Thursday, September 22nd, 2005
OK, a stage we didn’t anticipate, a list of finalists. Just too many interesting ideas and executions to grapple with. But also the realization that the comments contain many vital insights. (I for one loved Carm Hodzic’s Typewriter until I realized that it did strongly echo those tiny RSS tags.)
So I’ve published nine logos for us to focus on. Each seems minutely improvable in its own way, either in colors or emphasis or readability. If the creators would like to submit an amendment or two, this would be welcome. Write me and I’ll send you the appropriate URL.
As you can see, my colleagues and I selected logos that are predominantly simple and rough-hewn. Viktor’s “see logo live” functionality pushed us hard in this direction. And, to make biases clear, we’ve leaned unlitteral, avoiding illustrations of writing, typing and speaking. Some of the finalists invoke those acts, but none portray them.
The comments so far provide good insights about how logos might improve. In this go round, the only comments we’ll publish will be focused on “how to improve this logo.” I hope creative criticism will push us to perfection.
I am very grateful to all the people who created a logo that is not in this list. There’s a treasure trove of creativity here. It will make a fascinating dig for some design archeologist in 100 years. I hope you like what you see and will continue to contribute ideas and support our collaboration.