This is a blog of comparative logos. Logos are not right or wrong or good or bad. They represent a style or just represent a best fit of the portrayal of a system. When I first encountered the logos for Blue Horizons and the Carsey-Wolf Center for Film, Television, and New Media, I was in part shocked... mostly from the Carsey-Wolf logo and brochure. Mind you, this is coming from a scientist who never really hung out with any film people until this program. The Blue Horizons graphic is... well... very... conservative and academic. It seems suitable. But it doesn't exactly jump out at you. The Carsey-Wolf Center has too long of a name for a center title, and additionally, if this center is full of media experts, wouldn't they know not to create a dark, gloomy brochure? It is a brochure and logo that doesn't jump out at me in the slightest bit. I don't know, it's just my own opinion. Then from my own navel-gazing viewpoint of my own art... Let's see, my logos are (1) very layered (2) very saturated and diverse in colors. I mean, rock crabs don't have much aesthetic or sex appeal, so, I think I did a good job for making a seemingly bizarre subject kind of interesting and enticing. Okay, I'll stop the ridiculousness of self-glorification! I guess this situation shows the variation in perception of the same system.
I think one of the undergraduate students of the course was getting paid to make a logo for Blue Horizons, but I never saw what happened. As soon as I found out about this, I think that very night I constructed my own logo, starting with the eyeball, then planet earth, then the sun, then the camera, then the channel islands, and then Blue Horizons written on top. Lots, of layers. Insane! I didn't get paid but my own mind's heart was paid very well through this artistic exercise.
I feel good critiquing art. Why? Because I'm not right or wrong, and no one has to take me seriously since critiquing art is an opinion, and critiquing science isn't necessarily the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment