From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 20:28:49
"Zoltan 'cad' Juhasz" <cad_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I suppose the "Boost Logo Contest Conversation" becames forming something
> philosophical :) I'm not a professional graphic artist any more, but have
> been worked as a graphic artist for some years.
> Although logo gives the face of the project, company, team etc., it does not
> determine the area of operation of the represented! I mean a logo doesn't
> need to reflect to all of the services a company provides and it's very hard
> to find a logo that looks great and tells everything about the company.
> Conclusion: sometimes that's good enough to have an impressive logo the
> emotional effect depends on the represented.
Yes! That's why I've been saying "C++" and "::" or "<...>" are not
crucial graphic elements.
> However, I'm absolutely sure about the thing that the "user" will
> not spend any valuable minute on racking his brains about the very
> meaning of an abstract logo :).
Agreed. In fact, that doesn't seem like a "however," but more like an
>> Pepsi, Nike, Sun, Microsoft Windows, BMW, Toyota, Apple...
> The logos of these companies are really impressive and stylish,
> aren't they? In my point of view Nike, Sun and perhaps Pepsi have
> those logos that are great just by being a logo
I understand that part of the sentence
> the others mentioned need to have the background meaning to catch
> the attention.
But not that part.
> Iconify: I share the opinion of those who think about the recognizability of
> a logo as a basic feature, especially by extremely tiny size... but I don`t
> think that we would need a sparated icon logo as well. Sometimes the logo
> itself can work as an icon:
> Although the logo of the Infiniti company is completely abstract,
Not completely. Don't you see the road stretching out before you to
> it`s incredible:
> As I attended the competition I don`t judge anyone`s work, since I`m affraid
> I couldn`t stay objective.:)
>> Then I examine it, my first thought is: "what is it supposed to be?"
>> This is not good for a logo, IMO: when you look at a logo, it
>> should be clear that a it represents something concrete or that it
>> is a purely abstract design. (If a concrete representation is hidden
>> in what first appears to be an abstract design, that's okay too.)
>> The reason I find myself asking what this particular logo is meant
>> to represent, I think, is that it's not sufficiently complex to hold its
>> own as an abstract design. Once I ask myself what the logo represents,
>> I can only conclude that it depicts a stack of paper. This is a big
>> aside from the fact that Boost has little to do with a stack of paper,
>> stacks of paper are simply uninteresting.
> I would like to protect my 75th application by some words: a logo doesn't
> need to illustrate anything tangible, since everyone will think and feel by
> seeing the logo the way he concieves of the represented. Jonathan saws
I saw papers too.
> I saws component layers. that is subjectivity.
Yeah, but not entirely. That symbol has been used for multiple sheets
of paper ubiquitously in computing.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk