Jump to content

Austin FC


Waffles

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Digby said:

The mighty Real Salt Lake in Barcelona colors in Utah, or whatever Sporting Kansas City is trying to say, is just as cringeworthy as the xtreme 90s, just in a different way.

 

Difference is that now it’s limited to two clubs, rather than the entire league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Difference is that now it’s limited to two clubs, rather than the entire league.

 

Houston Dynamo?

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

For the record, I think an oak tree is a fine symbol for a club.  The symbolism is powerful and appropriate. 

 

I do agree, however, that there’s nothing particularly “Austin” about it. That’s my only objection to this part of the conversation, that we’re trying to retcon some local significance to a symbol obviously not chosen for that. 

 

Right. They mention in the explainer graphic that it's a "Live Oak", which is the name of that type of oak tree that stays green through the winter, but the significance of this one important oak tree isn't mentioned in the graphic, which yells to me that they wanted to use an oak tree and this "famous" treaty tree was only brought up by someone after it was finished.

 

Like they introduced it and someone went, "Oh I get it. After the Stephen F. Austin treaty tree, right?" "Uhh yeah totally, the treated tree and so forth. That's definitely why we used it. And the four roots. 1, 2, 3, 4. Yeah the four roots? Those symbolize uhhh north, south, east, and west, and Austin as you know is famous for having 4 directions." 

 

It just really feels like the fact that Austin has this now super well-known oak tree is a complete happy accident that had nothing to do with the project until later in the game. 

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I drove past one of these signs on my way to work today that I hadn't ever noticed before. Made me chuckle. 

 

ar128674325857456.JPG

 

I used to think this was some great honor until I moved to a new city and they had the same sign. And then the next city after that, as well.

Showcasing fan-made sports apparel by artists and designers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

If the goal is to make something "weird" because Austin is "weird," then yes. Again, one of Austin's nicknames is "the City of the Violet Crown."
That's a weird nickname for a city in the middle of Texas to have. How'd they get it? I have no idea, but I bet the story's interesting. You could certainly do something with a violet crown-centric logo that's unique to MLS. Whereas...

 

...an oak tree is just dull. It's a logo you could use for a team nearly anywhere.

Here's a map of forested regions across the world, with each region's major tree species broken down. Just check out how many include oak trees. They can be found across North America, Europe, Asia, India, and Oceania. And that's not even taking into account cities that plant them where they don't grow naturally. Oak trees are ubiquitous.

The one historical tidbit that could have justified the oak as a symbol was left off, leading me to believe the designers were unaware of it.

 

So yeah. If the goal was to make a weird and unique logo because Austin is weird? Then the violet crown route would have been the way to go. If the goal was to use a static image that would work for almost any locale in the Northern Hemisphere? Well mission accomplished, I guess.

 

1. I was only talking about the logo, not the name. For a team named “Austin FC,” I would have the exact same reaction to a violet crown as a crest as I would to an oak tree. Regardless of the niche or commonality of the subject, they both hold the same amount of visual interest to me as an outsider. Now if the team named itself differently as you suggested, then that’s another conversation.

 

2. The commonality of the oak tree does not disqualify it from being a good identifier for Austin. That’s like saying Toronto’s hockey team should have been called the Yellow Tops, Smoke, or Hogs because there are SO MANY maple trees all over North America and those other names would be unique to Toronto as a city. I know you’re going to counter this point with the idea that weirdness/uniqueness is Austin’s thing, but that doesn’t mean that’s the avenue they have to go down every single time. Besides, an oak tree is a fine symbol for organic growth, and that gels with my idea of Austin as much as some random and obscure symbol would. Referencing a touchstone as common as an oak tree can be just as powerful because now (as you said) you have this connection to people from all over the world, and if the city of Austin views themselves as this eclectic melting pot where everyone is free to be unique, picking a symbol that has commonality for everyone has potential.

 

3. We don’t know how the design process played out. Steve Wolf and co could have received the name from Precourt, suggested several different objects (like violet crowns or armadillos) and Precourt picked an oak tree because he’s from San Francisco and that was what appealed to him the most as an outsider. Or maybe the design team locked into the idea of an oak tree early-on in the process, but either way...

 

4. Basing your opinion of the intentions/awareness of the designers off of that awful design-speak explanation graphic is dumb (I don’t remember if it was you or someone else who stated this belief). That could have just as easily come from a PSV employee who wasn’t privy to the design meetings and strategy sessions. Or the written copy could have come from someone who lost the forest for the trees and forgot to explain the big idea in all the little details. The point is, many designers don’t write their own copy and it’s up to the client to communicate that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GFB said:

Basing your opinion of the intentions/awareness of the designers off of that awful design-speak explanation graphic is dumb (I don’t remember if it was you or someone else who stated this belief). That could have just as easily come from a PSV employee who wasn’t privy to the design meetings and strategy sessions. Or the written copy could have come from someone who lost the forest for the trees and forgot to explain the big idea in all the little details. The point is, many designers don’t write their own copy and it’s up to the client to communicate that.

 

can confirm; and well said. i'll place this here again...

 

"It's more about the Treaty Oak, a 500 year old oak tree that is pretty famous down here. Also, there are oak trees EVERYWHERE around this city so that was a huge inspiration as well." - Steve Wolf

 

GRAPHIC ARTIST

BEHANCE  /  MEDIUM  /  DRIBBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the logo doesn't look anything like the Treaty Oak or a real Live Oak!! I think that's what bothers me most about the visual imagery of the logo and what everybody is upset about in terms of its use of 'oak imagery'. Live Oaks (which are all over Austin and the surrounding Hill Country) are big, winding, crazy looking trees with branches that are just as likely to twist and turn and reach down towards the ground as they are to head towards the sky- the designers don't really graphically reduce those qualities down to the image in the logo. Here's a look at some that don't look anything like the generic version in the logo.


Also, the Violet Crown I think was coined by old Austin resident O'Henry, and it referred to the purple ring that appears around the city during sunsets. It's a pretty common phrase in Austin, with a bunch of businesses using it in its name.

 

A play off the Violet Crown was the Velvet Coffin, a phrase referring to the ability to slack off and live in Austin, and just get so comfortable living there you just end up dying there too.  This one probably wouldn't make a good team signifier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

can confirm; and well said. i'll place this here again...

 

"It's more about the Treaty Oak, a 500 year old oak tree that is pretty famous down here. Also, there are oak trees EVERYWHERE around this city so that was a huge inspiration as well." - Steve Wolf

 

It’s all fine and well to say that after the fact.  But my admiration for Wolf aside, if that inspiration was actually a part of the process it would have found its way into explanation graphics he created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

It’s all fine and well to say that after the fact.  But my admiration for Wolf aside, if that inspiration was actually a part of the process it would have found its way into explanation graphics he created.

 

i can only go by what he told me. and maybe they purposefully left it out

 

GRAPHIC ARTIST

BEHANCE  /  MEDIUM  /  DRIBBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrandMooreArt said:

maybe they purposefully left it out

 

Precourt is so desperate to lay down local roots that he made the symbol of his relocated team a tree.  Why on earth would he leave out the detail that his new logo has super-awesome local Austin inspiration?  The only plausible explanation is that Wolf didn't tell him about the hyper-local inspiration, but that's not terribly plausible either.

 

I like Wolf's work a lot, but it sure seems that in this one instance he's gilding the lily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to repost this (in part because I forget what it looks like):

DlPy3huUwAIL2Ar.jpg

 

 

I stand by my original assertion that it looks like a beer label. Hops grow on vines and not trees, but if you told me the leaves were hops, I would have totally believed you.

 

I think brown in place of black would have looked nicer.

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

Precourt is so desperate to lay down local roots that he made the symbol of his relocated team a tree.  Why on earth would he leave out the detail that his new logo has super-awesome local Austin inspiration?  The only plausible explanation is that Wolf didn't tell him about the hyper-local inspiration, but that's not terribly plausible either.

 

i can't say why. i'll just believe Steve wasn't lying.

 

GRAPHIC ARTIST

BEHANCE  /  MEDIUM  /  DRIBBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also submit that, while some sort of local culture tie-in often helps a team build a brand, it is not *strictly necessary*. I would see Orlando City as an example; the color purple and lions are not references for Orlando townies to my knowledge, but I'd say their crest and overall brand is one of the very strongest in the league. (I know, the mane is also a sun, but the sun is not exactly the Treaty Oak here.) 

Showcasing fan-made sports apparel by artists and designers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

I can't say why. i'll just believe Steve wasn't lying.

 

I didn’t say lying.   More embellishing.  

 

And I don’t think that’s a bad thing, either. It’s just the clearest explanation for his earlier silence on the subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Why on earth would [Anthony Precourt] leave out the detail that his new logo has super-awesome local Austin inspiration?  The only plausible explanation is that Wolf didn't tell him about the hyper-local inspiration, but that's not terribly plausible either.

 

Just to be clear, the Anthony Precourt you're referencing is the CEO of Precourt Sports Ventures, correct? Currently investor/operator of Columbus Crew SC? The man who desires to relocate said franchise to Austin, Texas?

If so, I can offer up a "plausible explanation" why he "would leave out the detail that his new logo has super-awesome local Austin inspiration": 

Namely, he's a Grade-A paragon of ineptitude who has, time and again, proven himself capable of committing the most egregious of gaffes without seeming to be remotely aware that he's done so. 

Frankly, given Precourt's bumbling track-record as an investor-operator in Major League Soccer, I not only think it's plausible that he left out the detail that his new logo is inspired by an icon of local Austin history, I'd be shocked to learn that he wasn't responsible for the oversight. In fact, I could see the self-important moron actually opting to knowingly remove a pertinent reference to Stephen F. Austin and the Treaty Oak that Steve Wolf and his team included in the explanation graphic, and purposely replacing said citation with the type of convoluted gobbledygook that actually made it into the piece, solely because he was convinced that his contribution was somehow "hipper" or more "creative". 

My point being, one should never underestimate the imbecilic tendencies of Jay Anthony Precourt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he’s an insufferable :censored:.  But he’s also cravenly opportunistic.

 

And if one of his designers told him there was a local inspiration behind the design, Precourt wouldn’t insist they take that fact out of all the materials. 

 

Far more logical that his apologists are now scrambling to retcon that inspiration in an attempt to make him look halfway-competent.  Won’t work, but still. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GFB said:

The commonality of the oak tree does not disqualify it from being a good identifier for Austin. That’s like saying Toronto’s hockey team should have been called the Yellow Tops, Smoke, or Hogs because there are SO MANY maple trees all over North America and those other names would be unique to Toronto as a city.

This would be a valid point of the Toronto Maple Leafs were a new team starting play in 2018, and not a team that acquired the name in 1927. I've discussed many a topic with you on these forums, and I have a great deal of respect for you. You're better than this.

 

8 hours ago, GFB said:

I know you’re going to counter this point with the idea that weirdness/uniqueness is Austin’s thing, but that doesn’t mean that’s the avenue they have to go down every single time.

Actually you're wrong on two counts.

First, that wasn't going to be my "counter argument." Secondly, I'm not the one who harped on Austin's "weirdness." That was BrandMooreArt, who kept congratulating this identity on being "weird like Austin," despite the fact that it's a logo depicting a common sort of tree, in a style consistent with most of MLS, and with a name very much in-line with MLS' current status quo.

In short? I objected to BrandMooreArt's defence of this logo by pointing out it neither breaks new ground or is particularly "weird." My suggestion to use Violet Crown imagery was simply that; a suggestion. If you're going to obsess over how weird Austin is? Do so with a name and logo that's worthy of that weirdness. This logo certainly isn't.

 

8 hours ago, GFB said:

Besides, an oak tree is a fine symbol for organic growth

There's nothing organic about "Austin FC" given the way the Precourt/Columbus saga has unfolded.

 

8 hours ago, GFB said:

We don’t know how the design process played out. Steve Wolf and co could have received the name from Precourt, suggested several different objects (like violet crowns or armadillos) and Precourt picked an oak tree because he’s from San Francisco and that was what appealed to him the most as an outsider. Or maybe the design team locked into the idea of an oak tree early-on in the process, but either way...

I raised that point, actually. Too many people here are ready to assign far too much to pro designers. Both good and bad.

 

8 hours ago, GFB said:

Basing your opinion of the intentions/awareness of the designers off of that awful design-speak explanation graphic is dumb (I don’t remember if it was you or someone else who stated this belief). That could have just as easily come from a PSV employee who wasn’t privy to the design meetings and strategy sessions. Or the written copy could have come from someone who lost the forest for the trees and forgot to explain the big idea in all the little details. The point is, many designers don’t write their own copy and it’s up to the client to communicate that.

If I may be harsh? If neither Wolf nor Precourt had any hand in that write-up graphic then they are both incompetent boobs. And to be clear; I don't think either of them are.

 

It's just that this is basic stuff here. Any operation, any business, needs a guy who's The Guy. The person in charge. The captain of the ship, if you will. And if the world's first introduction to the operation's new brand is an awful design-speak write-up that no one in charge oversaw? A write-up that excluded the one historical fact that would justify the brand's signature design element? Then someone at the top, ie Precourt and/or Wolf, showed their incompetence.

 

And again, I don't think either is incompetent (one can say many bad things about Anthony Precourt, but "incompetent" is not one of those things). So if the Treaty Oak's omission wasn't down to incompetence? The only thing I can think of to explain the write-up is that it was never the intent of either the design team or management team. And that the existence of the Treaty Oak was a happy accident they latched onto after the fact.

 

Now all of that is, admittedly, speculation on my part. Well founded speculation, in my opinion, but speculation none the less. I do, however, have some more convincing evidence. The logo itself. The write-up clearly describes the logo as two intertwined oaks. See here.

And this...this is the Treaty Oak of Austin.

 

tjCzGWF.jpg

 

This is not an intertwined oak. In fact it's the only oak tree in its immediate area. Therefore the crest, which depicts two intertwined oaks, cannot represent the Treaty Oak. Further lending credence to the idea that the logo was not designed with the Treaty Oak in mind. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.