Phoenix coyotes new logo

[Sterling84]

Enter the mind of a twisted person who's eyes never close.

Come along with me won't you?

http://www.north18.com/images/coyoteshark.gif

What's this??  New Coyotes logo?  Or thrashing Tiger Shark?!

I know...I added the tail...but look closely and be horrified at how little I actually did to make this...I covered up their top of the head and eye...and added my own eye in a different place.  That's pretty much it.

[-kj]

Again, as with the case of Roger's adding of colour to the jersey, simple changes can have grand effects.  The simple red-and-white version you've put together makes the logo look so much better than what they released.  Less psycho-artist looking, very sharp.  They even make the relatively dull jerseys look that much better.  My hearty compliments.

[JQK]

That looks like some kind of evil demon fish...

man... wow, that's scary...

[Primal]

That beige and white coloured version is sweet...a real pity that the brick red just doesn't work out so well. You reckon they might be willing to tweak the colours again? :laugh:

(Don't laugh, beige could be the new red this season...)

[Big E]

Sterling, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. These 'revamps' are stubby and uninteresting traces. For whatever you claim to have tried to do with the logo, you've removed the elegance and speed of lines existing in the original. Your shortnening of the three swoops below the neck, plus the addition of the fourth, now creates the look of a decapitated dog head, rather than a sports logo design. Some of your revisions come across as sloppy as well, such as the top line of the squinting eyes, that is there to represent the eye that should be on the other side of the head. Plus your movement of the line separating the dark top half from the light bottom fattens the head as a whole removes any sleekness the original one had. The lines you revised in the ear area also are uninteresting and awkward, too large for the area, especially in a two-tone design. I have to add, I agree that a two-tone design can look great is sucessful (Red Wings, Leafs), but this is not even close. The liberties you think the designer may have taken with the natural look of a coyote head may turn you off, but it is exactly that which gives the it distinction and style missing from the revisionist creations you presented. I honestly don't see these changes as improvements, and couldn't see them selling more than the one Phoenix went with.

Now I REALLY want to see this Moose logo of yours...

[nitroseed]

There is such a thing as "constructive" criticism, you know.

I think Sterling's changes are very well done, and definitely improve the state of the Coyotes new logo. There are fundamental flaws with the new logo---one major one being that if it is going for the "realism" approach, it's fairly inaccurate. The ears are too far back, the eye is too close to the center of its unseen forehead, and the mouth's opening is not nearly wide enough.

You're welcome to have your own opinion, but I'd suggest trying to be a little nicer, especially seeing how you're a new poster here, instead of ripping people's work apart immeritously.

[puckcool22]

i like it

[uniformity]

I like the revision. The lines are bolder and the details stand out better. The eye could use a little work though.

[MonkeyWrench32]

I absolutely love Sterling's revisions!  Very nice improvements.

[Roger Clemente]

Sterling's revamp is perfect. It looks more like a real coyote than the logo does and works so much better on the jerseys.

Big E, your opinion may be standing, but don't completely discredit the guy for trying something.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[JQK]

Was that Higgy? The Long Lost Higgy?

And Big E, those logos were redesigned to fit the Jerseys, and they are very well done, and the last thing it is, is a trace.

It takes the general idea and shape from the logo, but that is some fine work by Sterling.

and by the way, what have you done? Where are YOUR designs? If you felt there was something wrong with his logos, then you tell him what was wrong and give suggestions for improvements. You, however, just decided to be negative with no suggestions or ideas of your own.

Come up with something better, then you can talk.

Until then, shut the dang up. Learn some :censored:ing manners.

[Cuss16]

I dont really like the logo at all. But it does kinda look like a goalie's mask now that nitroseed has mentioned it....

and i think sterling's revisions are awsome but for some reason i prefer the new one they have now. I think it's because the proportion of the ears and the nose.

[nitroseed]

According to that article I mentioned, the old logo was the one that was intended to be a hockey mask. I don't see it... does anyone else?

[-kj]

I've always seen it.  The entire thing isn't a mask--just that left side (from the viewer's perspective), a half-mask.

[DEAD!]

I think that coyote didn't really want to be a hockey player, but The Phantom of the Opera!

[Sterling84]

Sterling, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. These 'revamps' are stubby and uninteresting traces. For whatever you claim to have tried to do with the logo, you've removed the elegance and speed of lines existing in the original. Your shortnening of the three swoops below the neck, plus the addition of the fourth, now creates the look of a decapitated dog head, rather than a sports logo design. Some of your revisions come across as sloppy as well, such as the top line of the squinting eyes, that is there to represent the eye that should be on the other side of the head. Plus your movement of the line separating the dark top half from the light bottom fattens the head as a whole removes any sleekness the original one had. The lines you revised in the ear area also are uninteresting and awkward, too large for the area, especially in a two-tone design. I have to add, I agree that a two-tone design can look great is sucessful (Red Wings, Leafs), but this is not even close. The liberties you think the designer may have taken with the natural look of a coyote head may turn you off, but it is exactly that which gives the it distinction and style missing from the revisionist creations you presented. I honestly don't see these changes as improvements, and couldn't see them selling more than the one Phoenix went with.

