|
|
The broader purpose at the heart of creating any logo I think is the term
"recognizable". Whatever logo comes out of this whole process, it needs to
be easily recognized, even at a glance, for those who know what it stands
for.
I've been reading some of Ken's posts recently about the simplicity of the
logos in the last competition, and I know I have run into this issue before.
My viewpoint is this: if you take the logo by Dan Farmer for example, and
you strip away all the bevels and textures that are there, then you have
text running in a straight line. It is my opinion that a logo should be more
than this, so that if you take it down to its most simple components of
color and shading, there is still something of merit to be found in it. And
thus shall you find most logos in the greater business world. Take Nike,
Bell Atlantic, Texaco, etc. and you will find that their logos all reduce to
a simple shapes that are uniquely recognizable. I think this was what Rune
was trying to get at with the guidlines in the last competition, and I think
it reflects the basic purpose of any logo and also the question put before
us "Why should POV have a logo?"
--
Dan D.
"Through the Eye of a Needle"
http://fbox.vt.edu/D/ddombrow/
Post a reply to this message
|
|