Jeep Wrangler Trailcat / Dodge Hellcat Logo

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, Captain Poncho said:

Have another look at your screed

Here's a tip. It's best not to respond to someone claiming you're arrogant by acting arrogant.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Poncho said:

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.

I'll echo what burgundy said. "Good" and "bad" are by their very nature subjective judgments. BrandMooreArt claiming something is "objectively bad"? That's arrogant. And what I meant when I claimed he's set himself up as some sort of authority on design. It takes a special mix of arrogance and a lack of self-awareness to say a design is "objectively bad" and sincerely mean it. No, it's not objectively bad. BrandMooreArt thinks it's bad. And hey, he's entitled to that opinion. It's an informed opinion, definitely. That's all it is though. It's not fact. His insistance that it is? That's the problem.

 

Quote

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, informed or otherwise. I've made no suggestion to the contrary...

I've made no assertion that anyone else is "uninformed rabble," - that was your escalation...

I've not asked, nor asserted, that anyone should keep quiet...

You said, and I quote, "...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."

This not only belittles the opinions of non-designers (referring to their opinions as being "spout off") but it also states that the opinions of some people are worth more than others. The logical conclusion of that is that someone's opinion on anything is only truly valuable in their area of expertise. Which I believe is complete and utter nonsense. As LMU said, a film critic doesn't need a SAG card.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Poncho said:

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.

BrandMooreArt brought that on himself with years upon years of holier-than-thou comments that talked down to anyone who wasn't a professional graphics designer.

 

51 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

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. 

It's this lack of self-awareness that's your problem. That you're unable to understand why posters (yeah, it's not just me) find you arrogant. "The wrong side of a design discussion." That you feel such a thing exists, that you feel you're automatically on the "right" side, and that you feel all disagreemnts are lesser opinions. That's the problem. It's the "objectively bad" thing all over again. You lack the self-awareness necessary to understand that by claiming your opinions are the absolute truth you're coming off like an arrogant and condescending

 

As for the rest? You have shown your ignorance. Be it entering a hockey discussion with no knowledge of the game's aesthetic traditions or history ("what's CCM?") or claiming that purple has no connotations of royalty in North America despite your country sharing a continent-spanning border with a constitutional monarchy, you have never been one to shy away from opening your mouth despite your lack of knowledge on the topic at hand.

And that's ok. Everyone has their areas of expertise and ignorance. I'm just suggesting that someone like you who opens his mouth on topics he has little to no working knowledge of shouldn't be condemning others for "ignorance."

 

51 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

...not shunning people for liking something, but trying to explain why that thing isn't a good thing.

Your inability to recognize why this alienates people. Another prime example of your problem here.

[CS85]

Quote

 

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.

 

 

I feel like I have pretty decent, if not outright arrogant, views on what makes a good logo or design.  I've done design in the past, and still do on an amateur level, and while it's not at all near what some have done around here, I feel that I have a good eye backed up by experience.  The wildcat logo is an imperfect logo that for whatever reason, flaws and all, made me go, "not bad!"  But it felt almost Buffaslug-like to have people "correct" me like I forgot to wear my glasses.

 

You didn't outright say as much, and maybe in my rush to be offended I misinterpreted your tone, but this corner of the art world is clearly not a safe harbor for all opinions, and maybe I'm a fool for not reminding myself before this became a cluster.  "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" doesn't apply here, and honestly that's fine.  We have whole threads dedicated to mocking the Jaguars awful helmets and performing fellatio on the Vikings latest rebrand.  It's part of what makes this place this place, I guess.  But I don't really need more examples or specific reasons why a particular logo is good and why it is bad, because we're talking about this logo, and for whatever damned reason, I like it a lot, and nothing's going to change my mind about it.

 

Moreover, it sucks to hear you join in/lead comments that sound derisive or dismissive of other members of the community, disagreements notwithstanding, reminding them (and indirectly, me) that we are not at your level.  It's rather undignified, especially considering I've personally been a huge fan of your work and make a point to check out your designs whenever I can because I think they're great stuff.  Then to come on here and see you (to a careful extent) and primarily Poncho (not tactful whatsoever) remind the non-professionals/not-at-your-level folks that we quite simply don't know what we're talking about....it sucks.

 

I'd love to have you on my little show.  I'd love to talk this over with you and better understand each other.  I just hope maybe you can understand a bit in the meantime why my feathers would be ruffled. 

[infrared41]

I gotta say I like this new rule that says opinions on art are no longer subjective. Now I'll have data to back up my NFL best and worst lists. DennisBergan is going to be thrilled. 

