nash61

Best Logo Refreshes

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

it brings this community (and worst case scenario the industry) down to say “its ok as it is because i like it”. we must have better standards than that, 

 

I have no quarrel with you, but this is an elitest a-hole comment.  At the end of the day, it's all about whether people like it.  You can argue objective points, and be 100% correct about it, but if the changes required to make it objectively OK make it so that I don't like it, then it's a failed logo, to be appreciated only by artists in their collective circle jerk.

 

I happen to be a stickler for "rules" in design, and therefore agree with much of the criticism, and the majority of what you post (and I'm not a fan of the logo, FWIW), but artists should never criticize people's tastes.  If crap sells, and you poo-poo what you consider crap and produce what you consider beauty (but other people don't), that's a good way to end up unemployed.

 

Is it fair?  No, of course not.  I've been in the situation more times than I can count where I've either written something or proposed something that I feel is far superior to what others have done, only to have theirs chosen because it can be appreciated by a mass audience that can't be expected to either have the knowledge or do research to appreciate why my idea worked on so many more levels.  So, my choices are to either come up with proposals that will actually get adopted, or keep satisfying myself, but eventually be demoted or re-assigned because nobody cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Some of those “flaws”, like him looking back over his shoulder, are present in the original.  And I don’t agree with all of his critiques, that the eyes are “too simple”. 

 

We love to pretend that all of our subjective preferences are objective fact, but they aren’t. To each his own.  

 

I understand what you’re saying. The critiques there should come across as, “changing x, y, and z would make this logo better,” but instead come across as, “changing x, y, and z would make this logo look more like how I like logos to look.” It’s subjectivity disguised as objectivity, in a way.

 

15 hours ago, BellaSpurs said:

I personally like the logo, never once did I notice these “flaws” until you pointed them out. Most people don’t either. That’s why it works, you’d argue to straighten the tower of pisa

 

Flaws in digital art shouldn’t be acceptable simply because most people don’t notice them or because they like the art despite the flaws. That’s like a publisher accepting a book filled with errors and badly structured writing just because it’s the next in a popular series for pre-teens. If you like the logo with the flaws, you’d still like it without them.

 

58 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I have no quarrel with you, but this is an elitest a-hole comment.  At the end of the day, it's all about whether people like it.  You can argue objective points, and be 100% correct about it, but if the changes required to make it objectively OK make it so that I don't like it, then it's a failed logo, to be appreciated only by artists in their collective circle jerk.

 

I happen to be a stickler for "rules" in design, and therefore agree with much of the criticism, and the majority of what you post (and I'm not a fan of the logo, FWIW), but artists should never criticize people's tastes.  If crap sells, and you poo-poo what you consider crap and produce what you consider beauty (but other people don't), that's a good way to end up unemployed.

 

Is it fair?  No, of course not.  I've been in the situation more times than I can count where I've either written something or proposed something that I feel is far superior to what others have done, only to have theirs chosen because it can be appreciated by a mass audience that can't be expected to either have the knowledge or do research to appreciate why my idea worked on so many more levels.  So, my choices are to either come up with proposals that will actually get adopted, or keep satisfying myself, but eventually be demoted or re-assigned because nobody cares.

 

This is a conundrum for anyone who creates things (painters, designers, writers, choreographers, musicians, etc.). It often comes down to a choice: should you bend your own philosophy and principles in exchange for the notoriety and exposure that comes with mass appeal, or should you do what you think (or know) is right and hope that talent and quality eventually outshine the trends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

This is a conundrum for anyone who creates things (painters, designers, writers, choreographers, musicians, etc.). It often comes down to a choice: should you bend your own philosophy and principles in exchange for the notoriety and exposure that comes with mass appeal, or should you do what you think (or know) is right and hope that talent and quality eventually outshine the trends?

 

One key difference is that a logo-designer is being paid to produce something for a specific purpose.  It's not the same as someone painting something based on a personal inspiration, in a personal style, and telling a story that means something to them.  Your philosophy and principles are to an extent irrelevant. 

 

Sports-logo designs are also way different than traditional company logos.  They both "tell a story", but the sports logo designs are (in 2018) specifically designed to be sold to the public, while Regal Cinemas isn't selling pennants, car flags, hoodies, socks, panties, etc. with their logo.  While a designer obviously has freedom within the high-level guidelines given to them by the client (unless the client knows exactly what they want and is simply paying the designer to bring it to life), there's also a need to incorporate 'features' that will help it sell, whether a color, a goofy font that that makes the artist cringe but the kids will love, a drop shadow because that's what's in, etc.

 

Artist critiques and our critiques here are one thing, because typically they're based on objectivity and 'rules', but at the end of the day, neither of those things matter if a kid looks at a corny-ass logo and is like "mommy look - the kitty is teal!  and it has cool fangs!  I want it I want it I want it".

 

The way we critique logos here also isn't very fair - and I know you know this as well as anyone - because we (the general CCSLC membership) aren't privy to the requirements provided by the clients.  It's very easy for us to call a design "lazy" (which makes me want to puke), or to criticize an overly-aggressive stance, or something, but the artist may have done the absolute best that she or he could have done within the guidelines set forth by the paying customer - and we can't see that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The way we critique logos here also isn't very fair - and I know you know this as well as anyone - because we (the general CCSLC membership) aren't privy to the requirements provided by the clients.  It's very easy for us to call a design "lazy" (which makes me want to puke), or to criticize an overly-aggressive stance, or something, but the artist may have done the absolute best that she or he could have done within the guidelines set forth by the paying customer - and we can't see that.

 

YES YES YES OMG YES.  I sometimes wish we could ban the word “lazy” from these boards.  Especially when applied to simple designs, as though it was so much easier to make those balanced and effective than it is to stack lots of elements together. 

 

I do agree that it’s often unfair of us to criticize a specific logo, not being privy to the process.  But on the other hand, I have no problem criticizing Brandiose when looking at their entire body of work and observing the common tropes found therein.  The clients can’t have hampered all of those processes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 11:29 AM, BellaSpurs said:

xMzxXnW.png

 

Cub2GXy.png

 

 

Disagree, the Fiesta logo is great and it gave the Spurs some needed flare. 

 

Also, they upgraded the Fiesta logo one season before they switched to a boring logo:

 

VbPuMpn.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

YES YES YES OMG YES.  I sometimes wish we could ban the word “lazy” from these boards.  Especially when applied to simple designs, as though it was so much easier to make those balanced and effective than it is to stack lots of elements together. 

 

I do agree that it’s often unfair of us to criticize a specific logo, not being privy to the process.  But on the other hand, I have no problem criticizing Brandiose when looking at their entire body of work and observing the common tropes found therein.  The clients can’t have hampered all of those processes.  

 

I actually suggested that at one time.  Once someone dismisses a design as "lazy", I pretty much stop reading the rest of their critique and ignore their future posts on logo-related topics.

 

"I coulda done that in 30 seconds!" is another one.  You could have done it?  Well you didn't. You're posting about it on the internet, while the "lazy" designer is paying for a czech hooker with the money he made with that "lazy" design.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 But on the other hand, I have no problem criticizing Brandiose when looking at their entire body of work and observing the common tropes found therein.  The clients can’t have hampered all of those processes.  

 

So... here's the thing.  After a while, designers almost become "brands".  Brandiose, like Phoenix, have certain styles that you can point out from a mile away.  Some college or minor league team might not know what they want, but they know they want the Phoenix treatment, or the Brandiose treatment.  I guess in those cases, the honus flips to the designer rather than the client, because much like your point about Brandiose, every client can't possibly be telling Phoenix to use the same style font on everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I think that NCS monogram is a downgrade from the original.  The lack of separation between the letters, that black space, makes it much muddier. 

 

On the other hand, that mascot logo update is brilliant.   That’s exactly what Wisconsin should have done with Bucky Badger. 

 

correct-and-incorrect-tuffy.jpg

 

 

So much better than this, which is too simplified, so much so that it loses the charm of the original.

 

Bucky_Badger.jpg150px-BuckyBadger.svg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ark said:

 

Disagree, the Fiesta logo is great and it gave the Spurs some needed flare. 

 

Also, they upgraded the Fiesta logo one season before they switched to a boring logo:

 

VbPuMpn.png

Are the colors more pastel there, in the one right before the switch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

So... here's the thing.  After a while, designers almost become "brands".  Brandiose, like Phoenix, have certain styles that you can point out from a mile away.  Some college or minor league team might not know what they want, but they know they want the Phoenix treatment, or the Brandiose treatment.  I guess in those cases, the honus flips to the designer rather than the client, because much like your point about Brandiose, every client can't possibly be telling Phoenix to use the same style font on everything.

