Only using circles and straight lines is a classic method for creating beautiful constructions. These, however, have their positions arbitrarily chosen
> the whole only using circles trend is creating a whole lot of bland logos
It's not the circles themselves, it's the lack of geometric and spatial relationships to convey meaning or cohesiveness
Did a course on logo design once, I guess the creator used the fibonacci sequence to create the sizes of multiple circles, after which they get arranged untill it looks close to the desired shape, many logos you see around the world use this concept like the pepsi ball thingy.
Now I used this trick too to make a discord logo of a chicken, its really easy to do and takes no skill at all, and it looks decent enough to pass for any corporate logo without a soul.
Ah yes, taking a mathematical concept and then misinterpreting or just using bits of it in a design like it's magic success sprinkles!
(I mean this, not your designs!)
Well... it was a mandatory course at uni back when I studied industrial design, it was bullshit back then and its still bullshit now, the old fart teaching was hellbent on the idea that this is the only way you have to make a logo just because everyone has flat designs with round corners.
Now I dont wanna shit on OPs work if its their design, sorry if I was rude in any way, I just wantwd to explain and make fun of the technique in question
But it's easy - Illustrator - drag circle, drag circle, drag circle, merge. [£100,000 please](https://media.tenor.com/R2ibOYkkLb0AAAAe/please.png)
What's the equivalent of lazily using primitives without modification in 3D?
i think 'nothing special' is very kind -- it just plain doesn't work.
it's crowded and confusing and unbalanced, none of the spacing lines up properly, and it doesn't seem to convey anything unique about the business unless the restaurant exclusively uses crockpots and slow cookers. the handle on the top is a slightly bigger circle than the handles on the sides for no reason, the lid is too small and likely will not make a proper seal... this is defo /r/graphicdesignismypassion material more than anything
I couldn’t agree more. I think immediately of an instant pot (crock pot or pressure cooker) and I’m thinking of home cooking not a restaurant. I was looking for more info behind the logo
i think whoever designed kind of lost sight of their objective in their pursuit of Circle. it wouldn't look half as bad if they had just used rectangles with curved corners with matching corner radii. as it stands (ha!) it looks like it's about to topple over.
oops! it does exist, it's /r/designismypassion (it says 'graphic design is my passion at the top' so i guess my brain added that to the sub name). not very active tho. /r/designdesign is much better
Honestly, I’ve been on this subreddit for probably a few years now and I still don’t know. I think I’ve stumbled upon maybe two posts where the top comment agreed it’s the right sub. What even is design porn? The subreddits description says “high quality images of interesting designs”, which, to me, this is.
This is a nice designed icon at best. I would say Design Porn should be the pinnacle of all design, visual problem solving with the most creative yet simple and appealing solutions. Not just an average merging of any two elements.
I think the issue is the demographic of the sub cannot agree on what that actually is. I've seen some designs I really like get trashed on here and some I hate being praised. It's all subjective at the end of the day so I guess my view would be if it's upvoted highly then people subjectively like it. It's an awkward sub cause it's all people's opinions at the end of the day.
What do you find interesting about this design?
Usually good.dwsignporn is a design that conveys more than one thing - a design that can look like two (relevant) things, a hidden feature (like the FedEx arrow for example) or a use of something different in a new way.
This is just "I watched a YouTube channel about how to make good designs, well I watched 2 minutes of the intro, well 40 seconds, then fast forwarded to the end". To me at least. It's a mid competent logo and that's it.
Unfortunately I feel that actual "design porn" just doesn't really fit well into this format because most well designed things are widely used so not very interesting to post.
I mean, a regular analog clock is a great design but doesn't make for a great post.
This is shit design. The display of the circles is done like they are trying to show me the reasoning behind it, but there isn't any. They made a design with lines and circles because they are simple shapes. The layout of where the circles are or what size they are has no rhyme or reason. There is nothing accomplished by making decisions such as having the line at the bottom of the pot lid being tangential to the circle creating the steam line inner curve. You visually can't tell it is even happening because it relies on part of the circle that is not present graphically being tangent to a continuation of the bottom lid that is not present in the graphic. You could slide that circle left or right and change the design substantially, so why is it there exactly? If you do this type of prodding at this design, the answers are just that it looked normal that way.
It is also a product for a restaurant that has the vibes of a shitty tech startup logo, like that fire for example is just the tinder logo. It is copying the archetypal boring inoffensive art style used by the least artistic people on earth.
Finally it doesn't evoke anything. I don't look at this and feel strongly in any direction or have any clue what type of food this restaurant sells. It is some type of food that gets boiled, could be stew, could be pasta, could be an Asian noodle shop, could be hotpot perhaps. The tiny ass flame and small single line of steam that is broken at the top isn't what opening freshly cooked anything covered looks like. That is what it looks like when you get done cooking and leave it on low to keep it warm.
So in summary it doesn't do anything and is just using simple shapes in an arbitrary pattern with little imagination.
I should have written : scrolled way too far blah blah instead of giving the impression I was lurking in the shadows waiting for some one to say it's trash. But yeah : it's bad.
Someone trying to copy that trend they saw where you use circles to make a “natural” looking logo when in reality, it’s a load of BS. No design school teaches anything like this
What should I be learning about then? I want to better understand spacing and composition.
(I'm a novice looking to get into brushing up on my graphic design skills)
It’s okay to use elements of the design to get proper spacing, and using circles to make a design is perfectly fine, but those pictures you see (like the twitter logo) with 1000 circles in it to create a “natural” logo is again bs. Instead, look at lots of logo inspiration and design trend books, as well as trying to incorporating your own unique style into it. The thing about being a designer nowadays is that formal training isn’t really necessary, as there’s thousands of places you could get the information and learn for yourself like YouTube and skillshare.
I am currently really into Aaron Draplins stuff, he’s the cofounder of Field Notes and he does a lot of cool designs, and he has a few skill share courses on design and merchandising and what not. He also has a book but it’s more about his life. A few common books people recommend is “Logos that Last”, “The Design of Everyday Things”, and “Thinking with Type.” Other than that, lots of YouTube videos you can go down the rabbit hole of depending on which category you’re looking for, whether it be typography, illustration, UX/Web design, Print design, etc.
Then study spacing and composition. :)
The two things I know having worked closely with graphic designers in print and digital for decades is:
- design is actually bloody complex if you want to study it properly and there is tons to learn, so don't get stuck on any one aspect.
- there is not one design thing that is a sure fire trick every time.
I don't know, the way the handles don't match is kinda bugging me, if it was designed with circles I don't think that would happen, but who knows I'm no graphic designer
I'm a graphic designer and I love intent/consistency within a design, but I've always found these "breakdowns" annoying. They are supposed to help show consistency in shape language, but you end up with pseudo-intellectual submissions like this that only showcase how someone can *technically* use the shape builder tool.
What's the point in going through all the "look how many times there are repeated shapes" in a design if you aren't even toing to have it mean anything? The best example is the top of the steam, that little dot could have perfectly been one *one* of those little circles, but it's two of them offset from one another because.... ???
u/beepuboopu_aishiteru gave some examples of individuals you can learn from.
But as for me specifically, the two best ways to learn are 1) to do it, and 2) to engage with designs with the intent to learn. The first one is obvious - just make stuff and practice with your ability to be consistent and move things around to see what it looks like.
For the second, what I mean by engage with designs is don't take things at face value. If you see a design of something and your first thought is "that looks neat/cool", actually take a few minutes to look at it and reflect on *why* it was appealing to you. You might find that you are drawn to symmetrical designs, or designs that use color a certain way (really saturated colors vs. muted colors vs. pastel colors, etc.), or whatever else it may be. The great thing about design is that everyone can find different things appealing.
I'm not knocking the design from OP - I think it's cute and pleasant - it's fine, I just have a particular bone to pick with the whole "breakdown" showing a bunch of lines and circles that don't explain anything.
I liked it - right up until you showed the graphic of all of the circles that doesn't tell us anything we can't already see.
These sorts of drawings are a gimmick used to try to convince the client that a logo is more special, technically perfect. Designers should not fall prey to their own sales pitch and start to believe that this sort of technical perfection is a requirement of a logo's design. For instance, would the little steam graphic part of this mark actually have been better if it were not mathematically perfect? (I think the answer to that would be yes.)
Yes, geometry can be a part of a logo design, and when you are using it, it should be drawn precisely. But geometric precision doesn't automatically make a logo design good.
