Talk of possible new Jaguars logo

[llamafeed]

I'm okay with the new logo, but its going to date quickly within the next 10 years. You can have it Jags fans, I'll stick to something with staying power

MOD EDIT

[IceCap]

Thank you Jags!

You have not brought more shame to the state of FL with the crappiest logos in the league.

I like the new logo, definite upgrade.

Someone said it looked like clip art?! LOL! The Lightning say hello. That's a clip art logo, not this.

Yeah, the "clip art" nonsense got thrown around a lot by folks when discussing the new (/old) Astros logo, too. It seems to be the new hotness in vague logo put-downs. MOD EDIT I have read a few well thought-out reasons to dislike this logo by a few of our fine members, MOD EDIT For those of you who say it's too much of a drawing to be a good logo, I just don't see the point you're trying to make. MOD EDIT

Sorry oldschool, I usually find myself agreeing with you, but I think you're off base here. No so much that you like the new logo, but I find your attack of the "clip art" criticism to be lacking.

I'm not calling the new Jags logo clip art like because I think it's a trendy put-down. I'm calling it clip art like because, to me, it reminds me of a piece of clip art. Here are a few pieces I came across just by searching "lion/jaguar/tiger clip art" in Google Images.

The new Jaguars logo reminds me of these types of images. The finer points of detail. the heavy line work, the shading, it all comes together to say "clip art" to me. Not trying to be trendy with an "in" put-down, just saying what's on my mind.

MOD EDIT

MOD EDIT

[Gr3g3]

Thank you Jags!

You have not brought more shame to the state of FL with the crappiest logos in the league.

I like the new logo, definite upgrade.

Someone said it looked like clip art?! LOL! The Lightning say hello. That's a clip art logo, not this.

Yeah, the "clip art" nonsense got thrown around a lot by folks when discussing the new (/old) Astros logo, too. It seems to be the new hotness in vague logo put-downs. MOD EDIT I have read a few well thought-out reasons to dislike this logo by a few of our fine members, MOD EDIT For those of you who say it's too much of a drawing to be a good logo, I just don't see the point you're trying to make. MOD EDIT

Sorry oldschool, I usually find myself agreeing with you, but I think you're off base here. No so much that you like the new logo, but I find your attack of the "clip art" criticism to be lacking.

I'm not calling the new Jags logo clip art like because I think it's a trendy put-down. I'm calling it clip art like because, to me, it reminds me of a piece of clip art. Here are a few pieces I came across just by searching "lion/jaguar/tiger clip art" in Google Images.

The new Jaguars logo reminds me of these types of images. The finer points of detail. the heavy line work, the shading, it all comes together to say "clip art" to me. Not trying to be trendy with an "in" put-down, just saying what's on my mind.

MOD EDIT

MOD EDIT

MOD EDIT

[hugevolsfan]

For what it's worth, something like this would've been fine with me.

This is disgusting. Are you trolling us? Just horrible.

MOD EDIT

This is tons better I would get rid of the extra gold but so much better than what they did.

[Darth Brooks]

I like the new logo. The color is much warmer and it looks like something a brand can be built around.

Now for it's time for Carolina to get a new logo.

[GFB]

Wow, what the hell happened while I was gone? I'm going to try to address everything at once.

Illustration drawing style in sports

I've seen it mentioned that some don't like the new design because "it's too illustrative... It belongs in a children's book." (paraphrasing) Personally, I don't believe this at all. This is one of my all-time favorite logos, and its rendering is very similar to the Jags logo:

Or, an even better and more fitting example:

I like both of those designs very much (the animals, not so much the type and settings), and they are extremely "illustrative" and "cartoony." My problem with the new design goes into point 2...

Not all that glitters

Regardless of which design you prefer; valid criticisms can be made about each. On the old one, I would agree with those that say the jaw is off and the eye is depicted in a strange way. But I also agree with the critiques of the new one that say that it is drawn in a bizarre perspective and there are some questionable shading techniques (no need to rehash what Sterling so magnificently illustrated in the other thread). Everyone's personal design tastes vary, but please recognize that there is rarely a case of "this design is perfection, that design is terrible." However, this takes us to point #3...

There is such a thing as good taste...

