NHL changes 2019-20

[DrAwesomeberry]

If they can get gold jerseys that are actually sparkly gold and not a flat beige like the Edge era Penguins and the current Saints/49ers, more power to them.

[andrewharrington]

On 3/9/2019 at 11:04 AM, Morgo said:

That's actually a really good idea.  Ice can be green, especially in Canada, so I see no issue there.  Unsure if the use of the white keyline means ditching the silver entirely. 
 

 

 

 

 

I think the silver makes it a bit muddy, especially with the green, but I think it’s solid. Green ice isn’t ideal, but then again, neither is dark blue ice, so it is what it is. Personally, I think the C would be better with some artistic patterning in the style of the whale as opposed to the weird crack that doesn’t fit the native northwest style at all. At that point, the C becomes more of a graphic element than a representation of ice and the color of it is more flexible.

 

On 3/9/2019 at 1:49 PM, daniel75 said:

I dont see it that way at all, it looks fairly traditional imo. However I couldn’t agree more that this conversation has grown tiresome. Done.

 

I agree. Lots of northwest art has an aggressive appearance simply due to the style, and this isn’t very far off from some of them. It doesn’t feel overly “toughened up” to me.

 

[Corvus]

On 3/9/2019 at 7:33 PM, GFB said:

 

Here's a quick proof of concept:

 

 

 

When working with this logo, I realized just how weak the ice/lower half of the "C" is compared to the dominant orca/upper half. If you give the lower a stronger and thicker base (like the Habs logo), the logo as a whole would be much stronger.

 

 

This is the only treatment of the Orca with green I've seen that doesn't look awful. 

[uniformity]

On 3/9/2019 at 3:44 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

How many other teams have a primary logo that leaves out of the team’s primary colors?

 

Quite frankly, the discussion is so often let down by your rudeness towards opposing viewpoints, ignorance of market research data by other posters, and the repetition of the same points without any real middle ground given. 

 

Not sure why logos have to mimic a teams uniform in terms of colour balance.The Blackhawks arguably have the best uniforms in the league but the colour balance of their logo does not match - it's essentially gold and black. Ditto for the Florida Panthers. Their original logo didnt match and this was one of the best uniforms from the 90s. The Canucks orca logo doesnt work at all with green and neither does that style of art.

[andrewharrington]

3 hours ago, uniformity said:

Not sure why logos have to mimic a teams uniform in terms of colour balance.The Blackhawks arguably have the best uniforms in the league but the colour balance of their logo does not match - it's essentially gold and black. Ditto for the Florida Panthers. Their original logo didnt match and this was one of the best uniforms from the 90s. The Canucks orca logo doesnt work at all with green and neither does that style of art.

 

It’s not only the fact that it doesn’t have any green. It’s *also* the fact that it brings in midnight blue and silver, which are not part of the team’s sartorial color scheme. In my opinion, you can pull off one of those two things, but not both. The Blackhawks are a perfect example. Sure, there are lot of non-team colors in there, but the logo also has plenty of black, white, and red in it. If it didn’t have those team colors, I don’t think it would be nearly as successful.

 

Green and teal are also the most commonly used colors in northwest art after the holy trinity of black, red, and white, so I’d argue it works fine with that art style.

 

 

 

[IceCap]

8 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I agree. Lots of northwest art has an aggressive appearance simply due to the style, and this isn’t very far off from some of them. It doesn’t feel overly “toughened up” to me.

 

*picture snipped for space*

Two things come to mind.

The first is that the jagged pattern in the ice of the C, as well as the shards, lend to the orca logo's "aggressive" 90s look. I think anyone who's trying to imply it has a classic quality akin to a logo designed in 1975 or earlier is kidding themselves. The linework, above-mentioned jaggedness, the extra keyline...it all marks the logo as a product of its time. That time being the mid/late 1990s.

This isn't a bad thing mind you. It really isn't. Just don't try to sell it to me as anything else

 

Secondly...I admit your point is kind of lost on me. I mean I get it, but it seems to run contrary to something else you said. You're saying here that the orca logo is good, because it's very much like that piece of indigenous artwork and not overtly agressive. Ok, but didn't you also say the original Seahawks logo falls short for being too reminiscent of indigenous art? And that the the updated Seahawks logo was better for being more aggressive/distinct compared to the source material?

 

I'm just trying to figure out the metric here. Is it better or worse to be faithful to the art being invoked? When is it ok to add some extra 90s-style aggression and when is it not?

 

[Chromatic]

3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

 

Secondly...I admit your point is kind of lost on me. I mean I get it, but it seems to run contrary to something else you said. You're saying here that the orca logo is good, because it's very much like that piece of indigenous artwork and not overtly agressive. Ok, but didn't you also say the original Seahawks logo falls short for being too reminiscent of indigenous art? And that the the updated Seahawks logo was better for being more aggressive/distinct compared to the source material?

