No. 11 is very elegantly designed, almost looking like a chemical formula. It may be a little short for the magic formula, but it is simple enough that I find it well done.
The logos that stand out the most to me are #11 and #12, because they're both elegant and have very clean lines. I like how simple the letters, which Is why it stands out, but it has the potential of being complex especially #12. They both can possibly fit the golden ration without losing a lot of detail and has the chance of going a long way.
In terms of achieving its purpose, I agree with alot of people here that 11 is the best. However, logos should have alot more versatility which makes number 1 my favorite. At first glance, you don't necessarily know what it is; however, the logo stands on its own. Browsing around other people's logos, I've identified them as memorable only through association with another brand (for example, 5 reminds me of the "sketchers" shoe logo). It's an oxymoron to me, number 1 is memorable to me because I have never seen something like it before. My only concern is the possibility of it disappearing on an image. Perhaps, upon creating it, make the width of the strokes wider.
I also think number 11 is probably the one that achieves all of the principles reviewed in class. Mostly, it seems like the one that stands out the most than the others. I also like how you included the M in the middle, it add another initial and it looks good, so it would fit great in a business card
Picking just one of these was difficult! I think they are all well designed. However, I think that #12 meets the 5 guidelines the best. The logo is very versatile so it would work with a lot of things. I liked the more script-y ones (#4, #11, #9) a lot as well. I'd be concerned with them kind of getting lost on paper or products, depending on the backdrop though.
I love #4 but i feel that some people could mistake it for a big letter G. #11 and #4 are well written and will stand out even more once you add color.
I'm really fond of #11. It incorporates a nice balance. It's bold but the overall positive space is quite brief. When I looked at this piece, I thought that it had the potential to become your final logo. The only critique I feel that I should offer is to possibly broaden the lines and beef up the space a little bit.
number 4 is really elegant and its simple and memorable. i like how elegant it looks. people might have trouble looking at it and thinking it looks like a g instead of a c and t.
No. 11 is very elegantly designed, almost looking like a chemical formula. It may be a little short for the magic formula, but it is simple enough that I find it well done.
ReplyDeleteThe logos that stand out the most to me are #11 and #12, because they're both elegant and have very clean lines. I like how simple the letters, which Is why it stands out, but it has the potential of being complex especially #12. They both can possibly fit the golden ration without losing a lot of detail and has the chance of going a long way.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of achieving its purpose, I agree with alot of people here that 11 is the best. However, logos should have alot more versatility which makes number 1 my favorite. At first glance, you don't necessarily know what it is; however, the logo stands on its own. Browsing around other people's logos, I've identified them as memorable only through association with another brand (for example, 5 reminds me of the "sketchers" shoe logo). It's an oxymoron to me, number 1 is memorable to me because I have never seen something like it before. My only concern is the possibility of it disappearing on an image. Perhaps, upon creating it, make the width of the strokes wider.
ReplyDeleteI also think number 11 is probably the one that achieves all of the principles reviewed in class. Mostly, it seems like the one that stands out the most than the others. I also like how you included the M in the middle, it add another initial and it looks good, so it would fit great in a business card
ReplyDeletePicking just one of these was difficult! I think they are all well designed. However, I think that #12 meets the 5 guidelines the best. The logo is very versatile so it would work with a lot of things. I liked the more script-y ones (#4, #11, #9) a lot as well. I'd be concerned with them kind of getting lost on paper or products, depending on the backdrop though.
ReplyDeleteI love #4 but i feel that some people could mistake it for a big letter G. #11 and #4 are well written and will stand out even more once you add color.
ReplyDeleteI'm really fond of #11. It incorporates a nice balance. It's bold but the overall positive space is quite brief. When I looked at this piece, I thought that it had the potential to become your final logo. The only critique I feel that I should offer is to possibly broaden the lines and beef up the space a little bit.
ReplyDeleteI really like #11 as well as #4. they both have a unique style to them and either one would work in terms of a business signature or logo.
ReplyDeletenumber 4 is really elegant and its simple and memorable. i like how elegant it looks. people might have trouble looking at it and thinking it looks like a g instead of a c and t.
ReplyDeleteThe logo that sticks out to me the most are 7 and 11. They both look simple yet fancy and would look great for a business aspect of things.
ReplyDeleteThe logos that had caught my attention were 4 and 11 based on how they were created. I thought they were simple but got the message out there.
ReplyDelete