GFB

Members
  • Content Count

    7,222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

GFB last won the day on June 29 2015

GFB had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,683 All Star

1 Follower

About GFB

  • Rank
    The Invisible

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

31,331 profile views
  1. Not sure if this is legit, but it looks like gradient numbers for the Rams:
  2. There's also the matter of trust in the people making these decisions. Could the last Bucs uniforms have hypothetically been an upgrade over the Super Bowl set? Sure. Could the Eagles improve their current look? Probably. Do I trust Nike in its current form to do so? Not really! I remember people making similar comments about the Titans' old uniforms before their last change that "they could be so much better" or "all they need to do is ___" and look what they ended up with. The old Titans look, like the Broncos, had its problems, but the devil I know is probably far more tame than the hell Nike's design department could unleash.
  3. The only comparison between the two photos was simply the distance away from the player, not positioning or anything like that. My point remains that even in these hi-res photos, it's difficult to make out any of details past the "D." You can spot some of the finer details if you know what you're looking at... I'm not sure how many people would be able to guess the line halfway up the D is horse snot. If you're someone who is unfamiliar with the Broncos, you probably aren't going to have a clear idea of what that original logo is from any sort of distance, which makes it a poor choice for a helmet logo. That's simply not how horse manes look. They are thickest at the back of the neck and they narrow as they move up the head.
  4. Here’s an example of what I was talking about with clarity of the helmet design... I can sit on my couch and make out every bronco on the helmet from the TV broadcast, but with the original logo, it just looks like a small orange and white blob. But if you have any arguments in favor of the old logo, I’d be interested in hearing them. EDIT: Here’s a good look at the symmetry between the helmet stripes and the horse’s mane from the logo:
  5. Let me be clear, I was speaking about design in general and not specifically about the Broncos. A critical component of good design is the ability to stand the test of time. It doesn’t matter if you’re designing a logo or a soda can or a coffee table or a user interface... how well will it hold up as trends rise and fall and rise again? I don’t believe the Broncos brand is without warts; however, considering that it has outlasted Nike’s Dolphins/Jags/Browns/Bucs looks, all of the Reebok looks that came around including the navy Bills/Jaguars/Seahawks/piping-Vikings/Jags/Falcons, and other late 90s looks like the original pewter Bucs/GSOT Rams/maroon-49ers, has to account for something. Really, the only comparable brand to the Broncos at this point is the Eagles‘ brand. And it’s not like the reason the Broncos still have the design is simple stubbornness; the identity works with navy jerseys or orange jerseys, a modern jersey with side panels or a conservative template with sleeve stripes, a custom number font or simple block numbers. That sort of flexibility is invaluable. Personally, I’d be really sad to see them change the helmet design. My opinion is that the current logo is almost a perfect logo for a football helmet: it’s wider than it is tall so it fits on modern helmets, it’s immediately identifiable as a horse from a distance/on TV, and it has a nice creative touch where the three orange stripes on the helmet represent the three orange “waves” of the bronco’s mane from the logo (making the players subtly “Broncos” just like the Rams/Vikings/Bengals helmets make their players into their respective nicknames). I understand the nostalgia for the old logo, but I don’t believe it’s a better helmet design using any of the criteria listed above (it’s very small, not immediate identifiable from a distance, it isn’t symmetrical [logos face in opposite directions on each side of the helmet because it’s a letter]).
  6. ...but the quality of a design is absolutely tied to its longevity.
  7. This is a little harsh, IMO. While the illustration is simple and geometric (triangle, squares, and circles), that doesn’t mean it’s poorly done. Also, it does incorporate the single, most important aspect of the Browns (the helmet); contrasted with the White Sox batter that was a generic baseball icon that could have stood in for any team. It’s not my favorite idea for a Browns logo, but I am drawn to it more than some of the “CB” ideas or a dog.
  8. Miami’s kits are fine. The all-white primary kit is both peak-Miami and peak-Beckham, and the black kit is very Miami Heat/Vice. I get that everyone wants a pink kit, but their shade of pink is so soft, it wouldn’t contrast enough from the home whites. The real shame is that there aren’t league-mandated third kits for the teams to switch up looks for the Open Cups / CONCACAF Champions League / Extra clashes. Ideally, you‘d get a 60% primary, 30% clash, 10% third kit mix like you do in Europe.
  9. The color balance of this sweater is absolutely beautiful.
