Falcons New Unis 2020

[JayMac]

9 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Same thing said in the Browns uniform thread. The discussion will drift until we either have a leak or an unveiling. Once either happens I can assure you (based on past precedent) actual uniform discussion will wash over everything else like a tidal wave. 

I was just attempting to provide a moment of levity

[IceCap]

4 minutes ago, jmac11281 said:

I was just attempting to provide a moment of levity

Fair enough, but I'm not really that worked up. I've never doubted or called into question BMA's skills as an artist or his knowledge of his craft. 

If the issues that exist are down to miscommunication and talking past each other? I'm happy to sort that out. 

[FinsUp1214]

I guess something I’m wondering is, what if a logo is well crafted (in terms of lines connecting, no sloppiness in construction, no random notches, etc), but is poor in execution? If the argument against it has nothing to do with its craft but how well it executes the concept, subject, theme, etc, then that’s still a valid argument right? Or no? Because I see a lot going on about craft here, and yes, craft is absolutely essential. But in my opinion, a well-crafted logo still doesn’t automatically make it good on its own; there’s more that needs to be executed than just the construction. 
 

I haven’t seen any diagrams magnifying and dissecting the Falcons logo’s craft, so assuming Brandon is a fan of it I’ll take that as validity that it is indeed well-crafted. That’s fine. Problem is I don’t think it’s executed very well, despite that.
 

The wings have always looked a bit too short and squat to me, and I feel like with that we lose a little bit of the “scope” the original had. The original, deeply flawed in craft as it was, at least gave you the impression of this large, imposing falcon. The current one in question seems a bit smaller—not quite angry songbird, but close—and that’s bugged me from day one. Second, the foot looks much too swollen (which may be lending to a potential illusion of the wings being too short in my eyes), I’ve never seen a falcon with that fat of a foot. It looks terribly unnatural to me and I find my eye going there often, which shouldn’t happen. Lastly, it’s been said that the logo was design to evoke speed and “sleek”, and while the more slanted, swooping look of the logo does lend a little to that, I don’t think the logos overall construction conveys that completely. The red detail of the wings, tail, and head distract me from seeing that because they appear to be more static detail than impressions of speed, given that it looks like it’s part of the body and supposed to be there and not anything speed related (even if tapered). I don’t quite know how else to explain it, but the gist is that the details of the bird can get so distracting that it can make the falcon appear more static because you have take so much in; if something’s really fast, you shouldn’t be able to make out that much. Had the red details not been there or been minimized substantially, then to me I think it’d be a little less distracting and communicated speed and sleekness a bit better. 
 

So in wrapping up, I truly don’t mean this to be a smart-@$$ question but mean it genuinely and seriously; if my (or anyone else’s) argument has nothing to do with straight up craft but about how a logo’s executed, is that still valid or does the craft of it outweigh perceptions of execution or lack there of? Because again, I feel pretty strongly you can get the craft of something technically perfect but still totally miss on other important aspects, and thus it is only part of the pie and not the whole thing. And I don’t feel that’s negating Vignelli (who is also one of my favorites) or any other design legend at all; they too understood the importance of execution and executed well, in conjunction with much of their principles centering on strong craft. 

[IceCap]

So @FinsUp1214's post reminded me of the saga of the BuffaSlug. 

 

It debuted, and everyone hated it. Then the designer of the thing came around and gave a very detailed account of its creation. Including concept sketches and explanations as to how the client (the Sabres) pushed the project in a certain direction. 

 

Ultimately the logo was well-crafted. It was made by someone who knew their stuff, and the concept was obviously the fault of a client who had a vision that maybe wasn't ideal in retrospect. 

 

At the end of the day though? The BuffaSlug just wasn't good. Regardless of the craftsmanship, regardless of the factors that went into its design, the final product wasn't that great and didn't resonate with the team's fanbase. 

[Tracy MidGrady]

This man wrote a essay

[OnWis97]

I guess it is pretty much subjective. I learned some interesting things from Brandon about the issues with the Panthers logo...but I suppose I cannot really tell someone they are wrong for thinking those things don’t matter (or are even good).  And I’ll certainly never be convinced to like the Falcons logo.  I think it looks too metallic and rigid.  And however technically sound it is and whatever thought process went into the “branding” aspect of that logo are neither here nor there to me.

[L10nheart404]

18 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

Oh, boy. As a fan, this quote from owner Arthur Blank isn’t getting me excited. This reads more like a Bucs, Titans, Jags Nike 1.0 rather than a Vikings, Lions, Jags 2.0. We need to revert to tradition rather than reinvent the wheel here. Contemporary with flair, player input, and lots of combinations never sounds like a good mix.

 

https://www.atlantafalcons.com/news/q-a-with-arthur-blank-2020-expectations-draft-free-agency-salary-cap-uniforms
 

Q: Speaking of the fans and speaking of excitement, I've gotten a ton of emails from fans who are just beyond excited about the first major uniform redesign in 17 years. Without giving anything away, what was your first reaction when you first saw the new duds and how excited are you to unveil a new look?

 

 

Don't overthink it bro... I'm sure, like every single uniform that ever existed, there will be some that loves them, hates them, and some that will say "meh"... Trying to get a read on them is useless. Blank is basically saying; the casual fans will be satisfied because of their affinity for the throwbacks and their simplicity, but our players and younger crowd will like them too because they have a bit more elements than a look that came out in 1966. 

[aawagner011]

22 minutes ago, L10nheart404 said:

Don't overthink it bro... I'm sure, like every single uniform that ever existed, there will be a some that loves them, hates them, and some that will say "meh"... Trying to get a read on them is useless. Blank is basically saying; the casual fans will be satisfied because of their affinity for the throwbacks and their simplicity, but our players and younger crowd will like them too because they have a bit more elements than a look that came out in 1966. 

 

I get where you’re coming from and yeah, I’m probably reading too much into it. The part that makes me nervous is the same Falcons site blogger that conducted that Blank interview also had this to say in a previous blog:

 

Quote

I have seen them and I can give you my reactions. Flat out, I think they are sweet looking. And I'll add this, too: When I first laid eyes on them (on a computer screen), they were not what I was expecting. And I'll add one more thing: When I finally saw them in person and actually held them (and the helmet) for the first time, I liked them even more. Loved them, actually.

“Not what I was expecting” mixed with “contemporary” and “flair” has got me nervous. Atlanta has dabbled with many looks over the years and all would be reasonable to go back to with modern tweaks. Black lids, red lids, black tops, red tops, white pants, silver pants, etc. Any of those would be “expected” and familiar. Given the responses so far from the team makes me think this will be something different entirely.

 

https://www.atlantafalcons.com/news/sftb-trading-up-in-nfl-draft-safety-questions-new-uniform-clues-mock-drafts-runn

[infrared41]

6 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

to suggest im trying to strong arm anyone to agree with me or that anyone is trying to present themselves as authority, or make a comment even resembling "that doesn't suck because I'm a designer and I say so" is just absurd.

 

Clearly, that wasn't a direct quote. I was trying to convey the "attitude" that sometimes comes across when a designer tries to "prove" why a design is bad or good. It wasn't a knock on you or anyone in particular. FWIW, I like you and I think you're one of the most talented people here. That said, you do have the occasional condescending moment. So do I. Doesn't make us bad people, but we shouldn't get too bent out of shape when someone calls us on it either. 

[GFB]

9 hours ago, infrared41 said:

Show me the data that definitively proves Citizen Kane is objectively good or the data that definitively proves Sucker Punch is objectively bad and I'll concede the argument. You can't. The best you can do is offer the opinions of a lot of people who agree that Citizen Kane is good. When you do, I'll just counter with a bunch of people who claim UFOs are real. Both arguments will have the same merit and neither can be proven. There is no such thing as objective value in art. There can't be because there are no scientifically proven theories on art. For something to be objectively anything is to be able to prove it with undeniable facts. Can't do that with art. Sorry.

 

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. 

 

Quote

No one said all opinions are equally valid. "That sucks" or "that's really cool" aren't going to add much to the conversation. Then again, "that doesn't suck because I'm a designer and I say so" doesn't work either. The point, I believe, was that expertise in a field does not automatically make ones opinion more valid than someone who is not in that field. If me with my oversized ego and shelf full of awards can admit that my opinion on the quality of a TV program or movie doesn't carry any more weight than your opinion does, then maybe you designer guys can step down off the high horses and live amongst the rest of us commoners. 

 

I respect what you're saying, but I don't agree with what you're saying. 

 

 You said all opinions are equally valid:

 

Quote

Let's tap the brakes on the "I do this for a living so I know more than you" bull-. 

 

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.

 

9 hours ago, IceCap said:

I'll also add that ultimately what people take issue with is Brandon's insistence that his subjective opinion on the Falcons' logo is correct. If he just likes the Falcons logo, cool. If his background in art and design gives him an appreciation for how it was crafted, cool.

We're at the point, however, where he's trying to use an appeal to authority to elevate his subjective opinion above those who disagree with him. And that's the problem.

 

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. 

[FinsUp1214]

2 hours ago, Tracy MidGrady said:

This man wrote a essay

Indeed I did, haha!  

 

I apologize for the length of it, it did come out a little long. I just felt it was important with the good discussion regarding importance of communication to make sure I explained where I was coming from as best as I could, and make the best argument I could regarding my opinions to foster that discussion. I tend to try too hard in that regard and can easily get long-winded!    But I do hope, as was my intention, that it was a good contribution at least to the discussion of both craft and the Falcons. 

[GFB]

2 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

I guess something I’m wondering is, what if a logo is well crafted (in terms of lines connecting, no sloppiness in construction, no random notches, etc), but is poor in execution? If the argument against it has nothing to do with its craft but how well it executes the concept, subject, theme, etc, then that’s still a valid argument right? Or no? Because I see a lot going on about craft here, and yes, craft is absolutely essential. But in my opinion, a well-crafted logo still doesn’t automatically make it good on its own; there’s more that needs to be executed than just the construction. 

 

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. 

 

 

 

[infrared41]

9 minutes ago, GFB said:

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?

 

Good question. FWIW, I think giving out awards for art is a little silly. The award is based on nothing more than the opinions of the people giving out the award. To answer your question, there is no point in doing it. Not to mention, how many times have you or I thought that the Oscars, Emmys, et al, got it "wrong?" 

 

Quote

Being President of the United States does not make you an expert on America.

 

Ain't that the truth. 

 

Quote

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. 

 

True, but none of that makes me more qualified to say that the finished product was good or bad. For example, I could write a book on how poorly the Blair Witch Project was put together. In my opinion, the production on that film is a disaster from start to finish. But you know what? I also think it's a very entertaining and well done film. It breaks every "rule" but it really works. Using your own argument, if I say Blair Witch is a terrible film but you say it's great, are you going to defer to my experience and agree that it's actually terrible? 

 

Quote

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.

 

First off, in terms of talent, you are right there with those three. To your point, there are many schools of thought on what the "rules" are in my field and yours. Sure, some rules are generally, but not unanimously, agreed upon. Others, not so much. (I like shooting without removing the lens cap. I call it "conceptual TV." You have to imagine what should be on the screen. ) At the end of the day, aren't we all essentially going with the "rules" that best suit our subjective tastes? 

 

To sum it all up, no one, least of all me, is discounting the expertise you guys  bring to the discussion. What gets under my skin (and others, apparently) is when a designer tells me I shouldn't like something because (insert design speak here) and I'm just not seeing it. Art, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. 'Twas ever thus. 

[GFB]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

True, but none of that makes me more qualified to say that the finished product was good or bad. For example, I could write a book on how poorly the Blair Witch Project was put together. In my opinion, the production on that film is a disaster from start to finish. But you know what? I also think it's a very entertaining and well done film. It breaks every "rule" but it really works. 

 

First off, in terms of talent, you are right there with those three. To your point, there are many schools of thought on what the "rules" are in my field and yours. Sure, some rules are generally, but not unanimously, agreed upon. Others, not so much. (I like shooting without removing the lens cap. I call it "conceptual TV." You have to imagine what should be on the screen. ) At the end of the day, aren't we all essentially going with the "rules" that best suit our subjective tastes? 

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

Using your own argument, if I say Blair Witch is a terrible film but you say it's great, are you going to defer to my experience and agree that it's actually terrible?

 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

What gets under my skin (and others, apparently) is when a designer tells me I shouldn't like something because (insert design speak here) and I'm just not seeing it. Art, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. 'Twas ever thus. 

