jasper-isis wrote:BasharOfTheAges wrote:Of the... what 32? I could only honestly pick 3.
I'm happy enough that you could even pick one, ya cranky old man.
I'm 24 -- I'm not Old!
/Dennis
jasper-isis wrote:BasharOfTheAges wrote:Of the... what 32? I could only honestly pick 3.
I'm happy enough that you could even pick one, ya cranky old man.
Pas wrote:Why do people feel the need to include a background for a logo?
Pas wrote:Why do people feel the need to include a background for a logo? Seriously, what purpose does it serve? Never mistake a logo for an art piece, they are two different things entirely
If you removed the background, removed the small text at the bottom (it doesn't really do much tbh) and just left the "AMV" it would actually be pretty decent. Also, the "A" letterform seems a bit narrow compared to the "V", even the weight is totally different.
Sennin wrote:Pas wrote:Why do people feel the need to include a background for a logo? Seriously, what purpose does it serve? Never mistake a logo for an art piece, they are two different things entirely
If you removed the background, removed the small text at the bottom (it doesn't really do much tbh) and just left the "AMV" it would actually be pretty decent. Also, the "A" letterform seems a bit narrow compared to the "V", even the weight is totally different.
I think the bg does serve a purpose, for one, its used for getting attention. Take the logo we have now for example, it also has a bg which makes it unique and different, without it, it would be boring. =/
I doubt anyone would look at plain text.. that's just boring.
All those people complaining about there not being any good logos this year can suck it. None of you even considered making one yourself, so don't bitch now that the opportunity has passed you by
<Stirspeare> Otohiko: You guys sure love dongs.

Pas wrote:Sennin wrote:Pas wrote:Why do people feel the need to include a background for a logo? Seriously, what purpose does it serve? Never mistake a logo for an art piece, they are two different things entirely
If you removed the background, removed the small text at the bottom (it doesn't really do much tbh) and just left the "AMV" it would actually be pretty decent. Also, the "A" letterform seems a bit narrow compared to the "V", even the weight is totally different.
I think the bg does serve a purpose, for one, its used for getting attention. Take the logo we have now for example, it also has a bg which makes it unique and different, without it, it would be boring. =/
I doubt anyone would look at plain text.. that's just boring.
Define "boring". What you are implying is that the typography itself is not interesting, which I'd have to disagree with. If anything, it is the typography that catches my interest to begin with.
And secondly, there's a huge difference between "getting attention" and "attracting the right people". A logo represents the company/organization etc. I could write something in comic sans and get attention, but it probably wouldn't be the type of attention I'd want. If the org really wanted peoples attention that badly, we could quite easily replace the current banner for something written in Impact as a .gif with flashing colours and shapes. It wouldn't be the most pleasing logo to be stuck with for the next year, but hell if it wouldn't get peoples attention.
I don't so much believe it's a matter of attention so much as a matter of trying to decide on a logo which best represents the org as not only the organization but also the community that embodies it. Because of this, I really don't mind what one we're stuck with, as it will always be decide on a vote and therefore represent the tastes of the largest majority of people on the org.
All those people complaining about there not being any good logos this year can suck it. None of you even considered making one yourself, so don't bitch now that the opportunity has passed you by
Define "boring".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests