Jump to content

BrandMooreArt

Members
  • Posts

    9,116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by BrandMooreArt

  1. Very strong work here. the name is the name — not much you can do about that on the Design side. in regards to that the only thing im not crazy about are the colors. but the concept and execution is so good. i dont believe that Bloomington logo will be an issue; different countries, so trademarks shouldnt be an problem? kind of unfortunate coincidence though.

     

    i love the Swiss Modernism style the logo was designed in. the very best of that stuff has a geometric wit or playfulness to it. Montreal was a hot spot for the style and you can imagine how many of *Burton Kramer's or Paul Rand's logos they must have looked at for inspiration. and its a sneaky good font choice; Helvetica was a staple of the Swiss style and its looks like that on first glance, but PangramPangram confirmed it's their font "Neue Montreal". 

     

    * you can thumb through some of this stuff to see that influence: https://www.pinterest.com/RealBMooreCreative/swiss-modernism/

  2. its one of the ugliest jerseys ive ever seen. i mean, just vomit inducing aesthetics here. BUT the fact that pulled off something thats never been done before. that they worked for 2 years to make a vision a reality? thats an absolute win and makes it worth doing. bravo adidas.

  3. 1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

    The only thing better than that new Iceland crest is the video they used to introduce that new Iceland crest. 
     

     

     

    i can't even name another one of these introductory videos i like. you expect it to be awful but this... this is what it should be. just amazing work

  4. what i wrote somewhere else is what ill say again here. every now and then, you come across a logo that is so good it simultaneously makes you want to quit and spend a whole night in the studio. all you can really do is look in awe as it reminds you of why you fell in love with Design in the first place. the concept is clear, the craftsmanship flawless, and it breaks some sort of status quo about the market it lives in. its clever in every detail— each god on one of the four corner flags, c'mon! if we're building a Mt Rushmore for modern sports team branding, Iceland just claimed their place along with the Allouettes and Juventus. i dont know if theres a 4th that can really compete with those 3 right now

  5. love the new typeface. its inspired by the Baltimore numbers but evolved to be something new.

     

     

    but whats odd is they put the print horseshoe logo on the helmet to build consistency; eliminating the slight variations between those logos. only then to end up at that very place with the typography. the new logos are just a out of the box font (no customization beyond being typed out) of something similar, but certainly different. 

  6. 10 hours ago, 1908_Cubs said:

    I think the shade of blue is quite nice.  It's deep and vibrant.  It pops.  I like the blue.  But outside of that, I'm not entirely sure I agree.  I question the need for the segmented horn in general (I'm not sure what we gain with making it segmented over a continuous shape like previously?  Does making is segmented mean it's more modern?  Not being a pain, just asking questions outloud).  

     

    I'm also not sure the new overall shape of the horn is better.  I know some of the extra curly-cue would become an issue on some of the designs of helmets today (and my guess is they eliminated it for this reason) in getting it around the ear hole, but it can also read as a crescent moon now.  The ram-horn was more clear with the added curl.

     

    For me, it is an overall "meh, fine" helmet but it falls short of a home run.  What they gain in the vibrant and deep shape of blue (which, I do find myself thinking is a very nice shade) they lose on shape of the horn.  I'd agree it's the single best element of the uniform in a vacuum but it reminds me of the rest of their uniform; there's some fine changes but some of those changes hold back what could be a very nice uniform.  

     

    this is one of the defining photos of the new uniform for me. i agree, the paint on the helmet is gorgeous. but everything about the horn just raises more questions. if they wanted a new horn shape to fit better on a modern helmet, did they really achieve that here? look how the decal is cut to make room for the chinstrap snaps, the way it overlaps the vent at the top, impeding a function of the helmet itself. and the application of the decal seems rushed at best with the bubbles. sure, they probably want to be able to swap decals in the future if they do a Fearsome Foursome tribute, but the tradeoff doesn't equal out. these horns should have been painted and i dont really see any reason to change the horn design other than to make it different than before.

  7. Best: Browns. the other contender is the Chargers but i dont think i agree with them throwing back to SD history in a new city. its an odd branding direction, plus there are just too many uniform options. dont really love how the bolt fits on the shoulders either. the Browns get an A- from me because i dont like the mix of random rounded corner and block corners on the numbers. Nike always finds a way to do something to steer a uni away from perfect, but its decent and feels like a fresh take on the classic uniform. except for the all brown alt; looks like Mr Hanky. maybe i’ll give them a B+ overall

     

    worst: Patriots. its so generic, it looks like a HS team. theres so many elements that feel random, no unity. it looks like no one really cared about the uniform and just said “make it like the CR but different”. could make an argument for ATL as well with the already dated tricks and overly blinged out, tacky helmet. matte finish, metallic logo, chrome masks, awful gradient jersey, and collegiate ATL jersey mark.

  8. 26 minutes ago, Ben in LA said:

    She wasn’t necessarily talking about sports in general, nor the reaction to the Rams, but this take is how I’m feeling about all of this.

     

     

    big facts

     

    even though i sort of like the Rams vibe, i still feel they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory here. i think its good that one LA team aims for familiar traditions and the other aims for forward movement. but wouldnt i make more sense for the Rams to be that traditional team, where they have history, and the Chargers to do something new as they've moved to a new local? odd they finally decided to celebrate their SD history in a new city. 

  9. 34 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

     

    Clearly that bone jersey absolutely will not go with khakis, and if you combine the two you deserve a punch in the belly. And there is a very, very significant portion of pro sports fans that are very intentional about matching their jerseys to their hats to their shoes to whatever else. Plus they buy stuff.

     

    I get the idea that streetwear and on-field uniforms should be different....but that horse is long out of the barn. Authentic stuff sells better than fashion designs because, at the core, we want to wear what the players wear. And if what the players wear is a little more fashion-forward than it was a year prior? That's just a bonus. Merchandising opportunities are just too big to not at least take the chance on something a little bit different.

     

    im for splitting the difference. especially when the branding of a team is leaning of the most fleeting of fads; fashion trends. 

     

    this comes with problems that need to be worked out but id love to see team uniforms built with some lasting value and a fashion line catered to individual teams. i look at Montreal in the CFL; they presented this idea really well

  10. 2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

     

    No, I mean, in your experience, are the helmet and/or logos designed before the whole process of designing the uniform begins? (I believe you've said in the past that Nike has little to no input on helmets and logos, if I'm remembering that correctly.) Like, in this instance, would Nike be given the job of designing a uniform based on that helmet, which would obviously dictate their choices? Or would it all be happening simultaneously?

     

    ahh i see. it all varies from project to project, but generally, the logos will be done at NFL Creative and the uniforms at Nike simultaneously. (which is why the briefs with concepts like "modern LA" are important). when the logos are ready, Nike will drop them onto the uniform. and usually, thats easy enough, like with the Dolphins it was always going to be whatever the new logo was placed on the side of the helmet. and im certain that kind of process is dictated by NFL because i do know some details of another uniform redesign (i hate being coy, but im really afraid to say too much) where Nike wanted to explore a lot more at the teams request, but was squashed/dictated by NFL. so it turned out.... differently. team was unhappy and Nike looked bad in front of the team, even though they were directed by NFL to do what had been done.  

     

    with the Rams though, thats more unique because its not just a logo drop on a helmet. it would only be my guess that all the logos were done first, then Nike explored ways of incorporating that into the new uniform. making this one more unique, the Rams creative team was more involved in the whole package a little more than usual as well, though that could only be on a conceptual level. i don't know the details of their involvement. again, all directed by NFL. 

  11. 2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

     

    That's interesting. That would imply that the helmet redesign happened first, and everything else followed?  I'd like to know why you think that.

     

    im not sure i follow? i think every visual element, no matter how disjointed, is a reflection of what they were trying to accomplish. i dont think they would have done the horn first for no reason, like that has to come from some idea of a "modern vision of LA".

  12. 1 hour ago, ramsker said:

     

    I feel like they're trying to tell me what LA is, when I already know what LA is. They already had the culture and imagery baked in by simply being in LA.

     

    Seems to me like they wasted all of that by using contrived gimmicks.

     

    Am I off-base with that thinking?

     

    i can see that too. part of the problem with the process is that there might be 30 people involved in it from team, Nike, and NFL. and there are at the very least 3 people who all have to agree on something about the future of the team and what they want to represent. i think what we've seen a lot this year is teams having a foot in the past and one in the future, and not in that romantic "respect the past, represent the future" way Nike says they strive for, but in a way that says "there's something really wrong here". they're trying to do something new while also trying to be 1980's Rams. the Chargers went backwards mostly, so they go the streetwear route and target that whole scene. and whatever you want to think about that decision... thats where they are

     

    32 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:


    Right, the activity of mood boards and this particular process makes sense. We employ a very similar process on the design team I work with as well, so I 100% get what they’re trying to do in terms of process steps and I think most of us here understand that it’s part of the process as well. It’s the content within it though that’s getting roasted here, and you outlined why pretty well; “disjointed” is a pretty great word for it. To me, everything on those mood boards was pretty nonsensical. It’s bad beat poetry. It’s trying to capture a bunch of “essences” that seemed to be forced into relating somehow to each other, varying from the abstract to the just plain cheesy. And granted, we don’t have the whole process in view and maybe some stuff is out of context, but I was unable to come to any sensical conclusion as to what was trying to be honed into out of all that inspiration. It’s all still got to funnel into something, and I don’t think it ever did.

     

    The more I think of it, the more I theorize that it was probably in these very steps where the wheels came off the wagon. You see it in the story behind the LA horn, where there was this market-speak about sunshine and waves and SoCal life wrapped up in one single ram horn. It’s a ram horn, why are you trying to write a whole novel about California within a single ram horn? The Rams just flat out went too deep and stayed there, ultimately looking to me like an end result of a process that was over-saturated with excitement and attachment to far too many ideas and abstract inspiration.

     

    that whole story about the horn— they're trying to do something new that a lot of people can agree with. a lot of people have input to. there's a lot of needs and goals set up to be met. so the result, to me, is not surprising. well, i mean i'll never support the decision to change the horn so dramatically, that seems like a no-brainer. they have everything else to work with, but somehow, the team and NFL agreed to it. (i have doubts about that coming from Nike).
     

     

    6 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:


    Bingo. I think you articulated the problem really well. I was thinking of something similar, how the Dodgers’ “LA” is a strong associative symbol of LA without any extra “storytelling” frills. The Lakers fit that mold perfectly as well, and thier logo is just a basketball with text across it. And yet, that evokes SO much of an LA vibe every time I see it.

     

    Why? Because these symbols over time have woven themselves into the history of Los Angeles. They became a chapter of the LA story all on thier own instead of trying too hard to tell the story in its entirety themselves. Great and timeless brands in sports that are able to naturally become a part of thier locale’s history and culture - without being forced to within every fiber - are ultimately much more endearing, in my opinion.

     

    it helps that the Dodgers have been there for so long and havent changed anything about their identity, while being a good team. i dont know if the Rams who have bounced back and forth really is an apples to apples comparison. especially when they have this new modern stadium and are trying to lead the way in sports entertainment. that should probably be reflected in all their identity points but ...

     

    man, i have so many feeling about this. i hate the horn, but love the helmet paint. like the general streetwear vibe, but hate all the "plastic" on the jerseys. its just so much of so many things. we look back on the Broncos and Bucs of the late 90s when it was an owner and 3-5 people at Nike doing that stuff (or whoever did the Bucs) and compare modern uniforms and branding to that— its clear there are just too many people involved now. at least DEN and TB look cohesive and theres 1 thing happening there. 

  13. 22 hours ago, Doorman said:

     

    This is why I absolutely love how the Chargers and Bucs did their rebrands. They just said ":censored: the excuses, we made it better because you wanted it to be better."

     

    Not like this, where the Rams are like "blue represents the sky/sea/history and gold represents the sun native to our city...", cause that's not what fans want.

     

    creating something new and just going back to something old isn't the same process. but the Chargers mentioned So-Cal inspiration, hot roders, Carrol Shelby... don't think their process wasn't similar to this. and for the Bucs, im sure there was a lot of meetings and moodboards about where they are, where they want to be, and what does that look like, before deciding to bring back the old unis.

