Topic awaiting preservation: gfxdesigner.com logo idea #1 - thoughts? (Page 1 of 1)

Just an idea...

if you could tell us a little more about it - what you were intending it for etc etc... you might get a more structured / critical response... was also wondering if it ought to be in another section (logo design hhhhhmmmm not sure?)

The name is self-explanatory, I think. Here's a brief rundown anyway.

I think kitty's request was perfectly reasonable metahuman.

:::tao::: ::cell::

Like I said, here's a brief rundown. Do you have any thoughts about this logo? What does it mean to you as a graphic designer? What stands out? What do you like about it? What do you not like? What do you think can be done better? Just post your comments. You don't need anything more from me.

(Edited by metahuman on 09-23-2004 21:42)

I don't care much for the circle that surrounds the text. Other then that, the text is fine.

It has a very clean easy feel that is very good. The overall composition is pleasing; the interelation of the letters is well done.

What I don't like is that there is little or no variation in line-weight, which I feel detracts from the impact that it could have. For example, I would like to see the 'gfx' about 11/2 - 2 times thicker than the rest.

What does it mean to me?

Aside from the fact that I find the term 'gfx' abhorrent, it doesn't particularly mean much to me. It would take a lot on the content side of things to give it any meaning at all. There are so many groups/sites/etc attempting to accomplish similar things, or to present themselves in a similar manner that without knowledge of exactly what it stood for I wouldn't really think twice. That has more to do with the name than the design though, so I don't know if that's what you're looking for, but there you have it...

Good job, Jestah & DL-44. That's exactly what I was looking for. More comments are appreciated, fellas.

Jester: If you look closely, you'll see that there's a pi symbol which relates to the cut circle and implies some meaning. That same shape also is a reversed and simplified version of my corporate symbol (not logo.)

DL-44: There's not much I can do about "gfx" considering that "graphic(s)" would make for a much longer domain name. I'll see what I can do about the line weight. I had similar thoughts.

You could make the Pie symbol a bit more obvious...maybe make the color or the pie symbol and the circle the same...(assuming you keep the circle).
Color can be used to make something more obvious.

That from DL with varying line thickness, is a good tip.

GFX makes me think...of graphic kiddies, for some reason.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Imagine the logo in your favorite color(s). There you go. I'm just dealing with shape right now. That's how I was taught: shape->color->content, and logos should be designed and presented without color initially. If a logo doesn't look good in black, it certainly won't look good on a fax.

WS: There's GFXArtist.com. The talent on that site legitimately kills the "graphic kiddies" argument.

I was thinking, the Pie symbol and the circle would have the same color, setting it off from the color of the other elements.

And I have no doubt, that there are serious artists out there, who use GFX to describe graphics, etc. It is just what comes to mind...GFX does not come over as serious, to me.

What looks more serious - Adobe Graphics or Adobe GFX? That is the only thing I was pointing out.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

i actually like the 'gfx' thing... yes it sounds younger, but it also connotes fresher, edgier art ..

if you want to keep the circle, i think it's too big.. it's distracting. maybe one with a smaller diameter and a smaller line-weight .. (or none).

one other thought. are you at all worried about carrying a brand name so obviously inspired by a leading player in the same (or very similar) niche? ('gfx designer' vs 'gfx artist').. it would take a pretty careful marketing plan to avoid coming off as second fiddle ..

(did i just say 'fiddle'?)

--------------
no. damn it.

Must agree with WS that the amount of talent on a site using such a term has no effect whatsoever on the impact that the term will have in general.

It is, of course, a matter of personal preference. But it will always come across to me the same way that WS describes. Akin to saying how much your work rox... or replacing a plural 's' with a 'z'.

FWIW...

{{edit - lasun posted while I was typing

quote:

---

yes it sounds younger, but it also connotes fresher, edgier art

---

It's not necessarily a matter of young. It just comes across to me as cheap. Certainly brings no conotation of "fresh" or "edgy". IMO...

(Edited by DL-44 on 09-24-2004 04:15)

DL - i see what you're saying.

this is beginning to remind me of that whole 'SF' vs 'Sci-Fi' thing where devout aficionados of the genre would have strong opinions of how 'science fiction' should be abbreviated, whereas the rest of us just read it on long flights. =>

i grew up immersed in hip-hop and ethnic minority culture, so tagging, and slang-ing and 'rox'-ing thingZ never bugged me before. but here amongst the elite, i'm suddenly feeling so ghet-TO ... lol (i mean, laughing out loud )

--------------
no. damn it.

