I would be immediately concerned about the reversed type printing correctly at small sizes (particularly on newsprint, for example) as it’s such a thin weight.

Can you give any more background on the company? The mark looks quite nice, but it’s difficult to know whether it’s suitable without some more context.

my initial thoughts were ...

wow, they’ll make a messy interior. there’s no structure to the ... structure.

—————
Paul Ducco
Graphic Design

I could see the dark text on green version working very well if the client’s work is really cutting-edge stuff. If they’re more of the throw-pillows and Crate-and-Barrel types this is a no-go.

Agreed with the above statements. This does look it would only attract a certain type of clientele so their work needs to back up the unique look of the logo.

It would be nice to see a few examples of what they’ve done to see if the logo would match.

Also I would thicken the weight of the type. I don’t think it’ll lose anything in doing so.

I dig the colors and the possible variances is nice.

I find the random shape a bit odd. Not that I don’t like it, just that it doesn’t say much to me. Really like the colors and the type though.

I’m with ratbaggy. It’s an interesting mark, but doesn’t fit the ’orderly mind’ of an architect, IMHO.

I could buy the idea if it represented the outline of one of their most famous designs, or something along those lines.

Thanks for all the feedback.

They do interiors, and the logo is a bit to modern and cutting edge for most of their work, but they are at a point where they start getting more young designers working for them, and if the designers can´t be in front who is supposed to be? I just have to mention that the other direction for this logo is a straight Aksidenz Grotesk Black or, only typo(nothing to show you at this point).

They do mostly restaurants and cafés. You can have a look at their old website, which I´m going to redesign, and that´s the reason for changing the logo. They are not quite satisfied with their old logo and the website is not updated since 2004 or something, have a look for yourselves.

The form is meant to be new and unconventional. Clean cut and out of the box at the same time.

I can see that the thin lines in negative may cause problems on some surfaces and should be tested, but newspaper print will never be an issue I guess. It will always be printed in 100%, so no room for raggedy lines caused by raster points.

@Ratbaggy: Sorry, but I don´t quite see the messy part, and if you look at modern architecture you will see lots of structures that are a lot more unconventional and still are great structures. Check out these norwegians for instance: http://www.snoarc.no/#/main/ or a google search for contemporary architecture

Heres a couple of sketches for the website:
http://ernst.foyn.googlepages.com/RISSweb2.png
http://ernst.foyn.googlepages.com/RISSweb1.jpg

The conflict for me is when I think modern/contemporary architecture, I think clean lines and plenty of right angles. So there’s some dissonance with this particular shape in the logo...especially on your second mock-up of their web site...everythign is in right angles except the logo. What if you gave it at least one right angle, and maybe reduced the number of sides? Make it a box, with one angle pulled out into space like you have it?

I’m not sure about the shape in the lower left, either. Seems a bit arbitrary and maybe unecessary.

The type and colors are great.

I would agree with aluminium on the matter of the shape in the lower left - it does seem to be somewhat of an afterthought with no real purpose.

However, I really agree with the direction you’re trying to take. Judging by the old website and the photos on there, their interiors in their portfolio are modern enough. They don’t appear massively cutting edge or ultra modern, but look like good examples of commercial interior design. If, like you say, there are more and more young designers joining then your logo may help to nudge the business in the right direction.

IMO the irregular shape says contemporary architecture pretty well. Reminds me of the recent addition to the Walker Arts Center in Minneapolis. We’re a ways now from International Style boxes equalling architecture. I do get “clean cut and out of the box at the same time” from this.

I also would say I do see a purpose in the lower left shape - I see it as an abstract screen or something set up within the room created by the larger shape. It both makes the big shape easier to read as an architectural plan, and calls attention to the interior look as the focus. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be altered, but I wouldn’t omit it.

is the shape in the lower left to emphasize something about the company? is there another meaning behind it? I’m not as bothered by it. Without it I think the entire shape will look even more awkward. IMO if you make it a box with just one angled corner you’re going to have something generic and less interesting.

Det slår meg at en del av arbeidet de gjør er ganske konservativt. Det kan fort “skjære” litt med merket.

[critic_mode]

I agree with hola’s comment about the odd angle in the lower left. It’s a bit of clutter that should be amputated (although maybe I’m just an International Style purist in hiding).

As for the larger shape... I think I’m ok with an abstract shape, but it has to be a sexy shape. It has to have rhythm, proportion, scale, and all those other things that make an object look like more than just an object. You know... FORM. The current shape isn’t cutting it.

The brutal angularity of the shape also sets up a conflict with the light and airy typeface you’ve chosen. Whether you want that conflict or not is up to you. But considering that this is interior architecture, I would suspect that you want to smooth out conflict as much as possible. People typically don’t want conflict in their interior spaces, whether the exterior of the structure looks like a Daniel Libeskind product or not.

Why not just use RISS with the small (interior) angle, and get rid of the bigger angle shape? If the logo is about communicating an idea about space, it might help to break out of the box (whether the box is an abstract hexagon or a rectangle) and “unbound” the logo in a field of whitespace. It will make things seem more open and less boxed in. Think about a room with a nice corner and open windows on the other sides, versus a wonky six-walled room that you could never fit your furniture in.

But then, yeah, it looks like you haven’t done much work. At the end of the day, it takes a lot of work to make things simple. You could always show the client this current angular/boxed-in logo and say, “look how I took my original concept and cleaned it up.” They’re architects, they’ll love it.

FYI: whether they’re architects or not, I highly suspect that they’d appreciate being called “clients” instead of “customers.”

[/critic_mode]

twm - fustler’s profile says that he is from Norway. I image the client/customer usage is simply a translation issue. Lots of people here are not native English speakers.

Fustler, I’ll be interested to see how this develops. It is an interesting start.

Sharon

I think it’s almost falling down boring.

Top right balance bottom left, top left balance bottom right, and smack dab in the middle is occupied by the text - I think it’s flat. Flat = Safe. It’s the same old, same old.

And ah, I can’t resist... architecture does not define space.

Hiroshige, curious, what does architecture define? Space is surely one of the principle ideas, right?

It seems that the lines start in a box converging to one point in the horizon. I thought architects like (or seems) simple stuff.
“In Courier, lower case, the REG mark also lower case. Done.”

eee, a lot of little jaggies. Reminds me of the volcom logo:

hola, without sounding glib ...architecture defines itself, in a pure sense - rhythmic relationships between one built element and the other. It is these relationships that define ones interpretation/interaction of/with their architecture.

Not the space.

It’s a common misconception (and mispractise) that architecture defines space and it is a real sad cop-out. There are so many buzz phrases using space too. My fav is - spacial flow.

If this logo were to be truely modern, it would strive to represent an asymmetrical relationship between it’s parts. And in doing so would indicate growth ...jaggies or otherwise ;)

well, let’s think of some of nature’s most spectacular ’architectural’ structures for inspiration:

- seedlings growing into trees

- flowers blooming

- beehives

- mountains

or what about high orders of design in nature:

- sunflower seeds

- leaves

not saying you should depict these, but maybe looking at them will inspire another idea. It’s something I find amazing and awe inspiring to look up at a mountain and touch it, see how sheer the height is. To know how small I am and even how small that mountain is in the cosmos and yet it’s still towering over me, immovable.

I think for an architect, to achieve that same emotion or even to indicate that awe somehow visually through a logo would be the strongest and best message an architect could give. Design and stability. symmetry. vast porportions. classical.

I mean, something funky and ’hip’ might be trendy, but I don’t see security in it, or longevity as a logo. I would look at greek architecture and see how they built everything beautifully and symmetrically. They used neat little tricks like the golden section and there’s somewhat of a love/hate relationship between designers and the golden section, but nobody claims it’s downright ugly and horrible.

Employing simple tools like symmettry, classical type and the golden section, I think you could come up with a great logo that’s sturdy, elegant and at-one-with-nature that would give it a transparent trust as soon as you saw it.

I generalized on the ’simple’. Just that Some architects I knew and did work for, they always wanted something the simplest possible.

What if it was just RISS with the little green shape?