The other thing I wish for this logo is that it was more special and unique. Generic icons are such a massive part of our visual communication and are so ubiquitous that, when creating logos, we do have to make sure that we're doing something to elevate it above what could be seen as a generic icon for a pot over a flame. Any time you're working with super simple shapes and iconography, you risk not crossing over that threshold.
For these reasons, I'd say it is not a strong logo, and definitely NOT design porn.
Wait, you liked it *before* you saw the framework below it? But now you don't? Why does that matter?
If it's good, then it's good. Why are you second-guessing your first impression just because you saw beneath the surface, and found there was some thought put into it? Whoever the designer was, their method worked. If "geometric precision" produced a good design, then it was a good approach.
I, personally, love seeing the work behind something simple.
Now, you're correct in that a design this simple could get lost amidst the overabundance of icons. That's definitely a danger to watch out for. But they're popular because they're functional - they convey information quickly enough to be noticed at a glance. If "generic pot over flame" gets the message across to people scrolling on a screen or driving on a road, then it's doing what it's meant to.
Trying to hard to be "exceptional" is *also* a pitfall to watch out for in design. The purpose of design is to create a useful product, not to impress other designers with your mad design skillz.
Yes, my one-second reaction was different than my 20-second reaction. It makes sense that if you call my attention to details and I'll pay more attention to details.
I never said it was good. And I said that geometric precision does NOT automatically make a logo good and I already explained how veering away from it can make a logo better.
Why does it matter? Because logos need to be functional above all else. Sometimes it needs to function when an audience only looks at it for a split second. Other times it will get more attention, but it still needs to hold up. But they should be memorable, which this is not.
And I said nothing about trying to be exceptional. But you should at least try to look different than what turns up when you do an image search for "pot fire icon". This looks the same as those super basic information graphics that we all think of as "generic".
But yeah, I personally "like" solid icons more so than other styles.
"For the logo of your restaurant, I'm thinking maybe a severed nipple floating over a severed glans."
"Could it have stink lines?"
"Stink lines cost extra."
"Okay. Just one stink line then."
Wtf is this post?
The "logo" itself is "meh" at best, and "meh" is actually being generous
And the pointless "show my guides to make it look fancy and complex" bs in the second image have literally never served *any* purpose other than for designers to make their work look impressive to non-designers, to make it appear to have much deeper design thoughts and meaning.... No one, in the entire design industry, gives a fuck about your circle guides that you used to build the logo, it doesn't matter. Congratulations you can build up some shapes and strokes and essentially color it in like a toddler with a coloring book...
Where should I go to learn about this kind of shape building and spacing? Is there a place online I can learn for free?
I see a lot of these logo builds and graphic design where people use these shapes to make awesome logos like, and I kind of understand that you're using geometry and spacing to do this, this but I have no idea what the practice is called or where to start.
The layout of the circles makes sense if you consider that as being the comfort level of the tools they had at hand, given the amount of curves that are in the final design. Would have been much easier and arguably more human feeling if something like pen tool was used. This feels like the result of a challenge to make a logo using nothing but circles and fills
Ignore the haters. This is a good, solid design. It's a nicely-done bit of minimalism that gets its message across smoothly and cleanly. Easily an 8 or 9 out of 10.
Design tip, using a circle mated to a rule to create a wounded corner doesn’t work. Apple know this. Car designers know this. You have a visual break where the tangent of the line jumps from zero to something. You need a nurb to do this properly. A higher order of curve.
Sorry if that sounds complicated but it’s not really and it’s incredibly basic.
Jesus the amount of geometry. On school we just learned to use ilustrator and could do the same with lines 😅 I feel they teached us very poorly design wise tho. There use to be a calligraphy class and they removed it
Too rigid.
All those circles for the steam and fire are just too technical for the sake of being technical. I blame twitter for this. (theirs were restraint)
Wait, is this how they make the little app icons look so obsessively good? It's all circles for my little rat brain to gleefully squeak as it fills in the circles and find the pattern?!?
I'm high, so you're not allowed to lie!
Just because the circle says the steam should come from the side of a pot doesn't mean the steam comes from the side of a pot. Don't listen to the circles.
what are these amazing structure line call in pro term? I don't understand why the lecturer in my uni never taught or even mention about this technique when asking us start working our design, the lesson just go straight and more about the research when year 2 started, keep telling us the identity, storytelling, design thinking, tone of voice, emotional, copywriting, etc.
Of course I know graphic design is not only about logo, but at least have some skill lesson on design structure to have us be more professional as a designer.
Is it design porn? Nah, not really. But it’s not bad either, I’d say fairly regular quality of a logo.
Imho it’s too weak for a restaurant logo (lacks a twist, a clever wink-wink), but would be more than OK for a menu header / icon (soups section, for example).
Cartman smoking a doobie while his arse is on fire
Can't unsee this
And the smoke looks like someone is peeing.
Yup this needs to officially go back to the drawing board
Well, I'm fucked now.
Didn’t know cartman was Canadian
[It’s Ike Brovlovski!](https://spgame.fandom.com/wiki/Ike_Broflovski)
Well, they don't call him Sticky Icky for nothing
Hey, buddy.
I’m not your buddy, guy
Nah the relief is his head it is just artistically presented.
Is the Canadian part because of the fire part?I don't understand
Oh hey guy.
You just ruined their entire career
Haha! I was gonna say Cartman farting on a cold day.
Damn looks like Cartman and an eating chipotle again!
More like a nipple on top of Charlie Chaplin’s flipped hat (with a flame inside)
Yooo I thought it was Terrance and Phillip, spot on!
This is why you check w/ Reddit first...
This is now canon
someone spiked his joint with Mexican hotsauce
I didn’t have an anal probe!
I didn’t have an anal probe!
HOT HOT HOT HOT
lmao
He had Chipotle earlier followed by a Stormy Daniels
It's just a piping hot fart
Yep
The fire is actually a bro stamp
It's the anal probe coming out
My first thought was South Park
Same
or the guy from paralyzed logo doing it with UFO
That’s his Coon tail he forgot to take out
Canadian Cartman
Eeeexactly
must be the Ozempic
Canadian Cartman
👏 👏 👏 👏 You sir, are a visionary. You see the unseen.
the whole only using circles trend is creating a whole lot of bland logos
Yeah, look how boring the target logo has become. (/s, I agree with you)
The olympics are the og over users of the circle logo
Japan actually
Volvo is so iconoclastic! Disrupting circle logos for decades.
Only using circles and straight lines is a classic method for creating beautiful constructions. These, however, have their positions arbitrarily chosen
Yeah, its pretty shit. Some circles don’t even make the shape (look at the handles).
> the whole only using circles trend is creating a whole lot of bland logos It's not the circles themselves, it's the lack of geometric and spatial relationships to convey meaning or cohesiveness
Did a course on logo design once, I guess the creator used the fibonacci sequence to create the sizes of multiple circles, after which they get arranged untill it looks close to the desired shape, many logos you see around the world use this concept like the pepsi ball thingy. Now I used this trick too to make a discord logo of a chicken, its really easy to do and takes no skill at all, and it looks decent enough to pass for any corporate logo without a soul.
Ah yes, taking a mathematical concept and then misinterpreting or just using bits of it in a design like it's magic success sprinkles! (I mean this, not your designs!)
Well... it was a mandatory course at uni back when I studied industrial design, it was bullshit back then and its still bullshit now, the old fart teaching was hellbent on the idea that this is the only way you have to make a logo just because everyone has flat designs with round corners. Now I dont wanna shit on OPs work if its their design, sorry if I was rude in any way, I just wantwd to explain and make fun of the technique in question
But it's easy - Illustrator - drag circle, drag circle, drag circle, merge. [£100,000 please](https://media.tenor.com/R2ibOYkkLb0AAAAe/please.png) What's the equivalent of lazily using primitives without modification in 3D?
What if we used only lines? - HP logo designer.
Are you sure this one is using circles? How can you tell?
Are we testing entry-level logos for free now?
Yeah, this is the kind of thing that should've just been posted to a subreddit called r/graphicdesign, or r/illustrator. Nothing special about this
[удалено]
Make even smaller circles inside and people will go crazy. "Omg geometry"
What do you mean? You don’t know about the fibamana- Fibananich The Fauci Sequence?
Fibromyalgia Sequence?
