Speaking as a logo designer, there is no such thing as a logo being "a grower". Besides being ugly and innappropriate, it simply defies the rules of design — not in a punk or creative way, but just in an amateur way. What are designers supposed to do with it when they have to shrink it down to 1cm, for example? The elements are not in proportion and the message is lost.
It doesn't matter so much if you personally find it pretty or not, what matters is it that it doesn't work.
Annie sums it up - regardless of whether you like it or not - it doesn't work. It was interestng the way they tried to make it break out of the normal static image. Good thought. Except it doesn't work. And how did they get it through normal government accessibilty standards checking without throwing up the epilepsy problem - or at least the possibility of a problem. Could it be they skipped that bit - well, hey, whadda you expect for a lousy £400k.
I'm with Annie. It fails on functionality, which is the first hurdle, to use a tedious sporting analogy. It's just too fiddly. The only reason we can identify it in the cartoon is because of the colour (which appears to be flexible anyway). A good logo should be identifiable at that size, and at that angle, in mono.
But I'm impressed that nobody here has yet responded with "a child of three could do that", the mating call of reactionary philistines everywhere.
Hmmm, I just don't see why everyone is so negative about it.
In answer to your point 'voice from the village', it was not the logo that caused the epilepsy problem it was the promo video for it, which had lots of flashing colours in it.
I'll be back in 2012 when everyone has grown to love the logo (sorry Annie), to mutter the words. "I told you..."
9 comments:
Great looking team there Tim. Clean-cut, ambitious, eager. I'm sure they'll find a way to spin it.
Very funny...
Although I am one of the few fans of the 2012 logo, I still think it's a grower
Sir Alan has sharpened himsef up a bit...
what in heaven's name was it SUPPOSED to represent? it looks like something I saw tagged on a freight car.
Speaking as a logo designer, there is no such thing as a logo being "a grower". Besides being ugly and innappropriate, it simply defies the rules of design — not in a punk or creative way, but just in an amateur way. What are designers supposed to do with it when they have to shrink it down to 1cm, for example? The elements are not in proportion and the message is lost.
It doesn't matter so much if you personally find it pretty or not, what matters is it that it doesn't work.
Annie sums it up - regardless of whether you like it or not - it doesn't work. It was interestng the way they tried to make it break out of the normal static image. Good thought. Except it doesn't work. And how did they get it through normal government accessibilty standards checking without throwing up the epilepsy problem - or at least the possibility of a problem. Could it be they skipped that bit - well, hey, whadda you expect for a lousy £400k.
It is a bit crap.
That is my final word on the matter.
Apart from this one.
Plinth
I'm with Annie. It fails on functionality, which is the first hurdle, to use a tedious sporting analogy. It's just too fiddly. The only reason we can identify it in the cartoon is because of the colour (which appears to be flexible anyway). A good logo should be identifiable at that size, and at that angle, in mono.
But I'm impressed that nobody here has yet responded with "a child of three could do that", the mating call of reactionary philistines everywhere.
Hmmm, I just don't see why everyone is so negative about it.
In answer to your point 'voice from the village', it was not the logo that caused the epilepsy problem it was the promo video for it, which had lots of flashing colours in it.
I'll be back in 2012 when everyone has grown to love the logo (sorry Annie), to mutter the words. "I told you..."
Post a Comment