Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz wrote:
As I attended the competition I don`t judge anyone`s work, since I`m affraid I couldn`t stay objective.:)
I think we already decided that subjective is okay ;-)
Then I examine it, my first thought is: "what is it supposed to be?" This is not good for a logo, IMO: when you look at a logo, it should be clear that a it represents something concrete or that it is a purely abstract design. (If a concrete representation is hidden in what first appears to be an abstract design, that's okay too.) The reason I find myself asking what this particular logo is meant to represent, I think, is that it's not sufficiently complex to hold its own as an abstract design. Once I ask myself what the logo represents, I can only conclude that it depicts a stack of paper. This is a big problem: aside from the fact that Boost has little to do with a stack of paper, stacks of paper are simply uninteresting.
I would like to protect my 75th application by some words: a logo doesn't need to illustrate anything tangible,
Of course -- I explicitly said so.
since everyone will think and feel by seeing the logo the way he concieves of the represented. Jonathan saws papers, I saws component layers.
Interesting.
that is subjectivity.
Of course! ;-) I hope I didn't offend you.
Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz
Jonathan