...or at least such a thing as an informed opinion. Take me for example. I love Kraft Mac & Cheese. I even prefer it over my grandmothers homemade M&C. I don't know why... maybe it's because the Kraft version reminds me of simpler times when I was 5 and all I had to worry about was coloring my NFL Huddles book inside the lines... who knows? Anyway, if I was in a debate with a gourmet chef and his custom macaroni recipe about why his preference is better than my own, I would have to respect his opinion on the matter. Why? Because he studied it, learned the finer points of how to mix ingredients and flavors, and the rules one should act within when cooking. Would the debate with the chef change my own personal opinion on the matter? Probably not. But I can at least recognize that my own choice is probably not as qualified as his.

This principle applies to many aspects of life. The local 16 year old is going to have a different opinion on beer than the owner of a brewery. Is one opinion wrong? Not necessarily, but I would say one has more authority to speak on the topic. I enjoy the Nickelodeon show "Victorious" more than "Downton Abbey." I prefer listening to a local pop punk band over the worlds most talented opera singer. It's perfectly fine to enjoy seemingly "lesser" things. But if someone who is much more informed about music or drama comes along and explains to me why my choice is lesser based on the merits of both, I try not take it personally.

Because this is technically a design forum, there will be "real" designers (I mean people who work in the industry or went through design school) who will comment on and critique designs, just like there will be hobbyists and enthusiasts who will do the same. This in no way suggests that we should only have a select few speak and silence the rest. Discussion is good. But if someone is using legitimate artistic concerns to reason with you on why something that you like is "bad," try not jump all over them. They took the time to try and help you expand your personal knowledge on the subject for your benefit, not theirs. Do you have to agree with them? No! Just remember that while opinions and preferences vary, there are people who do have better taste than others.

Opinions are like ***holes...

...everyone has them. But don't let having an opinion turn you into an ***hole. Regardless of what side of the fence you fall on, keep it respectful.

I think that just about covers it... Carry on.

[drdougfresh]

Well put, sir.

[Midway]

Good input GFB.

I think my biggest qualm with the new logo is that its got that floating head effect. Not like the Cardinals, Broncos or Panthers because they either seem to convey motion or the head is supposed to stand alone. But this Jaguar head seems as if it was taken from a full body rendering and just suspended in mid air. Its just got an awkard angle to it that it could benefit from having some sort of neckline to balance the shape. The previous logo didn't have this issue because the shape was already similar to an oval and fit well on a helmet. I'll be curious to see what they decide to do with the new helmets.

[Windmill360]

Redskins, vikings, dolphins, raiders, browns all use "illustrations" as logos. Are they bad logos? Debatable, but no one throws a fit because we are used to seeing them now and they have history. I think after some time people will just blow past the new jags logo. It's a little too detailed for my liking but it doesnt means its not a logo.

Frankly, there isnt a whole lot of consistency if you look at the NFL logo set as a whole. Some teams use symbols, some illustrations, and others lettering.

[BrandMooreArt]

Redskins, vikings, dolphins, raiders, browns all use "illustrations" as logos. Are they bad logos? Debatable, but no one throws a fit because we are used to seeing them now and they have history. I think after some time people will just blow past the new jags logo. It's a little too detailed for my liking but it doesnt means its not a logo.

Frankly, there isnt a whole lot of consistency if you look at the NFL logo set as a whole. Some teams use symbols, some illustrations, and others lettering.

all dated, poorly drawn logos. they're loved because of the brand equity they've built over decades. bad logos can work, you see it everywhere. but standards should be higher then what those teams currently have

[FooMasterX5]

Before it was a house cat coughing up a hairball. Now it's a wild Big Cat.

Massive upgrade.

^^^ This

[Windmill360]

Redskins, vikings, dolphins, raiders, browns all use "illustrations" as logos. Are they bad logos? Debatable, but no one throws a fit because we are used to seeing them now and they have history. I think after some time people will just blow past the new jags logo. It's a little too detailed for my liking but it doesnt means its not a logo.

Frankly, there isnt a whole lot of consistency if you look at the NFL logo set as a whole. Some teams use symbols, some illustrations, and others lettering.

all dated, poorly drawn logos. they're loved because of the brand equity they've built over decades. bad logos can work, you see it everywhere. but standards should be higher then what those teams currently have

yes they should be. I don't think the nfl has as high standards for logos like the NBA or MLB, but they cant tell their teams, "hey time to chnge your logo". If you look at those leagues, most of the logos look uniform or at least appear to fall under the same league/sport.

[9erssteve]

The biggest issues I have with the new logo are, it's lack of consistencey, the amount of finiky and tiny extraneous detail, the fact the white areas on the top lip dont match, one side holds all the whiskers the other doesn't and worst of all the perspective on the nose doesn't seem to match the rest of the head.

By lack of consistency I mean that various parts of the logo dont follow the same style. Take for example the lower jaw, bold sweeping lines, strong angles to suggest fur as with the previous logo. Then on the top of the head you have TINY thin cuts to create the fur effect, which will be a NIGHTMARE to reproduce at small sizes, on TV, when Embroidered etc. Personally I prefer the former style: bold, simplified, distilling things down to their essence. Explaining the item with as few lines and details as possible. That to me is logo design. With that said, if the ownership in Jacksonville wanted to go with what seems like the new trend and produce a logo like the Manitoba Moose one above then fine, go for it... but do it to the WHOLE LOGO, not just parts of it! Right now the whole thing reeks of a logo that someone else has tampered with. It doesn't have a complete feel to it. It's neither highly detailed, nor bold and simplified and as a result falls awkwardly between the two and imo fails as a strong logo.

The change of angle doesn't bother me to much, the white on the lower jaw should actually help lift the logo, if as rumours suggest they're going back to a solid black helmet. The extra teal additions I quite like although they seem strange considering the team seems to be reducing it's teal usage everywhere else in it's branding package!

While there are some things I like in this new version, all in all there are just to many inconsistencies and problem areas in this logo for me to consider it an overall up grade.

9erssteve

[ItzJamesFTW]

I feel like I am looking at a picture of my cat... Well, sort of, alright, not really, shameless cat picture

.

[hugevolsfan]

The biggest issues I have with the new logo are, it's lack of consistencey, the amount of finiky and tiny extraneous detail, the fact the white areas on the top lip dont match, one side holds all the whiskers the other doesn't and worst of all the perspective on the nose doesn't seem to match the rest of the head.

By lack of consistency I mean that various parts of the logo dont follow the same style. Take for example the lower jaw, bold sweeping lines, strong angles to suggest fur as with the previous logo. Then on the top of the head you have TINY thin cuts to create the fur effect, which will be a NIGHTMARE to reproduce at small sizes, on TV, when Embroidered etc. Personally I prefer the former style: bold, simplified, distilling things down to their essence. Explaining the item with as few lines and details as possible. That to me is logo design. With that said, if the ownership in Jacksonville wanted to go with what seems like the new trend and produce a logo like the Manitoba Moose one above then fine, go for it... but do it to the WHOLE LOGO, not just parts of it! Right now the whole thing reeks of a logo that someone else has tampered with. It doesn't have a complete feel to it. It's neither highly detailed, nor bold and simplified and as a result falls awkwardly between the two and imo fails as a strong logo.

The change of angle doesn't bother me to much, the white on the lower jaw should actually help lift the logo, if as rumours suggest they're going back to a solid black helmet. The extra teal additions I quite like although they seem strange considering the team seems to be reducing it's teal usage everywhere else in it's branding package!

While there are some things I like in this new version, all in all there are just to many inconsistencies and problem areas in this logo for me to consider it an overall up grade.

9erssteve

Well said the bottom line is the new one is just not a consistent drawn logo with flaws much like the new Panthers logo.

I think a few tweaks to both would greatly improve & make them viable logos for many years to come.

As they are right now they will not stand the number of years their previous ones did.

[Darth Brooks]

Redskins, vikings, dolphins, raiders, browns all use "illustrations" as logos. Are they bad logos? Debatable, but no one throws a fit because we are used to seeing them now and they have history. I think after some time people will just blow past the new jags logo. It's a little too detailed for my liking but it doesnt means its not a logo.

Frankly, there isnt a whole lot of consistency if you look at the NFL logo set as a whole. Some teams use symbols, some illustrations, and others lettering.

all dated, poorly drawn logos. they're loved because of the brand equity they've built over decades. bad logos can work, you see it everywhere. but standards should be higher then what those teams currently have

The problem with updating "outdated" designs is that unless you're really, really careful you end up with a design that gets old much faster than the old one. Of those teams, I could see a rebrand with the Redskins if all the nonsense over their name makes a PR minded VP nervous enough. Other than that, the Vikings and Dolphins might tweak variations of the existing logo. The Browns might update the helmet in their non logo. The Raiders logo will change when hell freezes over.

