Comments on: Logos from why not associates

By: David Airey

David Airey — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:10:22 +0000

That’s very kind of you, Ray (The Baldchemist).

Making my fortune is on hold for now, whilst I focus on writing a book, but maybe someday. I’m living comfortably, with family close-by and in scenic surroundings, so I certainly can’t complain.

I hope you’re having a good weekend.

By: The Baldchemist

The Baldchemist — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:02:50 +0000

You know what I like about you David? You have a humility sadly lacking these days. I like your views and your style of putting them over.
Now logo’s, and I hate the term, are often unnecessary.
When discussing a company and its properties the logo isnt visable. Its like music… fleeting.
To brand a logo takes years and often becomes outdated and needs revamping ( good for those who make a living out of logo design) . I’m a believer in the name itself being created and designed and supporting , good corporate governance.
Thanks again for a wonderful contribution to the design business. I hope you are making a fortune.
Take good care
The Baldchemist

By: Sherrie

Sherrie — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:54:54 +0000

The London Arts and Reel logos work off of associations too etched in my mind to stand for something else, less known.

With the standout “LA” I am reminded of Los Angeles, and the circle for the Reel of the thick circle on an ipod. While ipod is with Apple, the standout look of an ipod is that circle controller.

Really liking the square that the ENVY text creates. I like the FutureLab logo up close, but from a distance only the two blue circles stand out to me, but not their differing blues, and the yellow is sort of hidden like a stain. I like the circles clustered, but perhaps a manipulation of colors would represent from a distance the appeal that is actually there.

By: Anders Haig

Anders Haig — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:04:09 +0000

With the ENVY logo, I really see how well it fits with a ‘post production company’. I’m assuming fence posts and not something else I’m unaware of. All these logos are great however.

By: David Airey

David Airey — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:00:16 +0000

Frank,

It’s interesting that you think an icon must be able to stand-alone. I’m not of the same opinion, but I don’t profess to have your experience in the field.

Regardless, thanks to you, Steve, idiotica, Jared and Fred for your differing opinions. Always healthy.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:03:58 +0000

I always thought and still think that the icon part of a logo should be able to stand on its own i.e. should be recognizable and identifiable even without the wordmark.

Now someone please tell me how’s that possible with the Reel logo ?

The icon itself is just a circle.Does anyone really think the circle on its own would be identifiable at all ?!

Seems the “but it looks great in the greater context of the identity program” is the latest excuse for lazy work and absent ideas, see NY Phiharmonic, London 2012 etc.

Sorry but there still are situations where a logo has to work in “unfriendly” environments and that’s why “old” rules (has to work in b/w, must be able to stand on its own etc) still apply when it comes to logo principles no matter how 2.0 our world is turning.

By: Fred Campbell

Fred Campbell — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:15:53 +0000

Some nice stuff here, but “The Reel” is a classic which will stand the test of time, whatever the trends.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:43:34 +0000

These are raw simplicity at it’s best. I love the style and the applications of the all of the logos except futurelab. I thought that one was just “ok”.

By: Idiotica

Idiotica — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:23:06 +0000

These don’t do much for me. Well, the London Arts one is OK. It’s visually clever but I don’t know how it reflects the organization that it’s representing. It just leaves me wondering if they specialize in Braille art or something.

The Reel logo… awful. The circle looks like the letter “o” to me. At first I wondered if the company was called “O, the Reel!” But “o” isn’t part of the name at all, so why is it in there? Then I wondered if they have anything to do with iPods. And finally, I thought, OK, it’s just pure laziness. It doesn’t matter how much time they actually spent designing the logo, the average person is going to think they spent 10 seconds on it because it’s just a circle and some words. Lazy logo means lazy company.

The futurelab logo is OK, but the font doesn’t seem very futuristic. Not that it has to be. But then it really doesn’t make sense to go the other way. Labs shouldn’t be thought of as old-fashioned, right? And what’s with the circles? Are they supposed to be molecules? I guess that’s clever. Or are they just arbitrary circles arbitrarily mobbing the “e”?

The Envy logo. Hm. Sparseness doesn’t represent something I’d envy. Oh wait, I see “NY” in there. Are they based in New York? Cool! No, they’re based in London. Aww.

By: Steve Brown

Steve Brown — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:51:35 +0000

To achieve such strong and recognisable logos consistently is amazing. Good article, and as I am writing I have noticed the crucial web hosting logo in the bottom corner of the page, it seems there is no escaping good logo design on this site. Steve Brown's last blog post...5 reasons a screen printer should not be without water.