 

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. 

 

 

[raz]

3 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

“Not what I was expecting” mixed with “contemporary” and “flair” has got me nervous.

 

I'm with you. I just flashed on the Atlanta Hawks adding Volt to their colors ... straight fire!! 

[infrared41]

17 minutes ago, GFB said:

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. 

 

Quoting the whole post would have taken up way too much room. Suffice it to say, you made some really great points. Going forward, I will try to be more open-minded with this stuff. 

 

Thank you for the discussion as well. It was fun. 

[BrandMooreArt]

3 hours ago, infrared41 said:

True, but none of that makes me more qualified to say that the finished product was good or bad. For example, I could write a book on how poorly the Blair Witch Project was put together. In my opinion, the production on that film is a disaster from start to finish. But you know what? I also think it's a very entertaining and well done film. It breaks every "rule" but it really works. Using your own argument, if I say Blair Witch is a terrible film but you say it's great, are you going to defer to my experience and agree that it's actually terrible? 

 

i say your expertise does make you more qualified to judge its quality than me. thats essentially what an expert is, right? and not because of the awards but because your experience, knowledge and ability to get a point across. your opinion very much matters to me as someone who knows nothing about that field.

 

i like the Blair Witch, but you’re saying there are flaws in production? thats interesting! id love to hear more about that and yes it might actually sway my opinion. to say not to without even hearing it would be incredibly closed minded. and if you make a good point as to why its terrible, i might agree its terrible and still like it. 

[infrared41]

10 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

i say your expertise does make you more qualified to judge its quality than me. thats essentially what an expert is, right? and not because of the awards but because your experience, knowledge and ability to get a point across. your opinion very much matters to me as someone who knows nothing about that field.

 

i like the Blair Witch, but you’re saying there are flaws in production? thats interesting! id love to hear more about that and yes it might actually sway my opinion. to say not to without even hearing it would be incredibly closed minded. and if you make a good point as to why its terrible, i might agree its terrible and still like it. 

 

First off, I don't consider myself an expert. I'm just a guy who worked in the field for 25 years. Experienced? Yes. Expert? Nah. FWIW, every award on my shelf was a complete team effort. I'd love to say I was the reason we won them, but again, I was just a guy who was part of the production. My name may have been listed first on one or two, but all that means was that I held the position of producer or director. 

 

From a production standpoint, Blair Witch is not great. All the shaky camera stuff, poor lighting, horrible shot composition, rough audio, I could go on, but you get the idea. It broke just about every "rule" of production. That being said, I thought it was a very entertaining and very well done movie. That it broke pretty much every rule in "conventional" film making is what made it work. The point being, you can go way off the art reservation and still produce good art. There are people out there (I know a few of them) who will never give Blair Witch a bit of credit simply because they can't get past how screwy the production is. It's too bad because they're letting their adherence to the rules of production keep them from enjoying a cool movie. 

[dont care]

5 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

First off, I don't consider myself an expert. I'm just a guy who worked in the field for 25 years. Experienced? Yes. Expert? Nah. FWIW, every award on my shelf was a complete team effort. I'd love to say I was the reason we won them, but again, I was just a guy who was part of the production. My name may have been listed first on one or two, but all that means was that I held the position of producer or director. 

 

From a production standpoint, Blair Witch is not great. All the shaky camera stuff, poor lighting, horrible shot composition, rough audio, I could go on, but you get the idea. It broke just about every "rule" of production. That being said, I thought it was a very entertaining and very well done movie. That it broke pretty much every rule in "conventional" film making is what made it work. The point being, you can go way off the art reservation and still produce good art. There are people out there (I know a few of them) who will never give Blair Witch a bit of credit simply because they can't get past how screwy the production is. It's too bad because they're letting their adherence to the rules of production keep them from enjoying a cool movie. 

I truly love this. One of the things I live by is give credit in success and take blame for failures. Has it hurt me professionally giving too much credit, taking blame the few times it happened? Maybe, in fact probably seeing some brown nosers that have gotten promoted faster than me. But I take pride in myself of seeing those people I had under me get promoted and move on to bigger and better things, and consistently having a group that can out perform anyone else. 

[L10nheart404]

Woah...too many 1000 word essays. Lol