Typophile - Logo crit - Comments

Hi. The thread is sort of

frode frank — Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:48:16 -0800

Hi. The thread is sort of old and the logo is out already, so I can’t change it. I’m thankful for the comments though, as I’m learning a lot! Keep ’em coming.

I’m still a young designer in the middle of exploration. Currently I’m developing their visual identity, which spans a lot more than the logo. When the puzzle starts adding up I might post some samples.
I agree the logo could be stronger, but keep in mind the extremely low quality and conservative symbolism of similar identities.

In the church the logo is used as:

1: A small mono symbol in the lower right corner, or centered at the bottom.

2: A large filled decorative shape. (Images, ink drawings, metallic inks, colours).

Dan, I don’t think we even

Miss Tiffany — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:21:12 -0800

Dan, I don’t think we even “try” to do it. I think it happens naturally. We associate certain shapes, signs, etc., with things on a daily basis. It is being curious enough to want to know what it means in a specific instant that helps us learn about it. No?

Part of the problem with

Dan Weaver — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:50:58 -0800

Part of the problem with abstract designs is the average person will try to make the symbol into something they have related to in the past. The early remarks, like target, and dart board are valid. You might want to go a different direction rethink the concept. Sometimes I hook onto an idea and fight with it, put it away, and when I come back to it later realize I was forcing the issue. You might be forcing the issue. My advice is to put it away and revisit it after a long walk.

Thank you for your comments

frode frank — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:23:08 -0800

Thank you for your comments anyway. Cheers

Wow, I guess it’s been

Ty — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:52:11 -0800

Wow, I guess it’s been awhile since anyone last posted. Looks like I’m in the loop, lol.

I really liked the first one

Ty — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:50:27 -0800

I really liked the first one in your last post, but looking at the historical aspect of the symbol, maybe you could add weight to the outer circle?

Maybe make the stroke of the outer circle the size of the radius of the inner circle. The outer circle makes me feel like it doesn’t belong there.

Here’s an example of what I mean...

Just a thought :)

Thank you for information. I

jupiterboy — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:54:42 -0800

Thank you for information. I do feel I’m mostly using the symbol for inspiration. Also the sun has been worshiped and viewed as a symbol for God through the ages.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg. Turns out it was the egg. Possibly god is a sign for the sun? The Egyptians used the symbol first, and well used the concept of monotheism. Typically the christians are not so quick to highlight their models, but hey, I like it.

Thank you for information. I

frode frank — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:36:51 -0800

Thank you for information. I do feel I’m mostly using the symbol for inspiration. Also the sun has been worshiped and viewed as a symbol for God through the ages.

The symbolism being used is

jupiterboy — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:51:27 -0800

The symbolism being used is specifically not christian. IDK if that matters, but much effort has been put into keeping the brand together over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_symbols

(scroll down to the Sun symbol)

Using the negative shape of

frode frank — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:42:40 -0800

Using the negative shape of something isn’t the same as turning it upside down. I don’t think this symbol is very well known anyway. But hey, if someone is really into satanism and also enjoy my design I’m flattered.

Just kidding :) Seriously

oprion — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:01:08 -0800

Just kidding :)

Seriously though, wouldn’t the “negative of the original symbol” be a bit like an inverted cross? You might be aiming for a different sort of target there.

Btw: Thank you Sharon! I do

frode frank — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:49:51 -0800

Btw: Thank you Sharon! I do also feel it’s crazy different, and that it’s a good thing.

Nolen: Interesting point. The number of rings is somewhat of a mystery, with the negative and positive shapes.

Rings in water... haven’t

carsten — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:36:29 -0800

Rings in water... haven’t thought about that ;)

Well, it seems it’s passed

Nolen — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:21:23 -0800

Well, it seems it’s passed already, but it might have made sense to somehow use three rings (if it’s a Christian church and wouldn’t deviate from the history of the symbol too much)which would have been a subtle nod to the holy trinity.

I’m in love with her.

frode frank — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:50:58 -0800

I’m in love with her.

They loved the logo, and even read more symbolism into it. (Rings in water etc.) They have to run it through a few people though, so I’m not sure what it will come to yet.

Logo crit

frode frank — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:27:12 -0800

Hi. This is a logo for a church. It’s a young pentacostal church founded four years ago and consist of students and young families, mainly aged 25-30 years. They strive hard to not grow older - thus the logo is aiming a bit lower.

Brief:
Øystein: “Strong, but still nice and caring. You know, like my two meter tall grandfather with the worlds kindest eyes”.
Per Olav: “It should maybe express fellowship?”
Øystein: “Hey, be creative!”
Per Olav: “Yeah. We don’t really want our people to love it at first. We want to get responses like ’this is really challenging me’ from the church.”
Øystein: *grin*

Some of my thoughts:
Church identities have a long tradition of graphic misery.
It should not try to say “everything” (with crosses, doves, hands and perhaps some architechtual drawings filtered into each other).
It needs to be a bit tough.
It has to be very simple.

I’m presenting it tomorrow.
Shoot!