I honestly think the logo will have SFA to do with the outcome of the site. If you want to be a graphic designer, go be one, if you want to run a community, go do that. Pussy footing around with logos should be one of the last things on your mind if you want to build a decent community site (which is what I think you want to do, although the other thread was quite vague on the details)

That aside, I may as well poke some holes in your comments while I'm here.

quote:

---

If you look closely, you'll see that there's a pi symbol which relates to the cut circle and implies some meaning. That same shape also is a reversed and simplified version of my corporate symbol (not logo.)

---

WTF does that have to do with anything? Perhaps if you were creating a site based on computational or generative graphics programming then sure, but otherwise I see no point to it. If you're going to work *cough* meaning into a logo, make it relevant. Although, seeing as you still don't seem to have any solid ideas for the site/domain meaning could be hard to come by. Even then, creating a logo for something related to graphic design usually means you have to throw "meaning" out the window and simply rely on fashion and current trends. Although, there's always the "community" angle, but you don't want to rely on that alone.

quote:

---

Imagine the logo in your favorite color(s). There you go. I'm just dealing with shape right now. That's how I was taught: shape->color->content, and logos should be designed and presented without color initially. If a logo doesn't look good in black, it certainly won't look good on a fax.

---

Shape... color... content? Funny, I always thought content came first. Without content, you have no context, without context, you have little to design for. The fax comment is also completely irrelevant. The majority of people will see your logo on a 32bit colour computer screen, design for that, then re-scope the design ideas for the more restrictive medium(s). Otherwise you're limiting yourself form the outset. If that's the way you were tought how to do it, bitch slap your design teacher for me.

Yet, for the kind of site you seem to be leaning towards, I really think it comes down to one simple sentiment:

Build it, and they will come.

Best of luck with it.

Dracusis: I'm not in the business of education so I'm not going to bother teaching you why your poking was done so ignorantly. I'll give you a tip though: study cognition and its relation to design. Also study marketing communications and why it's important to utilize cross-media design for multimedia products and business strategy. Additionally, someone asking for any thoughts on a particular issue isn't an invitation for you to disregard civility. Do try to be less trollish in the future. Thank you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LaSun
one other thought. are you at all worried about carrying a brand name so obviously inspired by a leading player in the same (or very similar) niche? ('gfx designer' vs 'gfx artist').. it would take a pretty careful marketing plan to avoid coming off as second fiddle

---

That's why I mentioned to Jestah in the previously linked thread that I didn't want to use gfxdesigner.com for that purpose. Instead, I'll likely use it either for e-mail/portfolio hosting services and as an informational resource for graphic designers or just sell it (or wait until it expires.) My initial plan, which I realized wouldn't work with the gfxdesigner.com domain, is now in the works and my naming team is working on the product's name/domain name.

Saving bandwidth...

I have to agree with everything that Dracusis has (ever) said. What's the point to having an identity if there's nothing to back it up? What does pi and a circle have to do with a graphics community? It just seems you're going about this all backwards. Content should come first and foremost, followed by "pretty things" to make it visually appealing.

We can give you all the comments and critisizms in the world, but in the end it's not going to matter a lick if there's no actual purpose to it.

That's just my opinion.

In regards to the actual logo; I like the type, but the circle is creating alot of negative space. Had you not pointed out the pi thing, I would have never noticed it. If you want to make the pi symbol a focal point, you'll need to do someting to make it stick out. But again, I have no idea what pi has to do with graphics or graphic design.

"Nothin' like a pro-stabbin' from a pro." -Weadah

(Edited by synax on 09-24-2004 20:57)

quote:

---

Like I said, here's a brief rundown. Do you have any thoughts about this logo? What does it mean to you as a graphic designer? What stands out? What do you like about it? What do you not like? What do you think can be done better? Just post your comments. You don't need anything more from me.

---

Two links to the same thread metahuman, nice. I guess you must have thought I missed the first obvious link.

