St. Louis Cardinals Concept

[whchoclte]

I think it is a good start but needs to get more defined and not even talking bird wise.

Take a look at th C it isnt fully rounded kind of an odd shape in the back. Then you have all these curvy points but on yoru new STL logo you make the outline like a triangle instead of flow with the curve of the letter. Doesnt allow me to tie on into the other. Small things like that will let your design fall short.

And about critique. Two things you must remember listen to everyones point even if they are a dick and dont make excuses for your design because it shouldnt need them.

Example guy says it look like the Bobcats, and to be honest it does soemwhat but that has to be taken into consideration, hell if you brought it to the cardinals they would probably say the same thing.

Example guy said teh secondary look out of place and you say yeah i designed it X number of years ago. So, why should that matter you put it in the package. If it was designed by Dan Simon and still didnt fit there is no need to include it. Hell its your name on the line make sure you dont need excuses.

To the guy who said It looks great who cares if they think it stinks, good critique you are the worst of the bunch.

I would like to see you revisit thsi design and define it more.

[BallWonk]

This is, I hate to say, the first of these redesigns that I've completely disliked. And not just aesthetically -- there's no accounting for taste -- but as a job of design, this just seems to me to fail in pretty much every possible way.

The good: Pretty wordmark. A well drawn bird head.

The bad: Pretty much everything else. While it's a nice wordmark, it has a distinctly metallic look. It belongs on the back panel of a shiny new car, not on a team named after a songbird. The bird head is nicely drawn, but badly colored. Has the artist ever actually seen a cardinal? Cardinals are not, in fact, shiny metal objects. They are birds, covered with relatively non-shiny feathers. As such, short of exposing them to above-ground nuclear tests, no amount of light will make the highlights on a cardinal's head white. This is highlight madness, pure and simple. Plus it's a Nike swoosh, and the sports world needs another Nike swoosh in a logo like it needs a hole in the head.

Then there's how the bird head is cut out like the C even when it doesn't share space with the word "Cardinals." Why? That makes no sense, visually or otherwise. Turns out it's not a drawing of the living songbird; instead it's a drawing of the hood ornament of the car the wordmark belongs on. Hmmm ... it's all starting to come together now. The shiny metal wordmark, and shiny metal highlighting on the bird, the hood-front cutout shape of the bird's neck ... This isn't a baseball logo at all! It's an automotive concept.

And then there's the STL logo. Which, really, is like a parody of the artist's own work. All that shiny metallic highlighting in the rest of the logo, so of course when the artist depicts a giant shiny metal object, he makes it ... flat, unhighlighted red. Then there are the scratches on the top left edges of the letters. What is that all about? It looks like an "independent Washington Nationals" logo to me. Really, it's that bad. Are those supposed to be parchment letters with their torn edges? And the structure of it just doesn't work either, with the T floating below like the SL are administering a hypodermic medication or maybe like the S just got hit with an exotic ninja throwing weapon. Make that an exotic ninja throwing weapon made of ripped parchment.

While a few aspects of this are technically well executed, in almost every other respect this is what you might call a "learning draft." That said, I like this designer's work in general, and would love to see him try again to update the Cardinals.

[rtrich11]

To the guy who said It looks great who cares if they think it stinks, good critique you are the worst of the bunch

If you are talking about me, that's not what I was saying at all. I think Ian know I meant that some posts really are worthless. Not all, of course, but some will just jerk you back and forth, so you have to shrug off the junk. For example, I did a black Jaguars helmet and a guy told me to try a teal facemask. A teal facemask?! After reading other c & c posts by him on other people's designs I realized his other comments were only confusing and not constructive. So I ignore him. Some people will flippantly say the Packers look just like Oregon just because of their similar colors. If I see other "brilliant" comments like that from a person I ignore them. I just said Ian is free to do the same.

And I did add some critique, and gave him things to think about. There's always room for improvement.

No hostility towards you whchoclte, so you don't have to respond. I hate the back and forth bickering junk we've seen a lot here lately. Just wanted to clarify what my point was.

[whchoclte]

The comment I was referring to was not made by you RTRICH11 it was made by COLTZFAN101.

All he said was its awesome and then its awesome again in two posts, lets get serious. Awesome, that means you love everything about it and you wouldnt change anything and we all know there are some thinsg in this design that need to be fixed to make it work better. Its not a knock on AAO just the truth.

I was making the point that Awesome, The Best Ever and Great are thrown around alot on here. New striping on a helmet , Awesome. Come on if we want to grow as designers we have to know that awesome is rare.

and yes who cares what we think as long as its Awesome.

[AAO]

Agreed, Greg. You just made some serious points here. Appreciate the crit, especially.

I'm gonna put this concept aside for a while and come back to it soon enough to get a fresh look at it myself. There's ALWAYS room for improvement.

[rtrich11]

Greg (whchclte), for not coming back and blasting me for whatever- you're AWESOME!

And for me, for not calling you names and actually responding to what I may have thought was an insult with maturity- I'm AWESOME!

And for you Ian...

AWESOME!

[P.I.L.L.]

It looks like an "independent Washington Nationals" logo to me. Really, it's that bad.

[BallWonk]

It looks like an "independent Washington Nationals" logo to me. Really, it's that bad.

I never said whose independent Nationals logo. I've certainly come up with a couple of stinkers myself.

(Plausible deniability: It is to life in DC what a good raincoat is to life in Seattle.)

[TwoRsAndTwoLs]

Your Cardinal has a lot of curvature on the bottom, which might lend itself into peeking out from around the S and being incorporated with the STL mark. Whaddaya think?

[VitaminD]

I'm letting you know that I keep seeing the same things over and over in your work, and that I think that each design is made weaker by the fact that it looks so similar to the others that you post.

[truncated for brevity]

I know you don't expect everyone to love your stuff, but I also think you shouldn't just ignore it when people (and I know I'm not the only one that has done it) say that most of your stuff looks so similar.

I don't know that this is necessarily a bad thing.

There are certain designers on these boards whose styles are distinctive, whether you like them or not. (As BW said, there's no accounting for taste.) Personally, it's nice to see someone develop a "signature style" and employ a similar philosophy when doing a concept. Other designers - 'Scrim and Beatnik come to mind quickly - are also out there who apply their style consistently to their work. They could post anonymously and I could guess whose work it is. Similarly, if I attempted to do a "Discrimihater-like" tribute concept, I have a general idea about the direction my project would take

When Ian (AAO) does a project as ambitious as redesigning all the teams in a given league, one would expect that there are going to be a few design similarities. Were I to take on such a project, my proclivities would come across over the course of 30 designs.

It's great to be versatile and step out of character every now and again. And I judge each of Ian's concepts on their merits (or try to); there are some I've liked and some I haven't. But he's come up with a style that's distinctly his own, and I don't see why that's being held against him. You know what you're looking at, and how it fits in with his other comparable work.

[AAO]

Thanks Vitamin. It just doesn't make sense when he says that 'each design is made weaker when it looks similar to others.' It really doesn't. A Cardinals concept and a Bobcats concept. How on earth can you say its 'so similar'. It's like saying oh man, this Bobcats concept looks exactly like the Cardinals concept, I don't like it now. If you can't tell a Cardinal from a Bobcat youve got issues. Style similarity, yes that's a given. It has to be there. Just like you said, you can always tell when Nitro has done a logo, without his name being on the label. you can tell joe bosack's work from others, because he has his own style. You can tell Dan Simon's work from others. You can tell discrim's style from others. It's going to happen, accept it.

Now if you don't like the style, then thats your opinion, and that's fine. But theres no point or need to say well AAO, this one has the same style as the other concept you posted, because God knows its not supposed to be that way. You look at each concept for what it is, not past concepts. I cant reinforce how much one's style will be in effect in every concept posted.

Oh my gosh I can tell this is AAO's work and he hasnt put his name on it!

[AAO]

Oh yea and TwoRs, thats a great idea. But I'm thinking it might be a bit much on that STL logo, and create some imbalance. Ill play with it though.

[Shmee]

Okay. You say that it doesn't make sense to base critique of one logo based on another. I say that's a load of bull.

I chose those two because they're right next to each other in your portfolio and because I think they best show the point I'm trying to make.

The Orlando Owls has a light colored team name with medium colored highlights below a medium colored location name, all on a dark background. Below that is a red bird's head. Then, the entire thing is encompassed in a medium colored outline. The secondary is the same bird's head.

The Vermont Vultures has a light colored team name with medium colored highlights below a medium colored location name, all on a dark background. Below that is a red bird's head. Then, the entire thing is encompassed in a medium colored outline. The secondary is the same bird's head.

Yes, everyone has a style. You have a style. Brad has a style. I have a style. Yes, it's often easy to tell who made a logo just by looking at it. But when I can describe two logos that you made, and and that you knowingly display right next to each other and the only thing that's changed in the description is the team name, your stuff is getting repetitive.

A lot of it is good stuff, but a lot of it is also repetitive. Don't call me a dickhead or tell me my panties are in a bunch, it shows an inability to deal with criticism. I'm trying to help you get better, and I think the first thing you need to do to get better is to diversify your designs. But that's also just my opinion. You don't have to care about my opinion, as you've stated. But when you psot concepts on a board like this, you're inviting people to give their opinions. If you don't want to hear it, don't ask for it.

[AAO]

Thanks for walking everyone through my style, though its already quite obvious. Thats like an almost law to it, speaking for itself, thats how most color schemes work. Darker color, lighter color, and complimenting color. Creates for depth and visibility.

Yes, I was hoping for some constructive crit. But you in particular came across as exactly what I said, before, a you-know-what-head, with your first and second posts in this thread. And your crit wasnt so constructive....just a checklist, in a real smart ass form. If you havent noticed, out of the 30+ people that have posted, my only gripe was with what you said. should signal that you didnt do a good job of critiquing.

What you did with these 2 logo sets ive done can be done for ANYONE with a portfolio.

Now im nowhere on nitro's level, but let's compare his Amberjacks, Ravage, and Cicadas concepts (see nitroseed.net). Light outline, dark blue, medium colors like gold, brown and green (respectively). You can tell these 3 concepts came from the same person.

To your advantage, you compared 2 bird logo sets of mine. Of course their will be similarity.

Again, i'm not on Joe Bosack's level, but lets take his Ripon College set and Emory Eagles set (see joebosack.com). Look at the similarity there. You can tell it came from the same designer. Regardless, theyre both beautiful logo packages.

You guys make the call. I don't think im in the wrong here.

[Mings]

What Shmee was saying is that with your logos, you do a lot of the same stuff with each one (serifs, same highlights, same treatments and the like). What we would like to see is you to mix it up some, expand your horizon. Hell even Joe Bosack has done that in recent months. He has released some stuff that broke his normal style for a more streamlined, stylized style and it kicked ass like the rest of his stuff. I usually also try to do new stuff in my logos as well, but some people think mine are too boring.

[pcgd]

you rarely take negative crit well Ian. You either ignore it or pick the part you want to hear out of it. Of course you don't see it that way cause you are looking at it from your own viewpoint. I think everything I do is amazing for about 30 seconds no matter how many people tell me it sucks. Then I hate it no matter how many people tell me its good. I don't take crit very well either. Its something I need to work on.

Anyways...

Perhaps Matt (schmee) could have been more tactful in his post, but what he said is true. Its one thing to have a style, but the similarities in your work aren't just a style. When you break that style that's your better work. Its not so much the style, but the method at which you achieve your work. Same 2 or three type styles (I'm not talking fonts), city name on a dark field, cumbersome icon. And when someone suggests you take a better look at the animal you claim artistic licence. Yes you have the right to change an animal, but you change it to make it look better. You still take your cues from the real deal. Like drawing a human face. If you want it to look like the person, you know damn well if that nose is an 1/8th of an inch off, its going to look like something completely different. There are certain elements that are neccesary.

We are all guilty of it. We get into design elements that work for us and we repeat them cause we think they are successful. I'm doing it right now with web design. The last 3 sites I've done lately has been centered with a little dropshaddow thing. (like this: http://www.pcgdstudios.com Today a coworker called me on it. I said screw him, but after a few minutes I realized he was right. I was in a design rut.

Matt doesn't post, and I'm not even sure of his work (can't say I've seen too much). But I know he talks to 4 or 5 professional designers on a daily basis that are looking at various designs. He knows what looks good.

Remember, we have a small sample size here. If 2 out of 10 people have major reservations about the same thing, you really need to consider what they have to say. Regardless of how they say it. Just cause someone's a dick, it doesn't mean they are automatically wrong.

Listen, I know its never easy getting negative crit. I hear it every day. And its even harder when its something you really really like. but its part of our business, and you have it every day. Some people are nice about it (sometimes too nice and they don't tell you it sucks) and some people are major pricks. But you smile, thank them for their time, do what they ask (if its a client) and bitch about them to your coworkers when they leave.

I really don't care if you listen or not. I hope you do, but either way keep designing.

[AAO]

Always appreciate it Pat.

Usually whenever I get crit, I usually thank the person, and let them know im taking in their suggestions, negative or not--regardless i know that theyre trying to help (except with shmee's checklist post). I almost always post updates, and keep at it. Let it sit on the backburner a while, then come back to it. The best part is, you can always come back to a concept.

Yes I am guilty of claiming artistic license a few times, but I guess thats the part of me that disagrees with what the other person is saying. But that's rarely the case.

What makes it bad is when someone has some suggestions, but they go about it in a smart ass or a*shole manner. That's the only thing I didnt appreciate about Shmee's arguement.

I know there are a lot of different styles out there, a lot of different things you can do, specifically with wordmarks and such. I almost always keep my wordmarks white. Sometimes with beveling, highlights, etc. I know there's more than that out there, but its just what ive been sticking to. The one outside of the norm concept i've done is my Houston Rockets concept (see portfolio). That was totally different then anything I had ever done. But yes I do understand I should definitely try some new stuff. Maybe I'll ditch solid white wordmarks for a while.

But the logos that appeal to me most are the logos that inspire my work. Currently, I'm loving the style seen in Joe Bosack's LaGrange College set. Ben Barnes has always been an inspiration to me, as well as Nitro, of course. And honestly, I see a lot of repition of that style in their work. Granted I'm not at the same level as they are, but that's where I want to be soon enough.

Keep designing? Don't have to tell me twice.

[slapshot]

you rarely take negative crit well Ian. You either ignore it or pick the part you want to hear out of it. Of course you don't see it that way cause you are looking at it from your own viewpoint. I think everything I do is amazing for about 30 seconds no matter how many people tell me it sucks. Then I hate it no matter how many people tell me its good. I don't take crit very well either. Its something I need to work on.

Anyways...

Perhaps Matt (schmee) could have been more tactful in his post, but what he said is true. Its one thing to have a style, but the similarities in your work aren't just a style. When you break that style that's your better work. Its not so much the style, but the method at which you achieve your work. Same 2 or three type styles (I'm not talking fonts), city name on a dark field, cumbersome icon. And when someone suggests you take a better look at the animal you claim artistic licence. Yes you have the right to change an animal, but you change it to make it look better. You still take your cues from the real deal. Like drawing a human face. If you want it to look like the person, you know damn well if that nose is an 1/8th of an inch off, its going to look like something completely different. There are certain elements that are neccesary.

We are all guilty of it. We get into design elements that work for us and we repeat them cause we think they are successful. I'm doing it right now with web design. The last 3 sites I've done lately has been centered with a little dropshaddow thing. (like this: http://www.pcgdstudios.com Today a coworker called me on it. I said screw him, but after a few minutes I realized he was right. I was in a design rut.

Matt doesn't post, and I'm not even sure of his work (can't say I've seen too much). But I know he talks to 4 or 5 professional designers on a daily basis that are looking at various designs. He knows what looks good.

Remember, we have a small sample size here. If 2 out of 10 people have major reservations about the same thing, you really need to consider what they have to say. Regardless of how they say it. Just cause someone's a dick, it doesn't mean they are automatically wrong.

Listen, I know its never easy getting negative crit. I hear it every day. And its even harder when its something you really really like. but its part of our business, and you have it every day. Some people are nice about it (sometimes too nice and they don't tell you it sucks) and some people are major pricks. But you smile, thank them for their time, do what they ask (if its a client) and bitch about them to your coworkers when they leave.

I really don't care if you listen or not. I hope you do, but either way keep designing.

What he said.

With one other comment?

The similarities of your wordmarks have pretty much been covered already. But there's another thing that is pretty much your calling card, and it's light or white colored text on a dark background. Look at this Cardinals one for example. In the entire logo, the only thing cardinal (red) is the bird itself. Shouldn't the wordmark have some red in it as well? Your original submission had that half pseudo gradient/chrome effect going on.

You had mentioned Brad and his tendency to have the same technique in his logos, but as a whole, his style is more versatile because he doesn't limit his letters to light/white on a dark backgroun all the time. While it might work in certain situations, you're going to box yourself in all the time if you feel you have to do the wordmark that way.

Here's an idea for you?make a free standing wordmark but still tie it in with your logo. Force yourself to think differently, and not just by adding arbitrary piping or serifs. Challenge yourself to make it different.

Oh yeah, that "STL" secondary just doesn't go with anything. It looks rushed together and out of place.

[AAO]

Understood.

[ltravisjr]

I don't want to get into the quality of the criticisms or the reactions of them, so... well, I won't. Just my first impressions on the design in its own right: I liked it. It may or may not be original as far as AAO's overall portfolio, but it was original as far as cardinal concepts go - and that is no small accomplishment considering the flood of cardinal ideas we saw right before Arizona's new logo was released. No its not truly realistic, but I know its a cardinal, and I just like the look of it. Heck, Snoopy doesn't look anything like a real dog, but I sure wouldn't change his look. Anyway, the only problem I see is that when the bird head is isolated, it looks like there is a void left where it use to hug the "C". I don't know why; perhaps it is the horizontal element above, but it seems there is a space below that wants to be filled.

LT