 

I'm just trying to figure out the metric here. Is it better or worse to be faithful to the art being invoked? When is it ok to add some extra 90s-style aggression and when is it not?

 

The Seahawks logo does the style right imo. If the Canucks wanted to use that style for their logo it would make a better example. It references indigenous art but is not overtly using it. The Coast Salish/Haida/Whatever art style looks good, but it’s far too intricate to just use whole hog for a logo. The Seahawks have a simple, well balanced logo that conveys dynamism and hints at the style without being awkward, clunky and overly convoluted like the Orca.

[daniel75]

20 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Two things come to mind.

The first is that the jagged pattern in the ice of the C, as well as the shards, lend to the orca logo's "aggressive" 90s look. I think anyone who's trying to imply it has a classic quality akin to a logo designed in 1975 or earlier is kidding themselves. The linework, above-mentioned jaggedness, the extra keyline...it all marks the logo as a product of its time. That time being the mid/late 1990s.

This isn't a bad thing mind you. It really isn't. Just don't try to sell it to me as anything else

 

Secondly...I admit your point is kind of lost on me. I mean I get it, but it seems to run contrary to something else you said. You're saying here that the orca logo is good, because it's very much like that piece of indigenous artwork and not overtly agressive. Ok, but didn't you also say the original Seahawks logo falls short for being too reminiscent of indigenous art? And that the the updated Seahawks logo was better for being more aggressive/distinct compared to the source material?

 

I'm just trying to figure out the metric here. Is it better or worse to be faithful to the art being invoked? When is it ok to add some extra 90s-style aggression and when is it not?

 

Or maybe we can just agree to disagree. 

[monkeypower]

This is from 1965.

 

 

This is from 1976.

 

This is from 1997.

 

 

 

The Canucks logo is definitely a product of it's time. That's not to say it's a bad thing, but angry mascot breaking, or really doing anything to, ice is definitely '90s.

[Bayne]

I get that the Canucks logo is a product of it's time, but I think it gets unfairly upon simply because of it's history. Sure it's got some indicators of a 90's aesthetic but it's no where near as egregious as most other typical logo designs of that era. It shows some thoughtful restraint in that respect I feel.

I've always admired the pleasing balance it achieves despite the top heavy nature of the design elements. The 'angry' expression that people lament never bothered me because of what has been discussed in regards to its influence from native art. Besides, I never really see it as 'angry'; sure it's bearing it's teeth but it's not frothing at the mouth and ready to tear you apart - again, some nice restraint.

My only criticism of the design is that for a primary logo it is slightly too detailed for me. That's not to say I think the logo should be simplified - I don't think that would work. It is what it is, and it's done quite well. It's just that I admire logos that are a bit more simple in shape and the Orca is borderline too busy. 

[IceCap]

48 minutes ago, Bayne said:

get that the Canucks logo is a product of it's time, but I think it gets unfairly upon simply because of it's history. Sure it's got some indicators of a 90's aesthetic but it's no where near as egregious as most other typical logo designs of that era. It shows some thoughtful restraint in that respect I feel.

 

22 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

it all marks the logo as a product of its time. That time being the mid/late 1990s. 

This isn't a bad thing mind you. It really isn't

 

[Bayne]

I wasn't replying directly to you. I get that I'm not entirely alone in my opinion. 

[Chromatic]

1 hour ago, Bayne said:

I get that the Canucks logo is a product of it's time, but I think it gets unfairly upon simply because of it's history. Sure it's got some indicators of a 90's aesthetic but it's no where near as egregious as most other typical logo designs of that era. 

And those other logos have been put by the wayside already. 

 

“It’s not as bad as some other logos that were made at the same time” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.

[Bayne]

1 hour ago, Chromatic said:

And those other logos have been put by the wayside already. 

 

“It’s not as bad as some other logos that were made at the same time” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

I didnt say "not as bad" I said "not as egregious" in terms of its 90's OTT aesthetic. Like i said, I think its a good logo.

 

Colorado's logo still exists does it not? For the record i also like that one.

[Chromatic]

9 minutes ago, Bayne said:

 

I didnt say "not as bad" I said "not as egregious" in terms of its 90's OTT aesthetic. Like i said, I think its a good logo.

 

Colorado's logo still exists does it not? For the record i also like that one.

Colorado's logo is great in concept (Unlike the whale) but looks extremely dated now. It's in need of a refresh a la the Bruins or Maple Leafs.

[Bayne]

Whatever happened to sticking with a logo and letting time and history cement it as a classic? If colorado or vancouver stayed with their current logos for another 20 years, everyone would freak at the idea of ditching a classic insignia. Anyway, im not defending these logos to the death, just playing the counter argument.