"What does it mean to you as a graphic designer"?
Not a lot, I see I'm not the only one with a slight aversion to having "GFX" for graphics, it's much overused.

"What stands out"?
A big white rectangle with an incomplete black circle, with black text that looks rather ugly on the Asylum background.

"What do you like about it"?
Nothing really, some of the suggestions above relating to line-weight and selective colour, would add greatly to it if you worked them in.

"What do you not like"?
It looks too bland to me, especially as it's a logo for a design website.

"What do you think can be done better"?
This looks like the first attempt at a visualization of an idea. The basics are ok but it needs more effort putting into it, more of whatever it is you want to say/express worked into the design.

You say

quote:

---

Just post your comments. You don't need anything more from me

---

I think that was a tad arrogant metahuman.
In order to construct a meaningful crit' we needed a lot more from you, not just a link, sorry two links to the same thread that basically gave the impression that you did not know what to do with the domain that the logo was intended for in the first place.

:::tao::: ::cell::

No, Tao, you don't need anything more from me in order for you to give a constructive opinion. Such is evident.

There seems to be some confusion over the term "content".

Unless I badly misunderstand, when MH says "shape->color->content" he is not talking about the content of a website or any other such body, he is talking about the content of the logo itself (whereas some seem to be taking it otherwise).

Anyone designing an actual logo should certainly be following that process, and should certainly be starting in black and white.

This logo is obviously not past the 'shape' stage.

The problem seems to be that it is just too early for open crits, and the concept behind this is obviously not very thought out.



(Edited by DL-44 on 09-25-2004 01:10)

I assumed that the reference to sequence of cognition and its applicability to the design process would not require clarification in a thread focused on the design of a logo. If the confusion DL-44 referenced does/did exist, then I suppose my assumption was incorrect. In any case, thanks for clarifying, DL-44.

Yes, the intent of gfxdesigner.com is not clear yet. I can't deny that. However, applied graphic design is a mathematical process; thus, pi exists. Additionally, the pi symbol (perfect circle) alludes to the imperfect (broken) circle from which the GFX Designer text is imploding. I'm somewhat certain that any artist can extrapolate and derive a deeper meaning from the given context (which shape defines.)

I don't much care for the circle...a bit of a crummy use of space there especially since it seems it could take up precious room for legibility in some applications. I agree with the comment in relation to line weight. I feel this logo makes use of space much more effectively with such consistent weights.

Using the word "Designer" will convey conceptualization / contriving of new ideas, but the logo as a whole really does not say it. I will see that logo and feel as though I am part of an organization that boxes up their designers as part of a franchise prototype. Too pragmatic for me. I want to be part of a community that is dynamic, challenging and exciting; not so linear.

Though I feel it works well as a visual that is easy to digest and remember, I do not feel as though it represents the idea well. Rather it looks like something you'd see on a technical drawing. Not very exciting.

If "GFX" is supposed to be younger and edgier, then perhaps the logo should be as well. It does not say "edgy" to me, and it certainly does not say "younger." I've always associated word play like this with the 80's and early 90's. I don't consider it timeless either, and I get the feeling it will eventually join the ranks of retired sneaker and RC toy names from decades past...my opinion.

Edit:

quote:

---

However, applied graphic design is a mathematical process; thus, pi exists.

---

Everything is a mathematical process when you think about it...I feel that this explanation is way too vague. A logo should not be communicating obscure and coincidental ideas that come about after conception. I highly doubt that designers are concerning themselves with the anatomy of a circle during the design process. Shouldn't the idea come first?

(Edited by Thumper on 09-25-2004 10:30)

quote:

---

I'm somewhat certain that any artist can extrapolate and derive a deeper meaning from the given context (which shape defines.)

---

Then why are you asking for our opinions? No one here noticed the pi, nor did anyone know what relavence it had with the logo, so I guess we're not artists...? Who's arrogant now?

Good luck with your website...

"Nothin' like a pro-stabbin' from a pro." -Weadah

(Edited by synax on 09-26-2004 21:23)

quote:

---

synax said:
Then why are you asking for our opinions? No one here noticed the pi,
nor did anyone know what relavence it had with the logo, so I guess
we're not artists...? Who's arrogant now?

---

Are you sure you're not blindfolded? You came to an awfully strange conclusion.

sux0rZ