mgdmhl

Milwaukee Bucks Unveil New Logos/Colors, Jerseys & Court

Recommended Posts

The thing that ticks me off the most is that this new composition, both the lone buck as well as the (presumed) new primary, loses its connection to the Wisconsin state route signage:

Whether intentional or not, I always saw that as a subtle stroke of genius. And now it (will be) gone.

--------------------------------------

I have spent enough time in Wisconsin that I know that sign. I never once made the connection that you did above. Now that I have been alerted to the connection, the damn logo is going away. :(

I tend to doubt it was a nod toward that sign, but who knows...Milwaukee teams like to connect themselves to the rest of the state (TV viewership if nothing else) and this may have been a subtle way to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for those who don't click and read:

· Blue underlines the importance of the Great Lakes and multiple rivers in the history and future of our city and state. In fact, some think the word Milwaukee was derived from the Algonquian term “Millioki,” which meant “gathering place by the waters.”

· The addition of blue to our color palette pays homage to the history of professional basketball in Milwaukee, as blue was the primary color of the Milwaukee Hawks, the city’s first NBA team.

I thought it was Algonquian for "the good land"?

The Algonquian, which is the overarching people/language for most of the region, word Millioki does mean good/beautiful/pleasant land. However, the subgroup Chippewa people--who speak the ojibwe language--called Milwaukee ominowakiing, which means gathering place by the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After seeing the logo, I would say it's an upgrade. However, I definitely prefer the red over the cream.

Let's see how good the uniforms will be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe there's any objective measure that would support the idea of the current/former Bucks logo being a "quality" illustration. Not unless the quality is mediocre. It's eyes are where a person's eyes would be. It's got a human proportioned neck and shoulders.

Say what you want, but this is just not true.

And this new buck lacks a 'crown' (as in head), among other things.

Which part isn't true? The neck to head ratio/proportions? The placement of the eyes? The brow tine highlights that read to the viewer as sad eyebrows? I specifically used the word objective (rather than subjective) inviting you or anyone to argue those issues/flaws directly. Saying they aren't true doesn't address them as far as I'm concerned. I'll reiterate. Loving the look has nothing to do with it being good. I'm attached to some really bad art too.

The whole statement that is quoted, obviously. The illustration is anatomically correct, thus doesn't support your view of it being "mediocre" because of it. You mention "objectivity", but then use the argument that the brow tine (which are actually the pedicles) highlights read as sad eyebrows, which is a totally subjective statement, since I never read them as such until I tried to. Neither I ever read the nose as one of a pig, although I admit it can be interpreted as such.

Ha! Well I think we're probably officially worn out the grace period and are now annoying everyone with our arguing about this now former bit of artwork. I've been hating this half my life. I'm not about to budge on my astute and studied interpretation. I could write a master's thesis on how much this Bucks logo sucks. The folks at NBA properties couldn't give two rips this mark and it's always showed. And the key bit you mention here is that (to you) the illustration is anatomically correct. But the trouble is that It isn't. That's exactly the point. See the image below if I can figure out how to post it. :P

The overlay doesn't work perfectly but it's pretty good. The red areas are where the artists took non-deer like (and I'd argue human-like) liberties. The neck is way WAY too short....like a whole head too short. This creates the man shoulders. The eyes are a tad too centered on the face. The head is rounded on top. All of these make him more humanesque than a deer is. He's anthropomorphic but not in a cool, cute or mascot way. More like a Island of Dr. Moreau way.

Even areas that are rendered quite effectively (like the rack) are still bothersome. Why put the sad eyed highlight on the brow tines when a highlight really would have been useful to show which tines up high pass in front of which others?. The face and neck wants to hint at some dimension then but the upper rack is 100% silhouette?

You can claim to have never seen sad eyes or pig nose. That's awesome. I'm far from the only one to interpret the logo that way. That was a meme amongst bitter Bucks fans before memes were memes. I didn't invent that.

And my favorite stupid awful part is the white accents by the chest. You've got what is otherwise a completely symmetrical logo right? And in most cases with such a work an artist will throw in some asymmetry here and there....as a visual treat to keep the eyes moving and keep the image from being too stale.. And this artist decides to use that little bit of asymmetry for what exactly? The comma shaped ...highlights? on the collar/shoulders? I'm guessing they are highlights because there's no anatomical reason for two white stripes there. This is where the "roid" mocking comes from too. How else to interpret the random shininess than as glistening bulging muscle? But glistening over fur? And why the two square notches missing from the tank top shaped area that is meant to be the white tummy fur? the chest of this animal (right above the MILWAUKEE type, is arguably the most intricate portion of the entire piece and yet non of it means or depicts anything in particular. It's filler. It's visual jibberish.

Anatomy_zpsyvzgkueh.jpg

Kudos for bringing up the comparison pic. Yes, the deer has a taller neck, you were right about that one - everything else is so close that it is a pretty darn accurate simplification (you can't really make a case about the eyes). Actually, the deer looks even better and bolder with the shorter neck and shoulders without hurting the eye, and a neck that long in the logo would look ridiculous - but that's not the point here. Yes, the two square notches missing from the white chest have always bugged me too. Everything else you are simply overanalyzing strongly. Still, the proportions are nothing like human.

Yay! Consensus! Kind of. You concede me a point on the neck, but then argue that anatomical correctness suddenly isn't as important afterall and that it would look ridiculous if it WERE accurate? Then you go on to tell me I can't make an argument on the eyes (have we met?) and basically just seem to lay out a case for what cannot be done or what isn't important. I'm here to tell you that every single line, ever vertice matters...to me at least. It had better at least. I've taken a crack at "fixing" this logo a while back. And it's been around the internet. You may or may not have seen it. I didn't post it earlier because I'm more interested in what they did or didn't do right moving forward. But I'm posting it now so you can hopefully see what I mean. Visuals seem to help. My neck is longer. Not 100% anatomically accurate long. About 50-60% longer than the original though I'm guessing. And that I think really begins to help make it look like an animal with a long powerful neck without the proportions getting wonky. It's all a balancing act. I left the antlers largely alone except for overlapping the lead tines with the stroke to show that it moves forward in space. Then I un-pigged the nose. All it needed was a bottom jaw that was white and a gap between the white that wraps around the snout. Lastly I reshaped the eyes and the white around them and nudged the eyes a LITTLE further apart on the skull (just as I showed you upthread). It makes all the difference in the world. Now the eyes look like they are more on the side of the animal's head and his gaze is no longer one of "deer in headlights". This guy means business.

Now for the record, I don't think the Bucks should have used my work or anything like it anymore. This was just a portfolio piece and an exercise for me. I'm actually of the opinion that something like the one P34 rolled out on these forums would have been the way to go. That one is fantastic.

Going from head-on view to another head-on view like they did is only going to invite these comparisons like the one we're having now.

I have also always wanted to try a Bucky Badger like update for original recipe Bango...cause he was the man.

Bucks_Slide_zpsri7fqv47.jpg

I can't compare my work to Dave's (Sterling). What I thought was interesting was that the old logo, Dave's, and mine all addressed the distinctive white around the eyes and snout. We must have thought them important. Both of these "deer-like" elements were interpreted completely differently by the new logo.

BucksRichards3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anatomy_zpsyvzgkueh.jpg

The overlay doesn't work perfectly but it's pretty good. The red areas are where the artists took non-deer like (and I'd argue human-like) liberties. The neck is way WAY too short....like a whole head too short. This creates the man shoulders.

About the neck...shouldn't the neck be foreshortened if it's a live quadruped looking forward? Seems to me you'd only see the long neck looking from below, like at a mounted head high on the wall.

To me the main difference is that the new one is far more abstract, which is ok.

As for truepg's "Bolder" comments that have become the go-to in this discussion? How does one argue something is or isn't bolder? We're just going to have to disagree and leave it there I think. I think what you're picking up on is the human quality subtext of the image itself. You disagree. Taking the facial features out of it for a moment, his body is clearly in a bold and menacing sort of bouncer at the club ...stand-off position. Most of us tend to feel his face is poorly rendered enough to give him an odd sad or possibly confused quality and that was always hard to square with the (lets call it BOLD) posturing. But if you don't read the face as sad (gold dress blue dress?) then yeah, this guy is absolutely "tough" in a way a real deer could never be. And especially if maybe you grew up with it? I didn't. I was already a sophomore in college when it was released so I have no nostalgia for it at all. I saw it for what it was immediately. I'm trying to be very magnanimous though and acknowledge repeatedly that I can see why someone might be drawn to it under those circumstances....even charmed by what I and many perceive as its flaws.

I'm not sure why the easiest solution is to agree there's no accounting for taste. It's not foreshortening. It's simply not. That's objective. But people can like (even love) a man-deer and that's totally allowed. That's subjective. We love beer barrel men and skating penguins. Right? It's all allowed. Eye of the beholder and all of that.

Carry on.

It comes down to that it works absolutely well as a logo and what it tries to portray the way it is (with all the flaws you consider them), at least to my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2zgdtmd.jpg

We've already noted this is an unofficial graphic. That's Conrad's first attempt at rendering the logo. See page 21 of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why the easiest solution is to agree there's no accounting for taste. It's not foreshortening. It's simply not. That's objective. But people can like (even love) a man-deer and that's totally allowed. That's subjective. We love beer barrel men and skating penguins. Right? It's all allowed. Eye of the beholder and all of that.

Carry on.

It comes down to that it works absolutely well as a logo and what it tries to portray the way it is (with all the flaws you consider them), at least to my eyes.

As Sterling said: subjective. Agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2zgdtmd.jpg

We've already noted this is an unofficial graphic. That's Conrad's first attempt at rendering the logo. See page 21 of this thread.

While I am not a big fan of this new logo (if it is indeed the new logo) I actually really like how the middle horns curve to form what looks like the beginning of a basketball; that's pretty cool. The rest is subpar for me, especially the 'M' in the neck part that feels ultra forced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the NBA's current design trend moving towards minimalist geometry? The new Bucks stuff reminds me of the new Hornets package in that regard, and of course roundels are the other option for any team wanting a new look. Not a big fan compared to the more detailed Buck heads of the past. I know people like logos to be easily reproducible, but this seeming trend seems lifeless to me.

EDIT (just now saw this while looking farther back ITT):

10349872_10102586142756248_3223234962465

Wow...nothing like having one product able to leak every new logo and wordmark you have.

Somebody at a glass company is going to lose their job ... or deal with Bucks/NBA. :)

Nothing spectacular, but if they play up the green and cream and the deer head by itself -- as they seem to be doing -- it should look good.
Seriously how many logo leaks are they gonna have only from beer glasses?
And who would put that many logos on a cup?
Will there eventually be a glass with a jersey on it?
Are the bucks :censored:ing with us by making glasses with all the logos on them and leaving them out to be photographed?
So many questions.

Seriously, :censored: roundels now

On another (color-related) note, how do Bucks fans feel about going on to 3 decades of no identity? Green and cream look good on the logos, but I'm holding out to see how they'll be used for a contemporary uniform. The Mariners' cream alt just looks piss-stained to me

Edited by seattlesonicsofsacramento

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2zgdtmd.jpg

We've already noted this is an unofficial graphic. That's Conrad's first attempt at rendering the logo. See page 21 of this thread.

Um I never said it was official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering if anyone else noticed the basketball logo in the horns

10349872_10102586142756248_3223234962465

Noticed it right after I read this guy's post, after already quoting that image myself:

2zgdtmd.jpg

We've already noted this is an unofficial graphic. That's Conrad's first attempt at rendering the logo. See page 21 of this thread.

While I am not a big fan of this new logo (if it is indeed the new logo) I actually really like how the middle horns curve to form what looks like the beginning of a basketball; that's pretty cool. The rest is subpar for me, especially the 'M' in the neck part that feels ultra forced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the hidden basketball was one of the first things pointed out.

On another (color-related) note, how do Bucks fans feel about going on to 3 decades of no identity?

I don't know if "no identity" is really the right phrase. They are a bit like the Padres, Canucks and Astros, wandering from look to look. But unlike those teams, they've consistently used green for all forty-plus years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the hidden ball inside the brow tines, mainly because a normal deer rack does not look like that, if they made the rack as a whole look like a ball I would have liked it a lot more because it would be more believable, atleast to a hunter like myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.