Now I REALLY want to see this Moose logo of yours...

Whoa!

Umm, ok.  First things first.  Higgy, RC, JQK, Nitro...thanks a million for getting my back here...I appreciate that very much.  But I'm a big boy and I can handle myself.  I believe in communication so let me try my best to respond here.

1) To get started, yeah, I totally traced what the Coyotes released..then started moving things around.  I did this because as I stated in my first post on this topic, I like where they were trying to go and thought there was plenty that was good to work from.

2) I really don't see this as plaguarism in any way.  I am perfectly comfortable doing my own illustration work.  However, when I see something debut that I feel has weaknesses I like to envision how on earth these things were overlooked by presumable dozens of  people (with more experience and talent than me) during the creative process.  I view myself as sort of an unsolicited consultant in that regard and happen to think I have a knack for this type of thing that is maybe even stronger than my original work.  See my Beloit Snappers revision and the Bobcats one I helped Nitro with.  Nitro is incredibly talented and thankfully seems to completely understand where I am coming from rather than being offended at an outside perspective.  I think it is a detachment thing.  Anything you've created yourself is like your child and you are too close for you to treat it objectively.  I wish I could clone myself, keep "us" separated and show #2 some of #1's work... I think the end result would be worlds better.  But I digress.  I'm going to do this from time to time for practice, to complain and hone my skills.  I dont apologize for trying and people are going to have to get used to it.

3)THe eyes.  If you'd only asked me about them I would have told you they are clearly the weakest part of my revision.  I'm kind of lost on them.  It's quite the challenge to reduce any artwork to two colors.  I think I did pretty good but clearly that part in particular gave me some trouble.  I do think, as Nitro said, the real logo looks like a cyclops..but if the team actually asked me, the bulk of the work yet to do would focus on making the eyes work better.

4) All the other criticisms regarding the ear, the two tone red/white face separation, the bottom scruff and the ear treatment I am willing to chalk up to creative difference of opinion.  I think the "real" one uses the black in the ear completely backward...functioning as shadow wear light would in fact hit...but thats just me.  The black separating the tan and red on the face may add depth/contrast/interest  but since coyotes dont have grooves down the center of their heads, this black is now not working as shadow but functioning as local color.  Since coyotes dont have black stripes down the center of their heads, the black is confusing to me.

At any rate, like I said...these are just differences of opinion for which you are COMPLETELY entitled to.

5) My real problem with their logo at all....is the perspective.  Now, I am all about artistic license or the "liberties an artist takes" as you said.  I understand accentuating certain things, enlarging them for effect or to add motion.  I think you'll see some real liberties taken with the concept of Moose in October.  It's not a cartoon and it's not a nature study.  Things are emphasized and things are ignored.  But what no artist can ignore is how the human eyes and brain work together.  You can't fight City Hall and you can't ignore the laws of perspective.  Keep in mind please, that I didn't choose a 3/4 view for this project.  It's not my fault that they don't know how to execute it.  WHether you see it or not...parts of this logo are flat side views and some aren't.  The snout isn't too long but it's tacked on in the wrong place.  The cyclops eye is treated as though this logo were a straight side shot.  Without creating this in CAD wireframe to show you how off it is all I can do is say trust me.  It's goofy looking.

So it is with this in mind that I started my revision.  My intent was to recreate what they had and then scooch the nose to the right place.  Once that looked promising I chose to reduce it to two colors to match the jersey. Some people took a stab at 4 color jerseys, I went the other way.  Its not that big of a deal.

But remember, the uniforms are the second piece that I had NO SAY in.  I didn't choose to make a 4 color logo and two color jerseys so I take no responsibility for why they look stupid.  

I guess in summary, I don't need everyone to agree with me.  It's kind of nice to be challenged and even ripped on once in a while.  Keeps a man honest. My only comment is that if their new look is SO solid...why are lots of people finding issue with it and trying their own versions?  I just did what I thought was an improvement and wanted to share it with the gang.  I'm no genius and I'm no prodigy, but I stand by my statements.  That coyote is the flat out "wrongest" logo I've ever seen in terms of accurate three dimensional rendering.  Take note of that please.  Not accuracy in terms of nature...not accuracy in terms of stylistic consistency, accuracy in terms of EXECUTION according to the terms that the artist, not me, laid down.  

That said, I STILL Like it better than what they had...

OH yeah, regarding the Moose:  Ouch. Thats the part that kinda hurt dude.  The coyotes organization OK'd this THING...how bad could mine be?  dang.  You're dogging something noone has seen, based on my opinions of something else?  I dont care if everyone on the board comes outside my house all at once at  chants IT SUCKS for ten hours....it's still the experience of a lifetime for me and I think it's terrific...........terrific and a damn site better than this coyote.

