beatz01
05-21-2006, 10:01 PM
I dunno,
i'm not long in the biz (4 1/2 years) but i thought there were some standards to what makes a good logo, amongst them that a good logo should work in b/w as well as color and that the logo should somehow transport either the core nature of a business, it's values etc or at least be clever with the initials.
But lately i see all these "web.20" logos everywhere, seems the new hype.
Full of gradients, PS drop shadows, shiny "orb" effects and whatnow.No type treatment in 90%, and the icon itself often not more than a generic symbol (leaf, book or whatever) or just the plain company initials.No clever idea, no "works in b/w", no message, no nothing what i used to believe makes a good logo.
Apart from the lack of "cleverness", don't these companies realize how difficult it will be to use their logo on a fax or copy machine or how complicated and *costy* it will be to print their logo wall-size ?!
Reminds me alot of the dotcom craze where everybody and their mother had to have a swoosh or spiral logo because they thought it made them look future or technology.I really thought the days of these non.meaning logos were gone...?!
I had a client recently who insisted on their logo to be done in "web 2.0" style (their words) which meant for the first time since ages i had to throw in all that shiny gradient gloss shadow orb crap and even take that logo to Photoshop - urgh.
So what's up with that ? Seems to me the latest hype but don't you agree most of these logos are not good logos in the true sense ?
P.S. If you have no idea what i'm talking about take a look at these web 2.0 logo collections :
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=93136022&size=o
http://www.web2logo.com/
And in case you think these are logos from 1999, they're not - they just look like.
i'm not long in the biz (4 1/2 years) but i thought there were some standards to what makes a good logo, amongst them that a good logo should work in b/w as well as color and that the logo should somehow transport either the core nature of a business, it's values etc or at least be clever with the initials.
But lately i see all these "web.20" logos everywhere, seems the new hype.
Full of gradients, PS drop shadows, shiny "orb" effects and whatnow.No type treatment in 90%, and the icon itself often not more than a generic symbol (leaf, book or whatever) or just the plain company initials.No clever idea, no "works in b/w", no message, no nothing what i used to believe makes a good logo.
Apart from the lack of "cleverness", don't these companies realize how difficult it will be to use their logo on a fax or copy machine or how complicated and *costy* it will be to print their logo wall-size ?!
Reminds me alot of the dotcom craze where everybody and their mother had to have a swoosh or spiral logo because they thought it made them look future or technology.I really thought the days of these non.meaning logos were gone...?!
I had a client recently who insisted on their logo to be done in "web 2.0" style (their words) which meant for the first time since ages i had to throw in all that shiny gradient gloss shadow orb crap and even take that logo to Photoshop - urgh.
So what's up with that ? Seems to me the latest hype but don't you agree most of these logos are not good logos in the true sense ?
P.S. If you have no idea what i'm talking about take a look at these web 2.0 logo collections :
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=93136022&size=o
http://www.web2logo.com/
And in case you think these are logos from 1999, they're not - they just look like.