Development > Artwork
various Visual Identities make a world convincing
BTAxis:
Oh, I like that one.
Winter:
As do I, although I'm still attached to the crossed spears emblem . . . Maybe we could have two logos -- one for the old, 1950s PHALANX, and one for the new revitalised version?
Regards,
Winter
nemchenk:
Looks awesome :D That should be in ancient Greek though, right? Phalanx? ;)
eleazar:
There's some mistaken preconceptions here. Note the following symbols...
They are both extremely simple and very easy to recognize, and well known. None of these shapes and colors originally were associated with whatever they now represent, and yet (possibly excluding the RAF symbol) there are among the most successful visual identities.
When the logo will often be seen at a small size, the importance of easy-recognition and simplicity is multiplied.
I'm expecting to use the symbol on the armor and/or helmet and the aircraft wings. Something with the complexity of a NASA mission patch wouldn't work well in these situations. Note that my "cross-hairs" is recognizable even reduced to one color, IMHO a necessity for some uses.
It could possibly in some other contexts, such as on the wall at the entrance of the base where a more complex version with name and motto included could be used. But that's a secondary use, and it's much easier to fancy up a simple identity than simplify one that's too complex.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Winter:
--- Quote from: eleazar on February 14, 2008, 01:23:27 am ---There's some mistaken preconceptions here. Note the following symbols...
They are both extremely simple and very easy to recognize, and well known. None of these shapes and colors originally were associated with whatever they now represent, and yet (possibly excluding the RAF symbol) there are among the most successful visual identities.
When the logo will often be seen at a small size, the importance of easy-recognition and simplicity is multiplied.
I'm expecting to use the symbol on the armor and/or helmet and the aircraft wings. Something with the complexity of a NASA mission patch wouldn't work well in these situations. Note that my "cross-hairs" is recognizable even reduced to one color, IMHO a necessity for some uses.
It could possibly in some other contexts, such as on the wall at the entrance of the base where a more complex version with name and motto included could be used. But that's a secondary use, and it's much easier to fancy up a simple identity than simplify one that's too complex.
--- End quote ---
That's all well and good, but the fact is that I'm not feeling anything looking at your proposal. Nor am I thinking anything -- you'd have to have it explained to you, know exactly what the individual pieces are, in order to make any sense of it.
These other logos you've pointed out have clear visual or cultural messages/meanings. The Nike swoosh is an image that implies speed. The Nazis used the swastika on their flags because of its use in old Norse runes. The RAF colours are the colours of the Union Jack. And the peace symbol . . . Well, god knows where that's from, it's always been rather meaningless to me -- but it is still instantly recognisable as a unique emblem. There is only one use of that particular shape, that being the peace symbol. Coloured circles, on the other hand, are fairly common by comparison.
Your logo just doesn't have a unique visual, it doesn't have a clear visual message or cultural meaning. That's why I have the problems with it that I do.
Regards,
Winter
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version