[Big E]

First off, to Roger Clemente and JQK, I understand you trying to stand up for Sterling, but if he's going to grow as an artist, he's going to have to learn to take some creative criticism. Otherwise, he'll never grow. And every artist needs that sort of criticism to grow, otherwise your talents stagnate. And that's the last thing Sterling wants.

This forum is all about opinions. Much like Sterling so bravely put his art out there for all to see (and I truly salute you for that), he knew he'd put it out there to be scrutinized as well as applauded. That's how it works, people, live it it. However, I also find it frustrating for some to call one's art a disappointment, only to try and revise it and make it 'better'. Sure, you have every right to, but often it comes off as belittling the professional that designed the logo.

And who the hell am I to criticize his work and have a say? Like you, I have a keyboard, so that should be all the right. But I have designed a couple of professional sports logos, as well as working as a graphic artist professionally. Any more info may compromise my sources, and I know you guys would still like the occasional logo gossip, no?

Sterling, I commend you on gettng the Moose gig, I truly do. I'm sure it is a stellar job if a pro team selected it. I really do look forward to seeing it, the Moose are one of my fave minor league teams. I meant those other comments as no disrespect, but as a basis. If you can criticize another man's art so far as to revise it, can you stand the same? I'm not going to do that to yours, rest assured, but put yourself in his shoes. If your comfortable with it, by all means, go for it. I hope we didn't get off on a bad foot here.

[Sterling84]

That's cool dude.  It really is.  For all I know, you know the guy that did the Coyote personally and I touched a nerve.

I don't know how to approach the topic of a revision.  Mine or any other.  If we were talking oil paintings for instance...heaven help the man, women, or child who touches one of my works with the intention of helping or not.  You just don't do that and I would never.

This strikes me as a little different.  Somehow these feel more public.  I'll tell ya, I follow this board, do the contests, revise existing things, all with the intention of doing this for a living someday.  I think it's good practice. I really believe in my abilities and am trying to find my niche.  Seeing as a certain percentage of any logo is inspiration and hard to "count on" I am wondering if maybe I wouldn't be better suited for a creative director-type role giving artists input and direction.  Maybe I'm off my rocker in that dream.  But I'll never get there without confidence in my knowledge,talent and opinions and sometimes confidence extends into arrogance and people get miffed.  I hope you follow me.  For me to succeed.  I HAVE to know that I am right about this Coyote thing.  And I do.  I HAVE to be able to pretend this isn't the Coyotes at all, but I project I've been hired to do...and pretend how I would handle this if say, these were the first batch of ideas presented.  I'd say, wow...I really like the direction but your persective is all off, why don't we try this....

To answer your question, Yes, I can handle it.  I am all about somebody taking one of my logos and reworking the piss out of it.  In many of my posts I've encouraged it.  My Milwaukee Bucks one in particular.  I'm stuck! Help!  Maybe I'm the only unscrupulous guy on the CC board and everyone thinks I am rude for reworking ideas.  Maybe Nitro privately resents my audacity.  I , however, think it's a compliment if anyone sees anything worth reworking in my work...as opposed to just scrapping it and starting over.  Plus, when teams update sports logos instead of revamping them, it tends to satisfy both camps and be held in high regard.  Niners, Seahawks for ex:.

Chances are, that at some point, someone else is going to have some say in how a logo turns out...even if you are the lone designer on the project.  Maybe an eager beaver owner has an idea, maybe league or team marketing people stick their noses in, maybe you are a freelance guy doing the preliminary idea work for a firm.  Whatever the case, my bet is that most modern logos are the product of a single inspiration reworked by committee.  Like the Lord of the Rings!  WIth that in mind, no artist should expect carte blanche and unchallenged reverence in this field.  I certainly don't.  I heartily anticipate all these CC guys putting together ideas of how the Moose alternate should have looked.  I cant wait!  Maybe even people postulating ideas on how I shouldve handled design elements...

TO put this issue to bed then....NO, no hard feelings whatsoever.  One man's idea of an insult (reworking others hard work) is in my mind merely the heart , the very essence, of collaberation.

OK, guys...the thread is all yours again.  Sorry.

[Big E]

Cool.

The first rule for any artist is stepping back and letting other poeple give you constructive criticism. I hope you took it as such. If it came off as harsh, you haven't experienced the professional level of graphic design yet!

BTW, I still think you're wrong and the Coyote logo is fine as is, though.  

[Sterling84]

I really don't want to waste the space on this board with this anymore.  People interpreted it as harsh, cause it was harsh. If not harsh, at the very least less cordial than we here at the Chris Creamer are accustomed to. It doesn't mean I haven't dealt with criticism, both appreciated and useless, for many years.  I'd prefer to drop it at that and move on instead of inferring that in order to reach the  highest echelon of professional design you must somehow sacrifice decorum.

We're done with this now ok?  You're right.  That logo should hang next to the Mona Lisa.  Perfection, thy name is Coyote.