  10. I agree that there are no actual "rules" in any medium of art. The closest we can get are general principles and conventions, but even those can be broken and result in good art. Blair Witch is a great example of that! To me, something like the recent Montreal Alouettes branding would be an example of a great design that breaks the standard conventions of what a football team should look like. Others may disagree, but there's always room for nuance, interpretation, and disagreement. However, I believe that in order to break those principles and conventions, you must first understand them and then proceed to break them carefully and with intention. After Blair Witch found success, how many other movies attempted to replicate it in ham-fisted efforts? Those films don't hold as much value, even though they broke the same "rules" Blair Witch did. This is a great question and I appreciate you asking it. If I enter a conversation believing I am the perfect judge of what's good and bad, then I'm (A) wrong and (B) probably miserable to talk to. Simply acknowledging that our subjective prerogatives are not the lens of objective value is a healthy place to start. So as a film expert, if I trust your opinion, I believe there's enough room in the discussion to acknowledge my personal feelings about the movie while also acknowledging that, for whatever reason, there's something about the film that I could be missing because your knowledge exceeds my own. Your expertise probably wouldn't change my subjective taste or my feelings about the movie, but at least I can understand how you arrived at your opinion. Who knows, maybe your reasoning will have an effect on how I judge other films moving forward, even if it doesn't change my opinion on that specific movie? Let me ask, have you ever had a team's logo or uniforms grow on you? Maybe something you really did not like when it was unveiled, but as time went on your opinion began to change? You would notice little details that you didn't notice at first or maybe when you saw a team find success in it and it finally clicked for you? To me, that's an example of your subjective taste changing and adapting as your knowledge and expertise of the topic grows. Not everyone's understanding of the objective grows in the same way or in the same areas, they are shaped by our personal tastes after all, so there is plenty of room for nuance and opposing opinions inside of our own interpretations, but we all grow and become more knowledgeable as we spend time with things. It's natural. Very rarely have I come to see someone appreciate the Hartford Whalers logo less as they become more knowledgeable about sports design. I agree that no designer should tell you to change your taste and to like or hate something... it simply will never work like that. It's the difference between teaching and preaching. But there should be a responsibility for designers to say "here are the reasons why I like or hate this" and attempt to shine a light and share their insight. You might come to see their side immediately, it could take some time for you to "see" it, or you could completely understand what they are pointing out and still disagree. All of those outcomes result in you growing, which is all we are trying to do in the first place. We just have to make sure we're not acting like raging as we go about it. Thank you for the discussion. It's all very interesting to me, even if we're going to ultimately come down on opposing sides.
  11. I've found that there are two core pillars to every design project: the direction and the execution. Using @IceCap's example of the Buffaslug, you could argue that it is a perfectly well-crafted logo (I personally would not, but I digress). The execution of the design was there; unfortunately, it was just aiming at the wrong target. Or say you were put in charge of designing a new Cowboys uniform and you created an amazing cowboy logo with a ten gallon hat, lasso, and bucking bronco... Everyone on this forum thinks this is objectively a great logo of a cowboy, but it's just not right for the Dallas Cowboys because the direction was off.
  12. If Art only has subjective value to the individual, what are the point of museums? Why give out awards or Hall of Fame inductions to authors and screenwriters and artists? Why not just use metrics like "who sold the most tickets" and give Avengers Endgame given the Oscar for Best Picture or Rotten Tomato scores if the goal is to be as scientifically accurate as possible? The truth is, that there is something about Citizen Kane that reverberates inside of movie experts, critics, and directors that leads them to hold the film in high regard for the way it uses storytelling, tension, symbolism, and character growth. I would argue that the proof of the objective value is held in the collective of the knowledgeable; or, as someone opens themselves up to the subject of cinematography and grows in knowledge on the topic, the more likely it is that the inherent (objective) value of Citizen Kane will appeal to them. I am not making a scientific argument; this is philosophy. Holding an opinion about whether UFOs exist in this reality (something that could hypothetically be proven true with photography, videography, exploration, or time) is not the same as holding an opinion about how much unseen value something that exists in front of them actually holds. I'm looking at you, Dolittle. You said all opinions are equally valid: In this one, specific area of knowledge, the designers probably do! I don't see what's so hard or wrong with admitting that. If we were discussing TV production and the nuances that go into it, you would know far more than I. It would be foolish of me to discard your insights of "we should have a studio set" or "we should take the lens cap off" or "we should shoot from this angle to avoid the sun hitting the car and the glaring into the camera;" suggestions that would objectively make a better production. Title or position alone does not make one an expert. Being President of the United States does not make you an expert on America. Being head of Sony Pictures doesn't make you more knowledgeable about movies. Just because someone holds the title of a designer in this field does not automatically mean they know better than the rest us (hello, whoever at Nike designed the Buccaneers numbers). Prowess comes with knowledge and experience, when you can look past your own personal tastes and back up your opinions with principles and examples (or reach into the objective). The three designers in question have shown their quality and expertise time and time again. That doesn't mean you have to agree with everything they say, either. I certainly do not, but I can at least understand that their opinions have proven to be grounded in logic and aesthetics and not purely their own subjective tastes. I don't mind Brandon making appeals to authority in attempts to prove his point, provided that he does it respectfully. This is a forum, a place where ideas are shared and discussed. If his commentary is about the work (like the breakdown of the Panthers/Jaguars/Buccaneers designs) and not simply about his position/background as an artist or attempts to police the opinions of others, then we as a community should welcome it. His insights hold value and his arguments hold merit because of his expertise, even if I personally disagree with them completely (IMO, the Falcons logo suuuucks). Again, it needs to be done in a respectful manner. My issue comes when people simply dismiss his points with "well, this is all subjective anyway" and "your opinion can't be better than mine" hand-waving, instead of creating arguments or providing evidence to support their opinions.
  13. People can enjoy whatever art, books, music, design, or film that speak to them. No one should ever police the subjective realm. Let everyone have their own opinions. On the other hand, it’s also silly to pretend that Art only has subjective value and zero objective value; or that “all opinions are equally valid“ and should be treated with the same weight. I can hate something that is objectively good (say, Citizen Kane) and I can love something that is objectively bad (Sucker Punch). Artistic subjective value and objective value exist independent of one another. If you asked Martin Scorsese to list the ten best movies of all time and then asked my delinquent cousin for his list of the ten best movies, both opinions absolutely do not hold the same weight. That does not mean that my cousin’s list is less true, less honest, that he’ll suddenly start enjoying Ugetsu more than Suicide Squad, or even that he’s wrong to have such poor taste in movies to begin with, but he simply has not spent his entire life meditating on the medium of film like Scorsese has. That’s not to imply that Scorsese’s list is “correct” either. Other great directors like Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Spielberg could have completely different lists... if you put them all in a room, they’d argue and debate for days about the ten best movies of all time. But each one of their opinions holds more objective value and truth than my cousin’s opinion, simply because of their knowledge and experience with the topic. The point in all of this is that we all have our different areas of expertise and our guilty pleasures. I might have expert opinions on coffee and terrible opinions on wine. Infra, you could be an expert at motorcycles and have a horrible fashion sense. Elon Musk has brilliant ideas about how engineering and terrible ideas regarding common sense. It’s ok... you don’t have to stop wearing your Ohio State apparel in public and I can keep enjoying my $10 boxed wine from the gas station. Our subjective poor opinions are perfectly valid to us all. Brandon, Andrew and Fraser are three world-class designers who have forgotten more about design than most of us will ever know. This isn’t about ”hero worship” or saying they are always correct, simply that their opinions should hold more weight than the average poster because they know so much. If you ask them for their artistic opinions, they are typically able to explain them by looking past their own subjective opinions and into the objective realm. You never HAVE to change your subjective opinions about what they are saying, but an opinion that is able to point to the objective (I believe this is good because A, B, and C) should always hold more weight to us than an opinion that never leaves the subjective (I believe this is good because I like it and therefore it is good). tl;dr - Opinions are like holes, in that some holes have more value than others.
  14. You do know Gemini is a real constellation, right? You can actually go outside, look up, and see it in the sky tonight. And that’s not even getting into the ties of legends and stories in Greek, Egyptian, and Sumerian mythology... I’d argue names like Devils, Titans, Capitals are just as abstract conceptually, if not more so (especially a Jersey Devil). Plus, there’s Glendale High School who already use the moniker, so it’s not like I’m alone in thinking it’s fine mascot: You can believe Gemini would have been a weird name, but you can’t deny there would have been a strong connection to the North Stars (a northern constellation) and a strong connection to the location (Gemini is Latin for “twins” for a team in the Twin Cities), and then some lesser connections like the abbreviation hidden in the name. Names have been picked for lesser reasons; hell, the Golden Knights were named primarily because of the owner’s education. To consider it a bad name solely because of its connection to astrology or because it’s not “a real, tangible thing” doesn’t make sense to me. Does the Devils name get docked because of a connection to Satanism or because they aren’t physical creatures? Whatever, I digress. I thought it was a fun side topic to think about for a little while rather than rehashing the Canucks for the millionth time or the usual paths we circle.
  15. I don’t see how Minnesota Gemini is any worse of a name than Minnesota Wild, Tampa Bay Lightning, Anaheim (Mighty) Ducks, Colorado Avalanche, Vegas Golden Knights, or Seattle Kraken/Sockeyes. It has that “LA GaLAxy” perk where the location abbreviation is in the middle of the name and, if the team had been named the Gemini, the fans would have immediately shortened it to “Gems” or “G-men” or something smoother.