[Gothamite]

As they are right now they will not stand the number of years their previous ones did.

That's because the old logos lasted far longer than they should have, as two of the worst logos in the league.

Even with all their flaws, the new ones deserve to stand far longer.

[oldschoolvikings]

Thank you Jags!

You have not brought more shame to the state of FL with the crappiest logos in the league.

I like the new logo, definite upgrade.

Someone said it looked like clip art?! LOL! The Lightning say hello. That's a clip art logo, not this.

Yeah, the "clip art" nonsense got thrown around a lot by folks when discussing the new (/old) Astros logo, too. It seems to be the new hotness in vague logo put-downs. MOD EDIT I have read a few well thought-out reasons to dislike this logo by a few of our fine members, MOD EDIT For those of you who say it's too much of a drawing to be a good logo, I just don't see the point you're trying to make. MOD EDIT

Sorry oldschool, I usually find myself agreeing with you, but I think you're off base here. No so much that you like the new logo, but I find your attack of the "clip art" criticism to be lacking.

I'm not calling the new Jags logo clip art like because I think it's a trendy put-down. I'm calling it clip art like because, to me, it reminds me of a piece of clip art. Here are a few pieces I came across just by searching "lion/jaguar/tiger clip art" in Google Images.

The new Jaguars logo reminds me of these types of images. The finer points of detail. the heavy line work, the shading, it all comes together to say "clip art" to me. Not trying to be trendy with an "in" put-down, just saying what's on my mind.

Fair enough, Cap. There's no doubt my blanket condemnation of all use of the term "clip art" as a criticism was kind of rude and grossly overstated (which I assume is why it was rightly MOD EDITED out of there)... I just got a little fed up with the ease with which it was getting tossed around, not so much in your post, but just as a quick off-hand remark we seem to be getting more and more. Your point about the generic nature of some drawing styles rubbing you and others the wrong way is perfectly reasonable.

But one thing people should keep in mind before tearing into something for looking like clip art is... well, that's how clip art works. If you look hard enough, you can find clip art that looks pretty much like anything. That's the entire function of clip art... to mimic existing design. Name your favorite logo, and I bet we can find a clip art design that plays off it. This is the point I was trying to make before in the Astro logo discussion. I would say the problem isn't that the H-star looks like clip art, it's that clip art looks like the H-star. It's a subtle difference, but it is a difference.

It's gotta be hard to be a graphic designer on a stage this big. Your work has to be so many things to so many people.

[hugevolsfan]

As they are right now they will not stand the number of years their previous ones did.

That's because the old logos lasted far longer than they should have, as two of the worst logos in the league.

Even with all their flaws, the new ones deserve to stand far longer.

I could not disagree with someone anymore on logo style it seems than you Gothamite but you always handle it with style like your avatar.

One thing it seems is the NFL, which I have been a big fan of their logos for the most part in the past, are quickly losing my love with the recent logo changes.

[9erssteve]

As they are right now they will not stand the number of years their previous ones did.

That's because the old logos lasted far longer than they should have, as two of the worst logos in the league.

Even with all their flaws, the new ones deserve to stand far longer.

The Carolina one yes I can agree had started to look very dated, and I'm not sure that the changes made last year will or have done anything to add longevity to it, but it did need looking at.

But I'm sorry I dont agree on the Jags logo. It was imo one of the most original and creative logo's in the NFL. It's bold use of negative space being the key reason I loved it so much. In recent years, through gimmicks and people not understanding what it was that made the mark strong to begin with, that was undermined. The logo made no sense as soon as the pearlescent effect was added to the helmet, and I'm glad all the talk and rumour I have seen has that dying the death it so rightly deserves.

The original Jags logo could easily have stood another 5 years or more without being touched if the original plain black helmets were reinstated. I dont believe the same is true of this incarnation, infact I doubt it will last 5 years before it's tweaked again!

Between it's extraneous golds, it's inconsistencies, it's fiddly little details which wont translate to the majority of uses it'll be required for and it's rediculous proportions! Seriously it looks like it's been enlarged out of pro, at around 140% width to 100% height, which results in it looking more like a female house cat than a wild cat of any description I think the Jags have taken a serious backward step.

Not to mention that no matter how flawed their previous logo was, and it had some, to my eye they have created more problems for themselves with this logo than they ever had with their previous one, which utterly defeats the purpose of updating a logo or rebranding.

9erssteve