Jeep Wrangler Trailcat / Dodge Hellcat Logo

[CS85]

22 minutes ago, davidson said:

 

[rams80]

1 hour ago, CS85 said:

 

Wow.  Maybe some humility?

 

You don't understand.  You didn't assume thousands of dollars of loan debt to attend some third-rate art school.

[Captain Poncho]

3 hours ago, rams80 said:

 

You don't understand.  You didn't assume thousands of dollars of loan debt to attend some third-rate art school.

 

You realize that folks like yourself, Ice Cap included, are the equivalent to hecklers at a comedy show. You may like comedy a great deal, and you may even tell a joke or two while you're standing around at a party. You might even have a vast collection of comics on video/audio and know who did what bit, when they did it, and how the audience received it.

 

But you have no idea how to actually do what the professionals do.

 

That fact won't keep you from heckling, because, you know, you have a collection.

[the_grateful_ted]

The UK logo just looks too whispy looking. It's not instantly recognizable as a wildcat for me and the lack of detail bugs me.

[CS85]

16 minutes ago, Captain Poncho said:

 

You realize that folks like yourself, Ice Cap included, are the equivalent to hecklers at a comedy show. You may like comedy a great deal, and you may even tell a joke or two while you're standing around at a party. You might even have a vast collection of comics on video/audio and know who did what bit, when they did it, and how the audience received it.

 

But you have no idea how to actually do what the professionals do.

 

That fact won't keep you from heckling, because, you know, you have a collection.

 

Is there some sort of pompous, pretentious underbelly to the board that I've been completely unaware of?  I'm honestly extremely discouraged at some of his behavior and condescension, and that's coming from me.    

[LMU]

I may not know much about art have a fancy design degree or freelance paychecks but I know what I like.

 

Last time I checked you didn't need a guild membership to purchase a t-shirt with a designed logo on it. Non-designers pay the bills for designers. 

[CS85]

I guess your opinion is only allowed if it satisfies the According to Hoyle guide.  

 

Honestly guys, I'm tremendously disappointed in the poor attitude on display.  I feel as though I am absolutely part of the so-called "comedy show hecklers" but in this case the comedians aren't trying to be funny.  They're trying to argue with the audience over even showing up to see their craft.

[Captain Poncho]

31 minutes ago, CS85 said:

I guess your opinion is only allowed if it satisfies the According to Hoyle guide.  

 

Honestly guys, I'm tremendously disappointed in the poor attitude on display.  I feel as though I am absolutely part of the so-called "comedy show hecklers" but in this case the comedians aren't trying to be funny.  They're trying to argue with the audience over even showing up to see their craft.

 

Point being that when someone like IceCap suggests Brandon doesn't know what the word "objective" means, or when Rams80 takes shots about a "third-rate art school," realize that they are blithely chattering from the blissful confines of ignorance. They don't have expertise in the field, nor an understanding of why artwork is very often demonstrably, objectively good or bad. They're not a maker of things - they are a criticizer of them. Thus, the heckler analogy.

 

This isn't to say fans' opinions aren't allowed - every person is free to spout off regardless of their actual understanding of the subject matter at hand. However, don't expect that those opinions should carry equal weight in deference to someone with expertise on actually creating the work.

 

One may as well go into the accounting division at work and tell them why they need to rethink how they do their spreadsheets because "I know what I like and that isn't it."

 

If suggesting that makers of something might be far better qualified to critique the end product than its collectors/fans makes me "pompous," so be it. 

[CS85]

If you're obtuse to criticism, you may be in the wrong industry.  Not everybody on this board is a philistine.

 

edit:  This all sounds very similar to pro athletes deriding and dismissing the media/journalists for having no understanding or real knowledge of (insert sport) because they've never played.  It's arrogant, incorrect, and divisive.

[ZionEagle]

Amazing how this all went from critiquing a simple logo to namecalling in just a few mere hours.

Come on guys, let's get back on track before this derails further.

 

Needless to say the trailcat logo seems almost a little tribal to me. I like it on the jeep, but by itself it seems a little lacking.

[Sport]

I don't like the new UK logo because it doesn't feel like it belongs with their brand. They've always used the sturdy and bold UK lettering that looks like you couldn't knock it over if you tried and then they come out with the wildcat logo that doesn't really match that feeling. This has the thin lines and the squinted eye, probably too many hair points, and the ear on the top of the head would be better off just not being there at all. The more I look at it the more it looks like a dead cat's severed head than a hissing wildcat. The first time I saw it it was outside of the context of this board and I didn't know it was for UK. I honestly thought it was for a local high school. When I found out it was a UK mark I was somewhat floored. It was a "really?!" moment. 

 

 

It reminds me of this disaster of a Pitt Panthers logo that was quickly abandoned

A hole like a mouth should never be brighter than the color outside of the hole. Is someone shining a flashlight down there? Also, it looks like a dog. Not a panther. 

 

 

 

 

I'm a big fan of Fraser, but I can tell he didn't spend much time on his and sorry I don't like that one either, although I'd pick it over the actual logo. He corrected the mistakes, but the whisker/nose area is where my eyes go first and there's just something so...shape tool about them, I guess. More time and I'm sure he'd kill the thing. 

 

As for the Jeep logo, clean it up, especially the back teeth, throw it on a football helmet and it's perfectly acceptable for a high school. I'd take it over the new UK logo with some tweaks. 

[CS85]

I guess I just like the damn thing.  I WILL RIDE WITH YOU TO VALHALLA, UGLY WILDCAT

[rams80]

 

Quote

Point being that when someone like IceCap suggests Brandon doesn't know what the word "objective" means, or when Rams80 takes shots about a "third-rate art school," realize that they are blithely chattering from the blissful confines of ignorance. They don't have expertise in the field, nor an understanding of why artwork is very often demonstrably, objectively good or bad. They're not a maker of things - they are a criticizer of them. Thus, the heckler analogy.

 

I lost the original post here, but suffice it to say that I, with my liberal arts and humanities background, understand the creative process and its difficulties.

 

I am of the opinion that many who focus on "the process" are themselves missing the point of their art and that the focus on "the process", ironically perpetuated from those graduates of lower-rated art programs, is basically putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Sport]

The UK logo is a touch better than this thing. That's where I'd rank it. 

 

 

[IceCap]

9 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

we will all end up like Ice Cap and not know the difference between a well crafted logo and a poor one, and make a fool of ourselves in a thread commenting on things we know nothing about

Ahahaha....

 

 

....look dude, you're the LAST person who should be calling other people out for their ignorance. You've shown a remarkable lack of understanding...well...most things outside of your wheelhouse. And yet that's never stopped you from commenting on them. You've had a number of exchanges on these boards with just me personally where your lack of knowledge on the subject in question is startling.

Not that this is really a flaw in and of itself. Everyone has their blind spots knowledge-wise. It's just that those who have a habit of displaying their own ignorance probably shouldn't be taking others to task for theirs. Or building themselves up as some sort of design authority

 

3 hours ago, Captain Poncho said:

Point being that when someone like IceCap suggests Brandon doesn't know what the word "objective" means, or when Rams80 takes shots about a "third-rate art school," realize that they are blithely chattering from the blissful confines of ignorance. They don't have expertise in the field, nor an understanding of why artwork is very often demonstrably, objectively good or bad. They're not a maker of things - they are a criticizer of them. Thus, the heckler analogy.

First thing's first. Like rams80, I have an academic background in liberal arts and humanities. As well as education. I'm well versed in the creative processes. A huge part of that process is being able to handle criticism. Even from those with less formal knowledge than yourself. Especially from those with less formal knowledge than yourself, depending on the audience you're trying to reach.

My background is primarily in history. There are two types of people that historical essays, articles, or books are aimed at. Those with an academic background in history and the general public. The way you write, and the what subjects you cover, varies wildly depending on who your work is aimed at. If you're aiming it at the general public? You have to take feedback from that audience. They know less about the topic you're writing on than you. You've had more training on the subject of historical writing than they have. And yet? You need to tailor your work to what will be popular to them. To recognize that what will engage that generally less educated audience often trumps everything else. After all, you need them to buy your book. So what their opinions of your writings are will often hold more weight than those of your peers, if the general audience is your primary target.

 

So let's extend that to graphic design. Whoever designed the new UK logo didn't design it with the goal of simply sharing it with other professionally trained graphic designers (the equivalent of a historian writing for an academic audience). No, they designed it with the goal of it being printed on hats, t-shirts, and other memorabilia to be sold at mass retail. What you, BrandMooreArt, or Fraser Davidson think is a distant concern to what the intended audience, UK fans among the general public, think (the equivalent of a historian writing for the general public looking for something to read at Chapters). And if they like it? It's done its job. Hell, we have CS85 saying he'd proudly rock the logo and he's neither a UK fan or from Kentucky. Meaning that the designer of the logo managed to reach those beyond his target audience.

 

Quote

This isn't to say fans' opinions aren't allowed - every person is free to spout off regardless of their actual understanding of the subject matter at hand. However, don't expect that those opinions should carry equal weight in deference to someone with expertise on actually creating the work.

And THIS is the attitude CS85 is referring to when he talks about an underbelly here. It's been festering for a while now, but it's flared up in this thread.

It's ultimately a very flawed world view. The opinions of professional graphic designers have more weight than those of the rest of us? Draw that to its logical conclusion and you end up arguing that no one should be allowed to comment on anything beyond their own personal specialties. Why should fans and journalists be allowed to comment on professional sports? Most of them have never played at the professional level. Why should most of us be allowed to comment on political or economic issues? Most of us don't have degrees in economics or political science. Hell, I've got a MA in history and a Bachelors in Education. I take it I should be allowed to shoot you down and equate you to a heckler at a comic club the next time you have an opinion on a historical topic or the state of public education?

 

No, obviously not. That's insanity. BrandMooreArt, as I've mentioned above, has shown a startling lack of knowledge on a few historical subjects discussed here. His glaring lack of knowledge is what invalidates those view points. Not his lack of an academic background in history. There are plenty of people who, despite lacking that academic background, have a working knowledge of many historical subjects and who can form mostly well-informed opinions on historical subjects. Do those opinions carry less weight than my own? I would say no. I say that because I believe an opinion is valid so long as it springs from an informed perspective.

Likewise many of us here have been around long enough to know a thing or two about the creative process re: graphical design. And we've been fans of sports aesthetics long enough to have enough of an understanding of what works and what doesn't. 

 

I hate to be the one who has to tell you that this community is not, and has never been intended to be, a place for professional designers to have their opinions exalted above the "uniformed rabble," but there it is. The site was started by Chris Creamer. A guy who, like most of us, is not a professional graphics designer. A guy who is just a fan of sports aesthetics. It's a place for like-minded people to congregate. You and BrandMooreArt and the rest of the professional design crew are welcome to be part of that. If you can't contribute without being arrogant and self-righteous though? Please go elsewhere.

[Captain Poncho]

Have another look at your screed, after reviewing these points I made in my earlier posts:

 

1) Everyone is entitled to their opinion, informed or otherwise. I've made no suggestion to the contrary. I've asserted that the makers of things (professional designers in this case) have far more insight than the fans of the made things. This is universal. When the people who don't make these things (such as yourself) intimate that the professionals (like Brandon Moore) don't understand something specific to their profession (like what "objective" means), your are arguing from a position of complete weakness. And, I might add, arrogance.

 

2) I've made no assertion that anyone else is "uninformed rabble," - that was your escalation. Would you suspect a professional hitting coach might have more insight into hitting than, say, the guy in the upper deck screaming about how the batter is hitting wrong? Or is that "arrogant" and "self-righteous" or some other label that suits you? This is, contrary to your assertion, not an inability to "handle criticism," rather, it's giving said criticism its due deference.

 

3) Please go back and re-read #1 in this list again, so you can remember that I've not asked, nor asserted, that anyone should keep quiet. I feel as though you're not understanding this key point.

Am I being to harsh with my criticism of the likes of posters who write "You don't understand.  You didn't assume thousands of dollars of loan debt to attend some third-rate art school."? I think I'm pointing out that the arrogance and condescension isn't merely limited to those of us who do this professionally.

 

My apologies to anyone whose feelings have been hurt, but I stand by my statements.

[burgundy]

"Good" and "bad" are by their very nature subjective. It's impossible for anything to be objectively good or bad. Something can be objectively well designed, but well designed does not equal good. A logo can be objectively well designed on a technical level, but be subjectively bad to a large audience, and vice versa.

 

 

And for the record, I'm not a fan of Kentucky's new logo.

[BrandMooreArt]

well things got wild today didn't they? i feel i should make a few final points

 

1. CS85 - i feel you still think i have been stating it's not OK for you to like the UK logo. that was never the issue. this was always a point on craftsmanship of the logo. Fraser's graphic and what i've written have addressed that - or at least i have tried to. the UK wildcat is a poorly constructed logo. if anyone is arguing that the shapes, perspective, and pen-tool paths are anything else, then their standards for craftsmanship are very low. i expect more from professional designers in their work, and certainly more from Nike! but if you or anyone still likes the logo, thats perfectly fine. i'll even list a bunch of bad logos i like too if we need to go in that direction. moreover, i'm glad the logo speaks to you in a way that you would proudly wear it on a t-shirt. i just hope you have better standards for design craftsmanship

 

i don't think i've been obtuse to criticism; i was the one offering the criticism of the UK logo. but again, i just feel you missed the point i was trying to make about standard of craft.

 

2. Capt. Poncho - i'm just glad you're on my side of things, LOL. but really, i think your analogy of a coach vs fan is pretty spot on (though it might have been taken a bit out of context by others?) i've always liked to say that anyone can have their opinion on the West Coast Offense, but would you rather learn how it works from a 49ers fan or from Joe Montana? (im sorry if thats a bit too "inside baseball")

 

3. LMU - "Last time I checked you didn't need a guild membership to purchase a t-shirt with a designed logo on it. Non-designers pay the bills for designers" - . . . that was a wild comment. i would say the same to you as i did CS85. it was never about what you can or can't like, but why this logo is not well crafted.  

 

4. McCarthy - your critique of the UK logo was also well done. sorry, it's probably been overlooked in this thread. Fraser probably didn't spend much time on his concept, but someone told me today "it shouldn't take more than 10 mins to do something comparable". 

 

5. Rams80 - i know i never mentioned "process". that is another topic entirely. honest question: did you read the whole thread? you'd be hard pressed to find someone who likes to break the processes of design more than i, so i don't disagree with you, but process isn't craftsmanship. 

 

6. Ice Cap - yes, you and i have had quite a few discussions where we often find ourselves on opposing sides. which is why i felt comfortable calling you on your snarky BS. i've shown my ignorance often? well, says you. i've not seen another poster more on the wrong side of a design discussion than you. i don't mean that to be harsh, or elitist whatsoever, only honest. 

 

and final point is i have certainly never posted a single thing with the intent on making myself a design authority. i think i post some things with jest that gets lost in online communication ("Fraser has spoken") but mostly, i have always tried to share whatever knowledge i have and educate the public as clearly and fairly as i can. thats what my posts here have been about - not shunning people for liking something, but trying to explain why that thing isn't a good thing. it was never personal (except in response to one jackass member) but always about the design itself. 

[LMU]

18 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

LMU - "Last time I checked you didn't need a guild membership to purchase a t-shirt with a designed logo on it. Non-designers pay the bills for designers" - . . . that was a wild comment. i would say the same to you as i did CS85. it was never about what you can or can't like, but why this logo is not well crafted. 

I was directing that at Cap'n's heckler insinuation. I can see the issues with the Kentucky logo but insinuating that people that aren't designers, and the people who actually purchase and give designers their livelihoods, have a less valuable opinion is a bit insulting.  I don't personally care for that logo but it's not for the technical reasons that have been pointed out.

 

Food critics don't have to be chefs.

Music critics don't have to go to Juilliard.

Film critics don't have to have SAG cards.

[Cosmic]

Tune in next week when BrandMooreArt tells us why things we laugh at aren't funny.