Saturday, November 19, 2011

REVISIONS


A lot was written about the revision notes yesterday to the new Toronto Blue Jays logo. It's funny how angry people can be about a design argument that includes the golden ratio and bad vectoring to prove points. I find it the same as a baseball writer using advanced metrics to argue a player's value. Rob has followed up with this logo, and this short explanation.

"After making art director's notes on the new Blue Jays logo I felt I had to back my words up and create my own version. I assessed the flaws, stripped the logo down and made it as simple and clean as I could. Of course this is MY rendering, so it is subjective but I also feel that the changes I made are more pleasing to the eye."
Rob

13 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So much for employing an experts opinion. I think the revision looks like something I would have made on photoshop elements

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the criticisms were valid, but the revised version looks too chubby and dead-eyed. Making the reflection in the eye round just makes the bird look empty-headed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's a link to my redesign.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/61980422@N04/6370574455/

    Can't hotlink it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the new bird is on the right path, but it's not there yet. What you've done to the type and the ball, however, are atrocious.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The original one is by far the cleanest and best, IMHO.

    I'm not crazy about the tiny nub/point on the bottom of the new official logo's leaf, but the bottom left corner of the maple leaf in Rob's design forms a pretty nasty tangent with the tiny point on the bird's neck.
    I think the type is pretty clunky, too.

    I actually like the double circle outline of the official logo.

    For me, a good test for a logo is how well it looks when it's reduced in size. The original one has the most clarity in that regard.

    I like them in the order they're presented: 1st, 2nd, 3rd.

    But really, I'm just happy the Blue Jays wear blue again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How well it *works*, I should say.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow, these "design experts" have lost all credibility. The bird in this design looks like it has down syndrome - it looks really goofy. There's definitely a general blandless to this redesign

    Ah, what do actual art experts know anyway. They think moronic modern art scribble scrabble makes for amazing masterpieces. I liken it to modern music experts who love modern classical music, as it satisfies some sort of mathematical musical symmetry that only they can understand... even though at the end of the day when you actually listen to the music, it sounds cacaphonous and awful. (Yeah, i had a music history teacher in college who was one of these PhD academic types - he made us listen to screeching awful modern classical music all day, it was terrible.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is evidence that the despite what they have have to say for themselves, professional internet experts DO NOT know everything.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The old-school logo from the 80s, with the sky-blue, is by far the best. I love the sky-blue and the hollow script

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't understand the change. If you're gonna make it like the first one Why not go back to the first one?? The lighter blue is waaaaay better. I don't get the obsession with Navy Blue.

    ReplyDelete
  12. stupidest name for a blog ever

    ReplyDelete