[Chromatic]

16 minutes ago, Bayne said:

Whatever happened to sticking with a logo and letting time and history cement it as a classic? If colorado or vancouver stayed with their current logos for another 20 years, everyone would freak at the idea of ditching a classic insignia. Anyway, im not defending these logos to the death, just playing the counter argument.

So you think NYI should have kept the Fishsticks, Buffalo should have kept the Buffaslug, and Ottawa should keep the awkward 2.5D Centurion to turn them into classics? Ugly logos are ugly. Time doesn't change that. Colorado's concept is fine, again it just needs updating to make it look current, like the other "classic" logos I mentioned. The whale is a fundamentally stupid concept, even if it weren't done in a dated style.

 

The Orca has been worn for longer than any other Canucks logo and most fans still don't accept it as "classic". Time alone can't beat bad design. The only cases where an ugly logo ever becomes "untouchable" are when they're worn by literal dynasties, like the Isles and Oilers. Even then I think if the Islanders hadn't gone to the other extreme with the Fishermen jerseys and introduced something a little more elegant it would be well received.

[Bayne]

40 minutes ago, Chromatic said:

So you think NYI should have kept the Fishsticks, Buffalo should have kept the Buffaslug, and Ottawa should keep the awkward 2.5D Centurion to turn them into classics?

 

No. But they all should have kept their respective originals.

[andrewharrington]

On 3/11/2019 at 6:58 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Two things come to mind.

The first is that the jagged pattern in the ice of the C, as well as the shards, lend to the orca logo's "aggressive" 90s look. I think anyone who's trying to imply it has a classic quality akin to a logo designed in 1975 or earlier is kidding themselves. The linework, above-mentioned jaggedness, the extra keyline...it all marks the logo as a product of its time. That time being the mid/late 1990s.

This isn't a bad thing mind you. It really isn't. Just don't try to sell it to me as anything else

 

Secondly...I admit your point is kind of lost on me. I mean I get it, but it seems to run contrary to something else you said. You're saying here that the orca logo is good, because it's very much like that piece of indigenous artwork and not overtly agressive. Ok, but didn't you also say the original Seahawks logo falls short for being too reminiscent of indigenous art? And that the the updated Seahawks logo was better for being more aggressive/distinct compared to the source material?

 

I'm just trying to figure out the metric here. Is it better or worse to be faithful to the art being invoked? When is it ok to add some extra 90s-style aggression and when is it not?

 

 

I don’t particularly like the orca logo, mainly due to the cracked-up ice that you mention here. It’s completely at odds with the formal principles of northwest art, and I think you’re exactly right that it dates the logo and drags it down (aesthetically speaking).

 

My main point there is that I think the orca part itself, while there’s some clumsy linework, is decently faithful to the style (the main departure probably being the simplicity and lack of pattering in the body). As mentioned, I’ve seen plenty of paintings, prints, and sculptures that display a similar level of perceived aggression, which is why it doesn’t feel unnaturally aggressive to me.

 

Of course, a higher level of authenticity could be good or bad depending on your personal views regarding the subject of native art creeping into branding. If that sort of thing rubs you the wrong way, I think the Seahawks’ current logo is the next logical step. It’s clearly inspired by northwest art, but definitely more unnatural in its aggressiveness and more of a departure than the orca in the Canucks’ logo. It’s a mark that’s more accurately described as an homage to the style as opposed to an example or even an interpretation of it (which is where the orca in the Canucks’ logo probably falls). Personally, I like where the Seahawks’ logo sits on the spectrum of branding <—> art. It’s also executed extremely well; not a point or handle out of place. No matter your opinion of Mark Verlander’s style, there’s no denying he creates some of the most finely executed linework in the biz.

 

The Seahawks’ original logo was lifted directly from an artifact. It was fine art that was appropriated and masqueraded as a logo, and that’s the main reason why I have little respect for it. In terms of execution, the eye seems mistranslated and departs from the style of the art (much like the cracked ice), but every other line, besides the missing nostril, is exactly the same. This mask is at the University of Washington’s Burke Museum.

 

[Bayne]

I don't think it matters if the level of authenticity is lowered slightly in order to achieve an 'interpretation' of the style. In fact, I respect that more. You're using a native art style as inspiration for a modern mark, paying homage to it while not overtly re-appropriating it with little to no modification. I like the fact that the Orca isn't exactly what you would expect from a logo that is trying to elicit a native art style, yet there are clear indicators that it is inspired by exactly that. It is its own thing. As far as the cracked ice and the opposing graphic styles within the logo - sure, I guess that's valid. But without getting too caught up in the level of accuracy of what is and isn't proper native art, I think it works. It's got a 90's look, but it's not a gross 90's look (especially since the recolouring) and I appreciate the relatively aforementioned harmonious merging of styles that it has accomplished.