much like the current Memphis Grizzlies primary mark or even like some other member's Grizzlies redesign (I would even assume they were actually referring to my Grizzlies redesign attempt of last year). And now I have alledgedly used Northern Colorado's bear in order to „pass it off for something else“, namely my Chicago Bears secondary logo.

Sometimes I think that at least some people have a tendency to forget that reinventing the wheel, at least concerning certain situations, is nearly impossible. Rendering a front view bear head differently without using the repetitive, but contemporary graphic renditions for shape, fur details, shading or shadows would definitely be a phenomenon; let alone the fact that everyone – without exception – has a personal design style.

My goal was to design a simple and modern version of the Bears old secondary mark and this is my result. Reading comments that a member is almost 100% convinced that I have used an existing and still pretty new NCAA logo for my purpose, only to pass the result off as my work, is far more than just disappointing – simply because it creates the impression that I just recolored the whole thing.

I just lost the motivation to continue uploading logo concepts due to the need to justify and explaining myself, but also because of some very unproductive, superfluous criticisms and comments in the past which occasionally completely missed the point.

This site is great for presenting own design ideas and this, I guess, will never change. But in my view – and I'm not exclusively referring to my work here – the substantial quality of comments, which supposed to convey constructive criticism, has unfortunately been lacking in many ways.

Take care, guys

[sparkychewbarky]

I just lost the motivation to continue uploading logo concepts due to the need to justify and explaining myself, but also because of some very unproductive, superfluous criticisms and comments in the past which occasionally completely missed the point.

Take care, guys

That'd be too bad for the rest of us if you pulled the plug, Go.

You've put out some great stuff for us to enjoy.

You just know that when you put work "out there", you're gonna get a bit of everything back in responses.

...Also you just know, if it is similar to another concept, that the guys will comment on that. It's part of the territory.

It's tough when you do a variation of a popular theme (a bear's head) to make it completely original-looking.

It's tough on a popular theme to find that little "tweak that makes it unique".

davidson called 'er quits when somebody commented "meh" to one of his concepts, and the boards have been a little "less" with his departure.

I'd like to see this fleshed-out further with unis, merch...the whole 9 yards.

[Canuckleball]

I think it would be better with a *little* more detailing. The 1999 version is overkill, but I think yours goes too far in the modern minimalist direction, especially for such a historic franchise. That said, it is a fantastic piece of artwork.

[KittSmith_95]

I've always wanted to see this updated somehow:

Just the bear, mind you. Not the ball.

But i do feel as if the sleepy bear would make for a great sleeve patch.

[Guest darkpiranha]

I just lost the motivation to continue uploading logo concepts due to the need to justify and explaining myself, but also because of some very unproductive, superfluous criticisms and comments in the past which occasionally completely missed the point.

This site is great for presenting own design ideas and this, I guess, will never change. But in my view – and I'm not exclusively referring to my work here – the substantial quality of comments, which supposed to convey constructive criticism, has unfortunately been lacking in many ways.

Take care, guys

Sorry to see you go. In looking back over the comments in this particular thread, discounting the Northern Colorado accusation, the comments and suggestions seem pretty consistent with what I see in most every other legitimate thread. Some good, some not-so-good, some way out there. But that's par for the course. The comments I see here seem sincere, so I don't quite agree with your assessment. One problem I think you're experiencing with this concept in particular is that it IS so similar to so many other animal head logos. It looks solid and usable, but it doesn't stand out from all the others we've seen. Without changing it significantly (which we don't think you want to do), most of the suggestions so far have been minor tweaks, which will only make the logo incrementally better, if at all.

The key thing to remember with any mass or crowd critique is that while they may be wrong about what they think is going on or what needs to be changed, if enough people are circling around the same thing (however vague that thing may be), it behooves you as a designer (or writer, or artist or video producer) to take a step back and try to figure out what's at the root of that common criticism. Is it just too similar to so many other animal head logos? Is it the absolute symmetry throwing people off? Is it too similar or too dissimilar to the existing traditional logo? Is it just that some elements (eyes, teeth) are causing a disconnect with people? Etc.

I've said this in other threads, but go check out Sparky's Aces and Black Knights threads. ALL KINDS of criticisms and suggestions, from radical changes to minor tweaks to some that completely miss the point to some that are spot on. Watch how Sparky listens to the suggestions non-defensively and then evaluates them as a whole. Almost every time, his next iteration is vastly improved and addresses the deeper issues brought up by the comments, but he almost always does something completely different than anything suggested, even by the ones that are spot-on. It's the hardest part about being a creative person that has to answer to a 'client' (even if that client is just us knuckleheads on this forum) and hearing feedback all over the spectrum.

I hope you stick around and bring us more interesting designs, but I'll understand if you choose not to. These forums aren't for everyone.

[suplauren]

I just lost the motivation to continue uploading logo concepts due to the need to justify and explaining myself, but also because of some very unproductive, superfluous criticisms and comments in the past which occasionally completely missed the point.

This site is great for presenting own design ideas and this, I guess, will never change. But in my view – and I'm not exclusively referring to my work here – the substantial quality of comments, which supposed to convey constructive criticism, has unfortunately been lacking in many ways.

Take care, guys

I agree that comments have been going downhill recently. It's discouraging to post something you've worked on for a long time and get one one-sentence critique, only a request to do some other team's logo, or even just no response. I dunno if the quality of the board really has gone downhill, or if it's just me getting old and crotchety.

Either way, I hope you don't actually call it quits. While your work hasn't always resonated with my personal style, it is undeniably high quality.

For the record, I don't think this looks too similar to any other popular bear logos. It's really hard to distill an animal with such recognizable features without it sharing similarities with other modern logos. (I once had someone say I was ripping of the Coyotes' logo... in a thread where I specifically said I was tweaking the Coyotes' logo)