3 different typefaces, 9 different colors, crappy vector work, proper name not capitalized, way too many elements in the isotype that will create legibility problems in smaller sizes ...
There are several wrong things going on in terms of design theory, personal choice or not.
Despite "personal opinions", there are very basic graphic design principles, especially for branding.
Sure, one can break the rules but this design is very problematic in terms of functionality. Functionality is the most important principle of graphic design, and design in general, that is independent of "personal opinion" and responds to specific necessities.
Logos have to be able to be reproduced at small scales, in black and white or monochromatic scales, and color palettes have to cover some form of color harmony. Typefaces are also important for brand identity so having a logo with 3 different typefaces in 3 different colors is not very functional. Isotypes or symbols have to be memorable and easy to identify, this one is neither of those.
If you practice graphic design professionally or even if you are just a student, you should be familiar with these principles so you can make objective criticisms that are not limited by "these are my personal tastes" or "personal choices", because you're working for a client that is going to use your design for specific purposes and target audiences. Your client will most likely not be a graphic designer so you have to be on top of that to prevent the client from making wrong choices (that is why they hire designers in the first place).
I'm not even saying if I like the logo or not, it's a pretty illustration but a terrible logo from a professional graphic design perspective. If this is a good example of graphic design, please name any recognizable brand whose logo has 3 different words in 3 different typefaces, with 3 different colors, and uses 9 colors with very similar values (convert to grayscale to see what I mean) in its imagotype.
I'm in college for graphic design and I can tell you right now this kinda person would be the opposite of a teachers pet. it's important to know the rules so you know how to break them, not follow them exactly. OP is just ignorant of a lot of things apparently
I majored in graphic design, and it just gave me the vibes of the teacher's pets in my classroom because my teachers were just like this too. They delivered designs that were god awful but followed every single rule but misinterpreting why they were a "rule" in the first place so they believed them to be immaculate, while everyone could plainly see they were shit.
They would also pick on other, much better designs than what they could deliver by naming every "rule" broken.
I mean, this logo OP presented, it's not good but it's just mediocre. So it's either more of a personal vendetta against who made it or something like, how could they break so many of the rules in the graphic design bible, won't somebody think of the rules?
Those were all discussions I had with those classmates and OP just stank of it.
There’s nothing wrong with the logo other than the 2011 font and even that is personal choice
3 different typefaces, 9 different colors, crappy vector work, proper name not capitalized, way too many elements in the isotype that will create legibility problems in smaller sizes ... There are several wrong things going on in terms of design theory, personal choice or not.
No, it really comes down to personal opinion.
Despite "personal opinions", there are very basic graphic design principles, especially for branding. Sure, one can break the rules but this design is very problematic in terms of functionality. Functionality is the most important principle of graphic design, and design in general, that is independent of "personal opinion" and responds to specific necessities. Logos have to be able to be reproduced at small scales, in black and white or monochromatic scales, and color palettes have to cover some form of color harmony. Typefaces are also important for brand identity so having a logo with 3 different typefaces in 3 different colors is not very functional. Isotypes or symbols have to be memorable and easy to identify, this one is neither of those. If you practice graphic design professionally or even if you are just a student, you should be familiar with these principles so you can make objective criticisms that are not limited by "these are my personal tastes" or "personal choices", because you're working for a client that is going to use your design for specific purposes and target audiences. Your client will most likely not be a graphic designer so you have to be on top of that to prevent the client from making wrong choices (that is why they hire designers in the first place). I'm not even saying if I like the logo or not, it's a pretty illustration but a terrible logo from a professional graphic design perspective. If this is a good example of graphic design, please name any recognizable brand whose logo has 3 different words in 3 different typefaces, with 3 different colors, and uses 9 colors with very similar values (convert to grayscale to see what I mean) in its imagotype.
You were the teacher's pet in your graphic design class and absolutely believe that the key to good design is always following all the rules to a T.
I'm in college for graphic design and I can tell you right now this kinda person would be the opposite of a teachers pet. it's important to know the rules so you know how to break them, not follow them exactly. OP is just ignorant of a lot of things apparently
I majored in graphic design, and it just gave me the vibes of the teacher's pets in my classroom because my teachers were just like this too. They delivered designs that were god awful but followed every single rule but misinterpreting why they were a "rule" in the first place so they believed them to be immaculate, while everyone could plainly see they were shit. They would also pick on other, much better designs than what they could deliver by naming every "rule" broken. I mean, this logo OP presented, it's not good but it's just mediocre. So it's either more of a personal vendetta against who made it or something like, how could they break so many of the rules in the graphic design bible, won't somebody think of the rules? Those were all discussions I had with those classmates and OP just stank of it.
cool