[BrandMooreArt]

CS85, the last thing i want is to give the impression that my posts were in any way an attack against you or your opinions. i only meant to engage in an open discussion on the work presented, and it was always about the work, though that might not have come across as such in my quick replies.  i cant say the same for every member here, but . . thats obvious i suppose. 

 

there are some members who tend to rub me the wrong way (i wont write a book about why) and can bring out the bad side of many others here. i am sorry that got included within this discussion as at least i thought, it was heading in a good place because you are 1 that an informed and productive discussion can take place with. and please dont think that every post i "like" is any kind of back door slap or i agree with every point made within.

 

i see now how you took some offense to what i had said, i count that mostly as poor communication on my part. i am always open to further discussion, either public or private. im sure you can find my email if thats your preference

[RichardWitham]

stay tuned next week for the nest instalment of "brandmooreart yells at cloud"

[ColeJ]

Yeah... Logos are art. Art is subjective. This thread is ridiculous.

[CS85]

To the threads original point, the Jeep trailcat logo is crap.  

[C-Squared]

To build on BrandMooreArt's point, while there are many subjective components to art, there are also many (many) objective components. For example, unless purposefully abstract, art is bound to the objective scientific principle of perspective. Perspective is not subjective - there is only "right" and "wrong." Ignorance of perspective does not render that component moot.

 

Subjective opinions are objectively limited by factors like education and experience. Therefore, some critics are objectively less qualified than others. It stands to reason that knowledge of objective artistic conventions, as cited by BrandMooreArt, can strengthen the validity of a subjective opinion.

 

On the other hand, wise designers can tell when an objectively correct design doesn't "feel" right and are willing to break "objective" artistic rules when necessary. In my opinion, sports logos are branding tools marketed towards the untrained eye, so the subjective opinion of hobbyists, enthusiasts, and even casual fans is crucial. Therefore, when necessary, wise designers will break "objective" artistic rules to please their target market(s). Ironically, this thread is a perfect example of the objective suppressing the subjective.

 

I think the middle ground on this site is for trained designers to "see through" objectively flawed designs for concepts that register with target audiences and for untrained critics to respect the objective critique of a trained eye.

[CS85]

12 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

untrained critics to respect the objective critique of a trained eye.

 

Mutual respect would be nice.

[sparkychewbarky]

16 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

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. 

 

I've followed Brandon's topics and posts for a long time and I have never taken his comments as being arrogant or "holier-than-thou" at all.

In fact, I and many others appreciate his learned observations on the art of design.

 

I had to go back to the start of this thread to see what all the fuss was about....WTF?

Brandon merely pointed out the facts as to why the UK Wildcat was a sloppily-produced logo.

He's right! 

It's kinda shoddy...

And some of you found that offensive???!!

 

Brandon's comments were Interesting stuff for the part of me that's keen on learning the elements of design.

For the "fan" part of me that would just want a nice-looking shirt or cap, details like that really don't matter that much.

A design either looks good or it doesn't.

I've seen a lot of well-produced logos on these boards (produced by "pros") that look like crap...

And I've seen a lot of technically flawed logos, produced by amateurs, that look pretty damn good.

 

I'm actually a little surprised by Nike's effort here.

This is the best they could do?

 

Getting back to the original question/comment of this thread.

YES, that Jeep-Cat is a nicely designed logo that fits its circular background very well...

And YES, it's a much better look than the wookie-staple-remover created by Nike.

 

[pcgd]

I find myself agreeing a little on all fronts here.  

 

Its hard as a professional designer to not feel like the critics "don't get it" and usually when I read that something looks like a "third grader did it" I die inside a little. Sometimes I want to say "You don't know what went into this!" and when I do feel that way, I'm 100% wrong. Public opinion matters.

 

However, only blaming designers for failures is not fair either.  Because you don't know what went into this. There is typically plenty of blame to go around for a failed logo.  Maybe a flawed brief, a team owner not knowing what they want (or knowing exactly what they want and its terrible), a designer that couldn't sell the vision properly, or...yes even poor craftsmanship.

 

Logos are not art. Design is not art. They are artistic and they can be beautiful, but design is creative problem solving, its engineering. I'm not saying that to make it something more than it is, but the moment you have someone else approving the final outcome, it stops being self expression.  Creating something solely for the end user is not art. Creating something with imposed limitations is not art. Basically I mean, It matters what non-designers think. The goal of design is to convey information the same way to everyone. That's oversimplifying it a bit, but that is what it's all about.  Art doesn't do that.  You want people to look at a painting and get different feelings, its about how they feel and what you felt as the artist.  You don't design a logo because you want to convey a different feeling for everyone that looks at it, you design a logo to convey the message that company or brand wants the consumer to hear. Its a failure when it doesn't do that.  It can have multiple meanings that appeal to different people, but two people shouldn't have 2 opposing takeaways from a design. I think this does a decent job of breaking it down: https://medium.com/art-marketing/design-is-not-art-d229af10c167#.s9houwf8z

