That takes us to your reading for this week and your first lesson in this Identity unit. As I
stated above, this is a more advanced unit and lesson than I would teach my 5th grade
students, but even they would be able to find useful information in the Logo Design
Workbook: A Hands-On Guide to Creating Logos. Please follow the link I emailed to you
and read pages 12-40 (there are a lot of pictures!) in the Workbook so that you may
complete this week’s assignment: Use what you learned from the book to find three well
known logos—one successful, one that could be improved and how, as well as one that
really misses the mark and does not represent its company/brand/person well at all. You
should be able to list what it is that makes these logos successful, or, in the case of the
unsuccessful logo, what makes it fail in its representation. Please include images of all
logos and post to the discussion board.
Here are the logos I am pondering for the assignment this week:
Unsuccessful:
Chosen Logos and their discussions:
OKay, here are my selections:
1. Unsuccessful - I have chosen the ACT logo from the FBI's Art Crimes Team as my unsuccessful logo because I am looking at it an awful lot right now and am bothered by it every time I see it. The Font used for the ACT is overworked, with too many facets and multiple colors. The chosen color does not stand out from the background. It is too busy with all the artworks behind the letters, each with their own colors and minuscule details. And unless you are familiar with each of these pieces, it is not evident that these are art works that have been stolen or otherwise been involved in a crime. And what is the purpose of this logo? Unlike the FBI logo which is used as a department identity (seen on countless official jackets, hats, vests, and not to mention less wearable functioning items such as folders, letterheads, etc.) how is this logo used? Seen on the FBI.gov website, but very few other places. Is it because it is such a poorly designed logo?
If I look back at the 10 rules, I start to analyze it multiple ways. How does this hold up over time? How can something so timeless as art, feel so outdated immediately? It is not a very seductive image, even filled with countless items of beauty. It does not seem to pose any questions, and it does not seem suited to multiple uses. Although readable if large on a computer screen, it does nto translate well to letterhead, emblems, or other more official uses. It also just seems to have a weak presence. Perhaps that is reflective of its position within the FBI, in fact. It is a small team, relatively new (formed in 2004), and perhaps not respected as many other departments? Hard to say, but I could definitely read that from its chosen logo.
2. Improvable - For the logo in need of improvement, I have chosen the National Endowment for the Arts. Although perhaps a successful logo, I still see a need for improvement. It is clean, sharp, instantly recognizable, but leaves me a little cold. The feeling of it isn't behind it.
The logo is the stylized image a growing plant that can also be seen as a human head with outstretched arms. I like the idea that the NEA offers opportunity to allow artists to grow, so it seems like a good metaphor. However, it still seems like there is something missing. I think if the logo had a better connection to the creative side of the area it supports it would sit better with me.
Here are the logos I am pondering for the assignment this week:
Unsuccessful:
Modifiable:
Successful:
Chosen Logos and their discussions:
OKay, here are my selections:
1. Unsuccessful - I have chosen the ACT logo from the FBI's Art Crimes Team as my unsuccessful logo because I am looking at it an awful lot right now and am bothered by it every time I see it. The Font used for the ACT is overworked, with too many facets and multiple colors. The chosen color does not stand out from the background. It is too busy with all the artworks behind the letters, each with their own colors and minuscule details. And unless you are familiar with each of these pieces, it is not evident that these are art works that have been stolen or otherwise been involved in a crime. And what is the purpose of this logo? Unlike the FBI logo which is used as a department identity (seen on countless official jackets, hats, vests, and not to mention less wearable functioning items such as folders, letterheads, etc.) how is this logo used? Seen on the FBI.gov website, but very few other places. Is it because it is such a poorly designed logo?
If I look back at the 10 rules, I start to analyze it multiple ways. How does this hold up over time? How can something so timeless as art, feel so outdated immediately? It is not a very seductive image, even filled with countless items of beauty. It does not seem to pose any questions, and it does not seem suited to multiple uses. Although readable if large on a computer screen, it does nto translate well to letterhead, emblems, or other more official uses. It also just seems to have a weak presence. Perhaps that is reflective of its position within the FBI, in fact. It is a small team, relatively new (formed in 2004), and perhaps not respected as many other departments? Hard to say, but I could definitely read that from its chosen logo.
2. Improvable - For the logo in need of improvement, I have chosen the National Endowment for the Arts. Although perhaps a successful logo, I still see a need for improvement. It is clean, sharp, instantly recognizable, but leaves me a little cold. The feeling of it isn't behind it.
The logo is the stylized image a growing plant that can also be seen as a human head with outstretched arms. I like the idea that the NEA offers opportunity to allow artists to grow, so it seems like a good metaphor. However, it still seems like there is something missing. I think if the logo had a better connection to the creative side of the area it supports it would sit better with me.
3. Successful - The Art Fund
I loved this logo. It is clean and simple but conveys the intent of the company clearly. It has what the NEA's logo was missing - a clear connection to the feeling side of the company. You can tell there is a connection to the arts through the frame and that they are investing in philanthropy in the arts. The color is eye-catching and contrasts nicely with the black on white. The font is classic and clean without feeling stodgy, dated, or flippant.
No comments:
Post a Comment