     

    23 hours ago, MDGP said:

    So... I zoomed in on the picture of the idea board...

     

    v8oisK9.png

    INCLUSION/PRIMARY POWER/ DEEPENED WITH MULTI POP

     

    9kcqQpv.png

    AMBITIOUS DREAMERS/ UPWARDS AND OUTWARDS/ DEPTHS OF SKY AND SEA

     

    pEKLtZb.png

    DRIVEN TO SHINE/ FACETED/ CELEBRATION AND RENEWAL


    What a bunch of absolute Jackasses.

     

    you can't just make stuff and say "do you like it?". if thats your process, then you are creating tot he tastes of the final decision makers at NFL and on team side. and if they ask "why did you do that?" you need a reason. there has to be something driving the aesthetics. and there is no single final decision maker, or if there is they will be influenced by other opinions. so you have to get a lot of people aligned and agreeing to something.

     

    thats what you're seeing here, they're searching for a concept by starting with words and reflecting them with images. that's the Design process. but those words they're using? "ambitious dreamers", "driven to shine", primary power".... yea, it doesn't really pull from anything having to do with Rams history, too abstractly LA, and even as a new Brand direction, it doesn't really inspire much in terms of visuals. plus, all of that, seems to be the opposite aesthetic/concept of streetwear brands. those are deadpan; there's a lack of meaning. what they're showing here is good process but what they've put into it definitely reflects a disjointed nature of the final product.

  14. On 4/21/2020 at 3:03 PM, Unwind said:

    I know this isn't the Concepts forum, but it really upsets me that we could've had this, and don't. (I know that there's no true Color Rush option here, but you get the point. Add some red pants.)

     

    spacer.png

     

    i like this version, mostly for the take on the UCLA stripes. its fine to adopt that on the jersey but they have to make it their own and this does it with a good use of 2 colors. R/W/R stripes on the white jersey is too close to the Colts. i dont think i'd ever put the Pats in a red jersey, but it looks nice

  15. 7 minutes ago, henburg said:

     

    Say you have a room of people, hosting some sort of Art Appreciation Club. Excited about the prospect of discussing your passion for art with others, you decide to go to a meeting. It's a bit intimidating since the group has already built a clear long-standing rapport with one another, but you're still eager to put yourself out there in the hopes of joining a community of people with similar interests. Getting the chance to contribute to the conversation, you begin to discuss a new exhibition you enjoy full of modern art, only to be quickly shot down with comments that lack in good-will or even offer a chance for response: "That's not real art", "That's thoughtless trash","Everything created past the Impressionist period is terrible", etc.  Upon being thoroughly dismissed by the group at-large, you feel isolated and unheard, eventually losing the motivation to come to any more meetings. The Art Appreciation Club loses a new voice that could contribute to a greater representation of the opinions that exist in the world, leading to the preferences of the group becoming more internally codified and the conversations growing less nuanced. Everybody loses in the end as the group's original mission of providing a common ground for all to appreciate art is lost.

     

    It's a difference in tone and general understanding between people, which your original metaphor neglects to mention. 

     

    one of the best architectural firms in the States (arguably the world) is OMA. they have a small number of established, experienced leaders but don't shy away from inexperience. in fact, “Not knowing has become a qualification and offers the benefit of a different perspective.". in other words, they seek out up and coming people to bust their group think. it makes their work better and evolves it as new people contribute right away. i think it would be good for this community to think the same way

  16. On 3/5/2020 at 5:53 PM, Alex Houston said:

    As a resident and employee of this fair city, I don't know if I really grasp the point of the new branding. I mean, sure, the flag is iconic and expected to be used on many City institutions, cause we just can't resist those stars, but is this just for advertising? Either way, it would be nice to update those outdated street signs downtown. Think those are from 2001.

     

     

     

    city branding / design is something ive always been interesting in doing because of how many different applications it could touch. from any kind of signage to vehicles and the city’s website, it gives you the possibility of everything. it makes sense for Chicago especially given their laws and guidelines concerning architecture and city planning. add in a great flag and they’re prime for a graphic design unification. i dont think they nailed it though; hopefully this is something that can evolve well over time because i think it (especially type) will date quickly

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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