 

Dismissing the public's opinion on logos or design in general is dangerous.  We don't design for other designers, we design for the public (fans specifically for sports design) and that's who the design needs to appeal to. And sports design is completely different from corporate design. A logo is as much a product as its is a brand in sports.  A paper company's logo doesn't need to be sold on a hat to be successful.  But a baseball mark doesn't sell on a hat, its a miss. If a mark or design is successful in the public's eyes, its reached its goal. In many ways, design really isn't that subjective. The best sports logo in the world is a failure if it doesn't resonate with the fanbase. If we don't acknowledge that, there becomes a huge rift between the designer and the end user. Its fun to get a ton of likes on dribble, but really does that mean we're meeting the needs of the end user? There needs to be respect to the consumer or else you've completely lost touch. 

 

On the other hand, its also important that we don't dismiss the professionals among this group. I think as fans of anything, we should want to know what goes into the creation of what we enjoy. As sports fans, we want to hear about the strategy that a coach uses, or learn about the skill and hard work that goes into hitting a 95 mph fastball. Learning about why a logo wasn't crafted as well as it could have been should be valuable information to the group. Its also important. Just like understanding what a "pick and roll" is can make basketball more exciting, knowing what goes into a well crafted logo can make the study of logos more fulfilling. I think everyone that's into Athletic logos want to see well crafted design. If we don't call out bad craftsmanship, it becomes normal. I think you've seen a huge shift in terms of craftsmanship in sports design over the last 10 years.  There are a ton of factors involved, but one of them is defiantly the general consumer not caring about it as much as they once did about the details of logo and uniform design.

 

Just imagine how awesome it would be if your favorite team's message board had a few current players and coaches in there to breakdown games and plays.  That's what we currently have here. 

 

 

 

[sc49erfan15]

Well I think UK should've gone with something like this.

 

 

Best logo ever.

[Sport]

It's very probable the brief asked for something a little more unpolished than usual and wanted it to resemble a simpler logo from a previous era. Maybe their research suggested Kentucky fans wanted something that was a departure from the overly detailed pawing cat they've had forever and then this logo wayyyyy overcorrected. It's possible the flaws are deliberate. 

 

I'm sure whoever designed it has skills beyond this logo and was working to satisfy something outside of his/her control.

[sparkychewbarky]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

It's possible the flaws are deliberate.

 

Maybe...

Or maybe Nike just coughed-up a big wildcat fur-ball.

[Cosmic]

I'd like to talk about Fraser's critiques of the UK logo:

The "unfixed ends to acute outline angles"... I'm sure there's some design faux pas here, but I blew the image up to 500% and it still didn't jump out at me.  Is it really that bad?  I agree that the perspective is a little off; I notice it on the teeth.  Why, though, does the bottom of the "chin hair" have to line up with the teeth and the upper jaw?  Is that necessary for good design?  Also, the "odd" ears remind me of the tufts of hair that a bobcat or a lynx would have.

 

[T-ROY]

My take, everyone is acting extremely childish. Literally just saw a quote to a different topic that perfectly sums up this thread.

 

Maturity means you can like a logo for what it is while also recognizing its flaws. Art is subjective.

 

One last thing to add, just because someone who is more professional tends to have his opinion favored more because of who he is, doesn't mean he is correct. No one is correct. Brandon was correct in the logo's flaws, but that shouldn't take away from someone liking the logo.

 

I'll be gone now.

 

[rams80]

On 3/15/2016 at 5:33 PM, BrandMooreArt said:

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. 

 

You may not have on this go around, but this tends to be one of your favorite defenses, so it's fair game now.

[CreamSoda]

The biggest problem with the UK logo are those stupid wing-like tufts.  They look more like a flyers logo than a wildcat feature.

[KittSmith_95]

On 3/18/2016 at 0:07 PM, CreamSoda said:

The biggest problem with the UK logo are those stupid wing-like tufts.  They look more like a flyers logo than a wildcat feature.

 

Funny. Servals, Caracals, Lynx and Bobcats all have ear tufts, and each is a Wild Cat. 

[CreamSoda]

2 hours ago, KittSmith_95 said:

 

Funny. Servals, Caracals, Lynx and Bobcats all have ear tufts, and each is a Wild Cat. 

 

No, I am not talking about the ear tufts.  And actually Bobcats don't really have them, that is one of the easy ways to tell the difference between a Lynx and Bobcat.

 

I meant this part:

 

 

It looks more like a wing than the fur of a cat.