I still can’t figure out how anyone wants the “Phoenix treatment”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ark said:

 

Disagree, the Fiesta logo is great and it gave the Spurs some needed flare. 

 

The Popovich-coached Spurs didn’t need “flare.” Their brand centered on simple, no-frills black/silver. The fiesta colors betrayed that sensibility. Their removal was good for the brand, but would make a nice “City” look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fiesta was on the logo and the court, but not on the uniforms. That's why it's so great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ark said:

The Fiesta was on the logo and the court, but not on the uniforms. That's why it's so great.

 

A team that had the minimalist, no-frills attitude of those Popovich teams shouldn’t be playing on a pastel-heavy court or have pastels in their logos. It betrays the organization’s essence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I have no quarrel with you, but this is an elitest a-hole comment.  At the end of the day, it's all about whether people like it.  You can argue objective points, and be 100% correct about it, but if the changes required to make it objectively OK make it so that I don't like it, then it's a failed logo, to be appreciated only by artists in their collective circle jerk.

 

I happen to be a stickler for "rules" in design, and therefore agree with much of the criticism, and the majority of what you post (and I'm not a fan of the logo, FWIW), but artists should never criticize people's tastesIf crap sells, and you poo-poo what you consider crap and produce what you consider beauty (but other people don't), that's a good way to end up unemployed.

 

Personal taste is absolutely subjective (and rightfully so... enjoy what appeals to you), but that doesn’t mean all tastes are equal. Your personal preferences could be in good taste or bad taste... Every person has both good taste and bad taste in music or movies or food or fashion or furniture or cars or drinks or any other area of life that a sense of design or art overshadows the creation process. As you experience and learn more about a topic, your knowledge and understanding grow and that stretches and pushes your personal judgements on whether that thing is good or bad.

 

Is that an elitist view? I don’t know, but most likely it is. But Radiohead is objectively a better band than Creed, Moonlight is a objectively a better movie than Transformers: The Last Knight, and the new five-star restaurant that opened up downtown is objectively a better restaurant than Taco Bell. That’s not saying that people can’t enjoy Creed or Transformers or Taco Bell or anything of lesser merit, nor that just because some is “elite” means that it’s inherently better suited for the job at had or necessarily more enjoyable (when it’s 2AM and I’m hungry, I do not want a $18 plate of brussel sprouts and dance clubs should not play Beethoven)... simply that some things are Art and other things are just art; and the person with better taste will have an easier time discerning between the two and communicating the objective from behind their subjective/personal feelings.

 

Look at Marvel movies: they are created to appeal to the masses. Does that mean that Marvel should create films that push the limits of cinema to new frontiers and the artistic tastes’ of all the people going to see their movies forward? No, Marvel shouldn’t be making art-house films; that would be a huge mistake and they would lose millions of fans if they did. They know what their movies are supposed to be and they create them using aspects of higher filmmaking that are distilled down into a form that is easily consumable. However, everyone knows that almost any Marvel movie released in the last five years is an objectively better movie than a DC movie in that same time, because it is objectively better according to the principles of film: characters act in sensible ways, the plot doesn’t have major holes, the dialogue is better written, etc. 

 

Designing for athletics is similar to making a Marvel movie: you are designing for mass appeal and for fans who are probably without a lot of, well, being honest, good taste. Frankly, it’s never going to be the highest form of design and it doesn’t need to be. Your job as a designer is to take these higher, objective principles and expertise (your good taste) and break it down into a logo that is easily consumable for the target audience people with less taste. 

 

Specifically, Brandon’s correct that the old Panthers’ logo is objectively better from a design perspective. While it’s not without its own set of problems, its issues aren’t as glaring or obvious as the new logo’s are. However, I’m like most of the others who really want to like the new logo because it fits the mold of what the Panthers’ logo should be better than the old one, despite the flaws. 

 

 

14 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

One key difference is that a logo-designer is being paid to produce something for a specific purpose.  It's not the same as someone painting something based on a personal inspiration, in a personal style, and telling a story that means something to them.  Your philosophy and principles are to an extent irrelevant. 

 

 

The rest of your second post is right-on and solid, but I have to push back on this part... Everything a designer does is personal because that personal style and philosophy and principles are tied tightly to who they are. Yes, the nature of client work is always flawed (you are designing for someone else and not yourself), but you can’t flip a switch and produce good work in a vacuum. The client knows their target audience and the purpose and the direction they want to go, but the artist is responsible for the creating the design that hits those targets.

 

That’s why it’s important to choose a designer who you trust and fits the vision of what you’re trying to do. If the New York Yankees hire Brandiose to design their logos and they take the field in 2019 with anthropomorphic apples on their caps... that’s not Brandiose’s fault. You can’t hire Phoenix Design Works and then expect a Joe Bosack logo. The very nature of design is communication, and it’s always a better story when the author uses their own unique voice rather than trying to speak without a voice at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GFB said:

If the New York Yankees hire Brandiose to design their logos and they take the field in 2019 with anthropomorphic apples on their caps... that’s not Brandiose’s fault. You can’t hire Phoenix Design Works and then expect a Joe Bosack logo. The very nature of design is communication, and it’s always a better story when the author uses their own unique voice rather than trying to speak without a voice at all.

 

That may be true.  But it seems that Brandiose isn’t terribly interested in telling the client’s story, preferring instead to just tell theirs again. I think we can all agree that’s a fine line, and I would argue that Brandiose has not only crossed that line but obliterated it. 

 

In your example, the Yankees would deserve the lion’s share of blame, for hiring them in the first place. But that doesn’t somehow make Brandiose above their share of the criticism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Alt-Right Brandiose and their Yankees logo is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a terrorist so that she's a Bronx Bomber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having thought more on this, I believe there are 2 different points being made in regards to the Panthers logo. one is about craftsmanship, the other is about style and these are not the same thing.

 

Style is the most surface level aspect of design, the tip of the pyramid.  I'll paraphrase from Scott McCloud’s ‘Understanding Comics’: “style is the most apparent aspects on the first superficial exposure to the work”. Differences in style could mean the difference in line weight or color, it can be recognizable from one piece to the other, even in the way one artist may draw Spiderman could be entirely different from the next. Same character, different look

 

Craftsmanship is how style is built and there is far less flexibility in interpretation here. Craftsmanship is my issue with the Panthers logo, because the designer(s) was not able to craft their art as intended or even to a believable extent, because they lack the skills to do so and this is obvious. As McCloud also wrote about craft, it is “Constructing the work, applying skills and practical knowledge. Craft is the tool by which style is built.”. 

 

I hope its clear I don’t come here for and argument but a discussion and I think of myself not as one to draw a hard line on very many issues. But craftsmanship is certainly one. I never want to come across as preachy, but dammit, the fact is Fraser has a lot he could teach anyone even about that one specific logo. 

 

...

 

Also worth noting about Brandiose, @GFB nailed it (vote for post of the year). they are not being hired to fulfill someone else’s vision or to deliver an unexpected something to an audience. They are being hired because of their style, because someone said “I like what they did there and want a piece of it for my team”. (actually this is how everyone gets hired; but for some it is based on a specific style of design)

 

It also doesn’t hurt, they have a very good relationship with MiLB and I’m sure are a pleasure to work with. So work continues flowing their way.

 

Personally, I don’t like Brandiose’s style. I don’t believe they are master craftsmen, they don’t always execute things in the best manner. But im certain there’s a lot they could teach about business and relationships and how distinction in your work/style can be a benefit. And those like Joe Bosack, Fraser and our friend Andrew Harrington can teach us a lot about craft no matter if we like their style or not. Those three, for whatever it might be worth, are 3 of the very best we have in this industry when it comes to craftsmanship.  

 

To y’all young designers out there, go ahead and trace the Panthers logo in Illustrator. “feel” how the lines and shapes are constructed. Then trace Fraser’s mark and see the differrence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Funny, I think that NCS monogram is a downgrade from the original.  The lack of separation between the letters, that black space, makes it much muddier. 

 

 

The black fill/inner outlines on the older version were much worse than the current. On the current logo, it's clear that the black fill is supposed to be there as fill, where as the older one it was a combo of outlines and fill. Plus the top-right part of the S is not aligned with the bottom-right part of the S (on the older logo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.