Showing posts with label Logo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Logo. Show all posts

4.6.14

----- C'est Fini Mes Amis! -----

(accidentally deleted this post so here it is again *awkward*) 

Here is my finished logo. This is the spec work, showcasing different versions
of my logo for any occasions.


23.8.12

----- New Logo Old Looking -----

What do you think of Microsoft's new unveiled logo? It's been 25 years since they last modified it. I know I know, it needs a bit of time for adjusting but I immediately saw the font they chose and went "ew". It feels thoughtless and arbitrary. I don't mind the four coloured square icon.

14.5.12

----- Design Addictive Game -----



If there's a game for graphic designers to play at a party, this would be it: iPhone Logo Quiz App. I found myself with my cousins for once having a peaceful family night out; no whiny voices, no temper tantrums or fits about who's right or who's wrong—well maybe not the latter—we had great laughs and showcased our best thinking caps. Basically it's as simple as naming the logo, but the logo is revealed by patches, for example, they would only provide the "c" and the "o" of "Canon" or the crown of Hallmark, etc. The best part came when the Netscape logo appeared and my 1995-young cousin barely recognized it, watched him struggle to guess it since he only had a taste of the ancient browser as a child.

This game corroborates the prominence in the design of a logo; how swiftly it embeds into our brains' storage systems, even without the full name written out, we are acquainted by the fonts or the colours and the shapes and forms, and sometimes with the nuances between same logos, we can still differentiate them apart.

2.5.12

----- Brooklyn Nets -----






It really is as simple as black and white. What do you think of the new logo for the Nets? No more is New Jersey and so is no more to their red and blue theme. A very adventurous approach to a mass of colours in the NBA, nice move. It's simple, but is it a little too much? It's a sports franchise, you might want to amp it up a little—not to the level of 90's cheese ball of gradients and ugly colours. Black and white is a keeper, plus—as if  they have budget problems—it saves a lot of money for printing and producing their franchise goodies.It can definitely be reworked; the logo looks more like an excellent mockup but not ready to be delivered. Designed by Jay-Z, nonetheless, the shield is suppose to replicate 1960's Brooklyn signage. I think to tweak it, it should be roughened up, worked out a little more and distressed; make it with a dash of vintage like they've been in this business for some time.

The evolution of the Nets logo (warning: may induce vomiting):

1972-1977
1978-1990

1990-1997

1997-2012

22.3.12

5.1.11

----- A New Year, A New Logo -----


Starbucks joined the same bandwagon as the logo changing hall of fame-ers of the past, but for once, this one doesn't slap us in the face *cough* Gap*. Starbucks easily removed the typography, its recognizable name, which shows how ubiquitously recognizable the logo has become; even by removing its name wouldn't cause confusion, joining in the same ranks as: McDonald's, Apple, Nike, Adidas, etc.

Its been stripped down to representing only the Siren; it works well and straight to the point. Only thing I would add is weight; looks and feels light and airy. I would suggest adding the same outline as its predecessor to simply enclose it. B+

HowDesign.com


7.10.10

When I was notified about a logo crime scene, I quickly jumped to it and found myself quickly on site to investigate, feeling with an unsettling anticipation. The whiff of the disturbing image hit me hard, my head immediately jerked backward in shock, I started to blink rapidly hoping maybe it was a hindrance in the way. It turned out to be nothing but reality. These sad cases happen often and the sympathies or the criticisms will start to pour in truck loads.

This is the story: Gap, a long running classic American label. Like its ubiquitous counterparts (Coke, Nike...), the brand is unequivocally recognizable, we can close our eyes and picture the logo: basic blue square, white serif font centered. All is good. Of course, overtime predicted by weak sales and new drive, companies choose to redesign, which is never the easiest job. To design something is hard, to redesign it's tricky. Black and white is easy to achieve but not grey, at least not the grey everyone would like. They will either love it or hate it. If you move a sofa from its long-sitting position, it will look strange no matter where you put it. If a friend legally changes his/her name, they will physically look and feel odd to you. Something isn't quite right. Familiarity is a an invisible force that we cling on to. Is it the unfamiliarity or the tastelessness that's catching us off guard? I say 20% of the former and 80% of the latter. As soon as Gap revealed their new look on the website, it feels as if someone replaced its soul. Logos aim to represent the company's soul and that day, Gap lost of bit of theirs. However, I cannot fathom the pressure that had been felt by the design team to redesign the classic logo. Simultaneously, I also could not fathom what began the process and how it lead them here.