Greetings! I suppose the "Boost Logo Contest Conversation" becames forming something philosophical :) I'm not a professional graphic artist any more, but have been worked as a graphic artist for some years. Although logo gives the face of the project, company, team etc., it does not determine the area of operation of the represented! I mean a logo doesn't need to reflect to all of the services a company provides and it's very hard to find a logo that looks great and tells everything about the company. Conclusion: sometimes that's good enough to have an impressive logo the emotional effect depends on the represented. However, I'm absolutely sure about the thing that the "user" will not spend any valuable minute on racking his brains about the very meaning of an abstract logo :).
Pepsi, Nike, Sun, Microsoft Windows, BMW, Toyota, Apple...
The logos of these companies are really impressive and stylish, aren't they? In my point of view Nike, Sun and perhaps Pepsi have those logos that are great just by being a logo the others mentioned need to have the background meaning to catch the attention. Iconify: I share the opinion of those who think about the recognizability of a logo as a basic feature, especially by extremely tiny size... but I don`t think that we would need a sparated icon logo as well. Sometimes the logo itself can work as an icon: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/famous-logos.png Although the logo of the Infiniti company is completely abstract, it`s incredible: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/infiniti.png As I attended the competition I don`t judge anyone`s work, since I`m affraid I couldn`t stay objective.:)
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, since everyone will think and feel by seeing the logo the way he concieves of the represented. Jonathan saws papers, I saws component layers. that is subjectivity. Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz
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
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:42 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Logo Contest
<snipped>
Although logo gives the face of the project, company, team etc., it does not determine the area of operation of the represented! I mean a logo doesn't need to reflect to all of the services a company provides and it's very hard to find a logo that looks great and tells everything about the company. Conclusion: sometimes that's good enough to have an impressive logo the emotional effect depends on the represented. However, I'm absolutely sure about the thing that the "user" will not spend any valuable minute on racking his brains about the very meaning of an abstract logo :).
Pepsi, Nike, Sun, Microsoft Windows, BMW, Toyota, Apple...
The logos of these companies are really impressive and stylish, aren't they? In my point of view Nike, Sun and perhaps Pepsi have those logos that are great just by being a logo the others mentioned need to have the background meaning to catch the attention.
Iconify: I share the opinion of those who think about the recognizability of a logo as a basic feature, especially by extremely tiny size... but I don`t think that we would need a sparated icon logo as well. Sometimes the logo itself can work as an icon: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/famous-logos.png
Although the logo of the Infiniti company is completely abstract, it`s incredible: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/infiniti.png
Spot on. I'd further add that most of the best commercial logos are pretty simple--not all, but it's a lot harder to make a complex one appealing. Without singling any of the entries out, I think that most of the currently-posted entries are too complex. As a side note, and not a very relevant one (maybe), it's pretty clear the list is populated by a mostly left-brained crowd; look at how many of the entries depend on word play, acrostics, and the like. Not saying that's bad, but again, the logos people tend to remember are more likely to be graphic than semiotic. Yeah, I guess that one deserves a smiley, on the grounds of self-referential irony. So here: <g>. Now, if there were just a way to make emoticons tail-recursive...come to think of it, I'm surprised no one used recursion as a means of indicating "boostness." If it weren't too late, I'd maybe have a go at that. Although most of my ideas were based around shapes, color use, and shading. Incidentally, I'm also surprised no one has tried to define a coherent color scheme, especially given that there *are* graphic designers present. Is it just that everyone unconsciously accepted the existing "cool" scheme? Only a couple of the entries even try to do much with color, and I can't find any consistency in the usage (possibly my fault; it's just a hobby with me). Okay, <\kibitz> Reid
Reid Sweatman wrote:
Although the logo of the Infiniti company is completely abstract, it`s incredible: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/infiniti.png
Spot on. I'd further add that most of the best commercial logos are pretty simple--not all, but it's a lot harder to make a complex one appealing.
When I talked about logos being "complex," I didn't mean they should have lots of moving parts. Perhaps I should have said "subtle."
... I'm surprised no one used recursion as a means of indicating "boostness."
See #89.
Incidentally, I'm also surprised no one has tried to define a coherent color scheme, especially given that there *are* graphic designers present.
There are only a few designs whose color schemes I would describe as "incoherent".
a couple of the entries even try to do much with color, and I can't find any consistency in the usage
Some color schemes may be unapealing, but I'm not sure which ones are actually inconsistent.
Reid
Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Turkanis Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 3:47 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Re: Logo Contest
Reid Sweatman wrote:
Although the logo of the Infiniti company is completely abstract, it`s incredible: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/infiniti.png
Spot on. I'd further add that most of the best commercial logos are pretty simple--not all, but it's a lot harder to make a complex one appealing.
When I talked about logos being "complex," I didn't mean they should have lots of moving parts. Perhaps I should have said "subtle."
I wasn't criticizing; I was agreeing with you. I didn't misunderstand you.
... I'm surprised no one used recursion as a means of indicating "boostness."
See #89.
Not the kind of thing I meant, but then, I wasn't too specific. Also, I guess I don't know the technique being mentioned. Is the first "cpp" a scope?
Incidentally, I'm also surprised no one has tried to define a coherent color scheme, especially given that there *are* graphic designers present.
There are only a few designs whose color schemes I would describe as "incoherent".
Okay, since I'm about to point out ones I didn't like, let me state in advance that I've no intention of insulting anyone's effort, and none of this is intended as a flame. I intend it constructively. And even though it usually looks otherwise, I *know* I don't know it all <g>. That said... 76b; yeah, it's supposed to be flames, but it's too sharp a color contrast for me when that saturated. Actually, all the yellow/blue ones here I find unpleasant; pulled back a bit, maybe with the yellow duskier, more towards the orange, I might have liked it better. Maybe push the blue towards teal a bit at the same time, to get closer to some kind of analogous scheme. If the yellow is either bright or saturated, then green, black, purple, or red is about all that I think works, and I think the red or green should be lightened in that combo. Just my taste, maybe, but the very contrasty, very saturated ones (66, for instance) I don't care for. There are quite a few on the list that are very appealing from the standpoint of simply catching the eye, and they tend to be, with rare exceptions, ones that use toned-down shades of a single color (of course, when you render in something like Maya or 3ds max, as some of them clearly are, you tend to get that, but some of the "Photoshopped" ones have the quality, too). That doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones I voted for, since there were other considerations, as well. I also didn't much like the ones that just rendered the name, no matter how prettily. One thing I do note, though; most of the ones with that kind of sophisticated monotone color tend to be blue. That was what I had in mind when I mentioned the existing scheme. Another example: 32a and b. Two colors I don't really want to see outside of a Lichtenstein. Well, not even then, truth to tell. <g> The two colors with the most widely differing effects on index of refraction. Hurts the eyes. Energetic, I suppose, but a cliché, no? One more and I'll de-tirade: all the 26s. Dusky burgundy and dark forest green are just a bit too far off any coherent scheme I can invent on the color wheel (of course, pick a different theorist's wheel--or thing that isn't a wheel, like the Nippon Color and Design Institute's scheme--and get a different take on what's coherent; hmmmn...I wonder how much of what's bugging me might be related to cultural apprehensions of color affect?). Here, the problem is compounded by having dark colors on a medium gray background; it's just too dark. Nothing pops out (or *up* <g>). Okay, first I was bitching about too much contrast, now I want more. A middle ground, really (and I don't mean neutrals <g>). Okay, done. Apologies to any who feel savaged.
a couple of the entries even try to do much with color, and I can't find any consistency in the usage
Some color schemes may be unapealing, but I'm not sure which ones are actually inconsistent.
Think I got that out of my system above. Uh, if you reply and I seem to have dropped off the face of the earth, I likely have. Think my mobo's cooking on me, so I'm gonna be down for a while. Not ignoring you, just not here (which usually goes without saying <g>). Reid
Reid Sweatman wrote:
Not the kind of thing I meant, but then, I wasn't too specific. Also, I guess I don't know the technique being mentioned. Is the first "cpp" a scope?
in context, it would look like: template < typename T > class boost { }; class cpp : boost < cpp > { }; It is known as the curiously recurring template pattern (CRTP). -Jason
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hise Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 6:14 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Logo Contest
Reid Sweatman wrote:
Not the kind of thing I meant, but then, I wasn't too specific. Also, I guess I don't know the technique being mentioned. Is the first "cpp" a scope?
in context, it would look like:
template < typename T > class boost { };
class cpp : boost < cpp > { };
It is known as the curiously recurring template pattern (CRTP).
Ah, he said, feeling an idiot (who promptly slapped him in the face <g>). I misread the logo. Whitespace is meaningless to the compiler, but not to me, sadly. Sorry for the stupidity. Reid
"Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz" <cad@inf.elte.hu> writes:
Greetings!
I suppose the "Boost Logo Contest Conversation" becames forming something philosophical :) I'm not a professional graphic artist any more, but have been worked as a graphic artist for some years.
Although logo gives the face of the project, company, team etc., it does not determine the area of operation of the represented! I mean a logo doesn't need to reflect to all of the services a company provides and it's very hard to find a logo that looks great and tells everything about the company. Conclusion: sometimes that's good enough to have an impressive logo the emotional effect depends on the represented.
Yes! That's why I've been saying "C++" and "::" or "<...>" are not crucial graphic elements.
However, I'm absolutely sure about the thing that the "user" will not spend any valuable minute on racking his brains about the very meaning of an abstract logo :).
Agreed. In fact, that doesn't seem like a "however," but more like an "also."
Pepsi, Nike, Sun, Microsoft Windows, BMW, Toyota, Apple...
The logos of these companies are really impressive and stylish, aren't they? In my point of view Nike, Sun and perhaps Pepsi have those logos that are great just by being a logo
I understand that part of the sentence
the others mentioned need to have the background meaning to catch the attention.
But not that part.
Iconify: I share the opinion of those who think about the recognizability of a logo as a basic feature, especially by extremely tiny size... but I don`t think that we would need a sparated icon logo as well. Sometimes the logo itself can work as an icon: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/famous-logos.png
Although the logo of the Infiniti company is completely abstract,
Not completely. Don't you see the road stretching out before you to infiniti? ;-)
it`s incredible: http://people.inf.elte.hu/cad/etc/boost/infiniti.png
As I attended the competition I don`t judge anyone`s work, since I`m affraid I couldn`t stay objective.:)
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, since everyone will think and feel by seeing the logo the way he concieves of the represented. Jonathan saws papers,
I saw papers too.
I saws component layers. that is subjectivity.
Yeah, but not entirely. That symbol has been used for multiple sheets of paper ubiquitously in computing. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
participants (5)
-
David Abrahams -
Jason Hise -
Jonathan Turkanis -
Reid Sweatman -
Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz