Jump to content

BrandMooreArt

Members
  • Posts

    9,116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by BrandMooreArt

  1. the one on the right is an actual player issued helmet. numbers on the back and all that. the logo is more condensed; not as wide i have questions about the Irsay desk helmet. one, if it were a real 2020 helmet why the hell would he have one already sitting on his desk for everyone to see? sure its not like its a big change but thats odd. i wonder if its actually a retail helmet like you might buy in the team shop and if those logos vary
  2. i'd definitely be for the single stripe on the pants. that feels like a nice refinement. i like the idea of using the helmet numbers on the jersey as well, another refined step forward. i wouldn't be for them using the "old block" though. thats going backwards, cool for a '58 throwback.
  3. you never think it could happen to your favorite team, it only happens to others. and here we are. sure, say "its just small tweaks" but im preparing myself for those to be awful. if i had to take a guess though, i'd say they'll probably change the jersey stripe a bit. maybe LSU like?
  4. i think it would be very odd if the helmet didn't reflect the new logos.
  5. not many. i don't believe italic "LA" should match like that in a font. but monograms shouldn't be treated as "type out the letters you want from a font" either. they are logos that should be finely tuned and the evidence of this one being built straight out from a font is one of like 10 things that cheapens the specific mark itself.
  6. this is likely the 2019 logo suite. we're expecting changes to at least the Rams head, Bucs, and Falcons logos, no? it could have been a cool idea had they built a simplified version of the logos that would actually work in neon, which would actually work on apparel. i dont know how you just apply a stroke of color to all the linework and say that any of those work, outside of a handful like IND, NO, HOU, GB.
  7. might be a bit of a loophole there. i dont think teams are so committed to logos. will be interesting to see how they use the updated ram head as well. one of these logos is almost sure to be on the uniform
  8. sounds like they are trying to incorporate the story of the franchise into this new horn design. using all the colors they've had through history (probably not red though). sounds about like the current uniforms
  9. naw mate, thats lifted right off the LA / StL Rams helmet. i see what you mean by the beginning of the "spiral" off the U, but in this case, its really ASU that should get a cease and desist
  10. @infrared41 im just going to consider you an expert anyway. you’re one of us now. welcome to the dark side
  11. i say your expertise does make you more qualified to judge its quality than me. thats essentially what an expert is, right? and not because of the awards but because your experience, knowledge and ability to get a point across. your opinion very much matters to me as someone who knows nothing about that field. i like the Blair Witch, but you’re saying there are flaws in production? thats interesting! id love to hear more about that and yes it might actually sway my opinion. to say not to without even hearing it would be incredibly closed minded. and if you make a good point as to why its terrible, i might agree its terrible and still like it.
  12. i havent insisted upon anything other than someone make a counter argument to the merits of craftsmanship other than "i like / dont like it". BellaSpurs was able to push beyond that a bit after some back and forth with a thoughtful post. few others have done the same. ive answered questions, asked plenty myself, and expanded upon further completely respectfully. i never suggested anyone was wrong or lesser than unless in a playful "quit trollin'" way followed by "on a serious note..." to make it clear i didnt want that confusion. there seems to be a misunderstanding that the thoughts i share are my own, being pushed upon you all or are my own conjured standards for design. truthfully, theres actually very little to that. those standards of quality expressed through these pages largely come from godfathers of modern design: Massimo Vignelli, Paul Rand, Saul Bass. not me. an injection of others thoughts on the topic is evidence for the points being made. again, no one else has done this as a counter. its mostly been mockery and false characterization and not just towards myself to suggest im trying to strong arm anyone to agree with me or that anyone is trying to present themselves as authority, or make a comment even resembling "that doesn't suck because I'm a designer and I say so" is just absurd. what are we here for? whats the point of this forum? in any other thread someone says "thats not their best uniform, this is" and another person says the same thing resulting in pages of "no u" arguments and its nothing, but when someone is interested in exploring deeper as to WHY someone might hold a certain opinion, it's elitist? please. and if that discussion expands respectfully into a 3rd point it calls for slander? some of what has always been wrong with this forum (and any digital conversation) comes from misunderstanding; things taken the wrong way or not expressed properly. there's no emotion or substance beyond the words displayed so intent and personality is hard to pick up. but a lot more of the problems here come from people who can't actually engage in a discussion without petty, intentional misrepresentation of others
  13. the Clemson logo is definitely an interesting road to explore in regards to craft. lets set the stage and see if i recall this correctly: that paw logo is an actual print from their former tiger mascot right? someone rolled ink onto its paw, they pressed it against paper, and thats what was used to create the logo? and the scar on the logo was actually there on the tiger? ill keep going on that, assuming its right. it starts with an idea. “lets make his paw the logo”. to execute that, you could draw a paw print and add the scar which is how most design is done. you create it by hand (to a certain extent) and that artists own style and craft becomes a part of it with Clemson, and what makes this so different than other examples we’re talking about here, there is no artist involved. the simplest, most direct way to fulfill the vision (idea) is the route they took. and theres something to the authenticity of that i think is really cool. because its not drawn but made, if you will. of course, ill echo Harry again here, the final result is so unique and artistic, the roughness is a by-product of the concept thats works because the craftsmanship is in bringing the idea to life. skills supporting the vision. yea it kind of sucks in embroidery and is messy but its a literal paw print. it would be unfair to say its so rough and doesnt reproduce well because it was always going to be what it was going to be from the tiger. you couldnt really get a better result than what it is given the chosen route of creation.
  14. ok, don't take it from me then. would the words of Massimo Vignelli carry more weight? "Very often people think that Design is a particular style. Nothing could be more wrong! Design is a discipline, a creative process with its own rules, controlling the consistency of its output toward its objective in the most direct and expressive way." and isn't the "ball busting" part of the issue here? no one is addressing the points made; just "i don't agree and you're an ass and Fraser is messiah". lets stay on topic? lets talk about the craft of the Falcons logo? is that allowed?
  15. "its just my style" is something people who can't draw say. im truly not trying to be a jackass with that. but it supports the point im making i think. but moreover, i'll take it— its my subjective opinion that those logos are poorly crafted. no one has presented a counter point yet except "yea, well you're wrong". i get it, im wrong. now show me how? but i think we're having 2 differnt conversations here. style is the surface level aesthetics. "i like the way that looks". im talking about how those aesthetics are executed, the production value where skills and practical knowledge is applied. craft is how the stylistic structures are built.
  16. craftsmanship is about an attention to detail, skills with tools, and being able to fulfill a vision with elegance. like fingerprints, they might be hard to see but there are traces left behind from the artist's hand where we find their competency, errors, or where their knowledge of craft either wanes or soars. these 3 shots specifically focus in on areas where craftsmanship is non existent. they are loaded with tangents, tight spaces, poor form (perspective and creating sense of light/shadow), oddly stray points, complexity, incredibly crass lines and shapes. im pretty certain the Jags logo appears so squished and skewed because it actually is. like, they took that artwork and stretched it rather than draw it properly. these highlighted areas only touch at the surface. this is not about stylistic preferences or what someone might feel looks better. it is amateur craftsmanship that in worse cases (especially the Jaguars spots) makes the logo difficult to reproduce in various applications. the "Nike era" logos are visual equivalents of someone playing an instrument and constantly hitting bum notes or playing off-beat. the skills to execute their intention is simply not there. Harrington is actually one of the finest craftsman of logos i know and gives only a brief synopsis on the matter above. i wasn't being hyperbolic when i wrote you could teach a class on how not to build logos with these examples. or that you could teach proper craft with the "Reebok era" group. also throwing in Fraser Davidson's points on the Panthers
  17. what is craftsmanship to you? and do you see good craftsmanship in this image?
  18. hold on to your butts: An Ode, And Perhaps Farewell, To The Atlanta Falcons Logo
  19. nothing NEEDS to be any particular way. its not "over designed" when every detail is working to express a single, unifying concept. that is perfectly designed, despite how we might feel about it aesthetically. critiquing what the logo is trying to do and how it accomplishes that, is separate from our aesthetic or stylistic feelings towards it. 2 perfectly reasonable discussions to have, but i think we're mixing them. and ive already said more than i ever care to about key lines
  20. 1. does it reduce in size well? 2. does it work well in multiple applications without losing structural integrity? 3. is it an original, recognizable design? 4. does it represent the team name or city well? 5. creative execution? 6. does it work well on a helmet? 7. is there a sense of pride or positivity? (something people want to wear) 8. is it well crafted without glaring flaws? 9. does it have good color? 10. if theres a concept, does it clearly communicate it? 11. does it have an iconic shape? 12. is there some historic equity? yes it does, but i simply dont agree the varied line weights with ATL are ridiculous. its clear why they're done that way, the intention behind it, and executed perfectly to convey the concept. it doesn't NEED to be that way but the concept is strengthened when even the detail of a keyline is considered. i think this is all very into the weeds (even for someone who designs logos) and saying "its a bad logo because of the keyline" seems missing the forest for the leaf, but if we're critiquing the keyline anyway, i think its something to appreciate— yes, you understand what is happening keyline or not, but it really takes the craft to another level.
  21. quit trollin' on a more serious note though, any revision to the current logo to make it more realistic or illustrated would make it lesser. its strength is in its abstraction which is how it achieves a strong, balanced, iconic shape and communicates the concept of movement and speed. these are qualities that make good logos which this one has in spades. the goal is not to so much draw what it is, but draw what its doing and you end up with a much better looking shape i actually love the red streaks as they are, which adds to the aggression and focuses on the speed concept without being over the top. theres nothing i would change about how it is crafted, save for some very detailed areas of the claw. even the keyline around the logo has been paid attention to and considered in how it works, as Andrew laid out beautifully above. its varied weight is not an oversight but intentional to further the concept and “sharpen” those points. by all means and measures, it is one of the very best logos in all of sports and should be used as an example of what NFL logos should strive to be. an evolution of a predecessor that which by comparison looks like the sketched version of what it was always intended to be.
  22. its certainly an interesting approach to Design. lots to learn about simplicity that carries into Brand Identity. i can only remember one project i really used heraldry (heraldic?) principles / inspiration but you can see that influence here:
  23. ahhh, right. i forgot about that. makes more sense that this years gray / gold is a 100th Season initiative then.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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