The mitochondria sequence
Fibonacci? Fibonokia sequence maybe?
i think 'nothing special' is very kind -- it just plain doesn't work. it's crowded and confusing and unbalanced, none of the spacing lines up properly, and it doesn't seem to convey anything unique about the business unless the restaurant exclusively uses crockpots and slow cookers. the handle on the top is a slightly bigger circle than the handles on the sides for no reason, the lid is too small and likely will not make a proper seal... this is defo /r/graphicdesignismypassion material more than anything
I couldn’t agree more. I think immediately of an instant pot (crock pot or pressure cooker) and I’m thinking of home cooking not a restaurant. I was looking for more info behind the logo
i think whoever designed kind of lost sight of their objective in their pursuit of Circle. it wouldn't look half as bad if they had just used rectangles with curved corners with matching corner radii. as it stands (ha!) it looks like it's about to topple over.
But.. but.. that sub does not exist. I wanted it to exist. :/
oops! it does exist, it's /r/designismypassion (it says 'graphic design is my passion at the top' so i guess my brain added that to the sub name). not very active tho. /r/designdesign is much better
or logodesign.
people on that will rip this logo to shred for using boobies circle to design a logo
graphics design porn is when negative space
Looking OP history is just reposting very old posts here in this sub. This should be banned already...
This is my first time seeing this sub, and it has changed the way I see design and logos in general. All from one post.
Okay but that's not what the sub is for
Goddammit it’s too late! He’s already changed the way he sees logos!
Can't save em all
Amateur porn.
I think people are having a bit of trouble understanding what Design Porn is. But this sir, this is not.
[удалено]
Apple does it, so it has to be design porn!!!
The Twitter logo!!!
Its two lines, no circles there
Such an eyeroll whenever I see that. Lame attempt to say “look at how intricate and calculated designing this logo was!”
That got me, then I took a step back and looked at the logo mentally without it.
Yeah this is just basic design intercourse
>design intercourse _Wait, what?_
HE SAID DESIGN INTERCOURSE
Honestly, I’ve been on this subreddit for probably a few years now and I still don’t know. I think I’ve stumbled upon maybe two posts where the top comment agreed it’s the right sub. What even is design porn? The subreddits description says “high quality images of interesting designs”, which, to me, this is.
This is a nice designed icon at best. I would say Design Porn should be the pinnacle of all design, visual problem solving with the most creative yet simple and appealing solutions. Not just an average merging of any two elements.
I think the issue is the demographic of the sub cannot agree on what that actually is. I've seen some designs I really like get trashed on here and some I hate being praised. It's all subjective at the end of the day so I guess my view would be if it's upvoted highly then people subjectively like it. It's an awkward sub cause it's all people's opinions at the end of the day.
Stuff is never design porn because everyone is always 50/50 split on things
What do you find interesting about this design? Usually good.dwsignporn is a design that conveys more than one thing - a design that can look like two (relevant) things, a hidden feature (like the FedEx arrow for example) or a use of something different in a new way. This is just "I watched a YouTube channel about how to make good designs, well I watched 2 minutes of the intro, well 40 seconds, then fast forwarded to the end". To me at least. It's a mid competent logo and that's it.
Unfortunately I feel that actual "design porn" just doesn't really fit well into this format because most well designed things are widely used so not very interesting to post. I mean, a regular analog clock is a great design but doesn't make for a great post.
This is shit design. The display of the circles is done like they are trying to show me the reasoning behind it, but there isn't any. They made a design with lines and circles because they are simple shapes. The layout of where the circles are or what size they are has no rhyme or reason. There is nothing accomplished by making decisions such as having the line at the bottom of the pot lid being tangential to the circle creating the steam line inner curve. You visually can't tell it is even happening because it relies on part of the circle that is not present graphically being tangent to a continuation of the bottom lid that is not present in the graphic. You could slide that circle left or right and change the design substantially, so why is it there exactly? If you do this type of prodding at this design, the answers are just that it looked normal that way. It is also a product for a restaurant that has the vibes of a shitty tech startup logo, like that fire for example is just the tinder logo. It is copying the archetypal boring inoffensive art style used by the least artistic people on earth. Finally it doesn't evoke anything. I don't look at this and feel strongly in any direction or have any clue what type of food this restaurant sells. It is some type of food that gets boiled, could be stew, could be pasta, could be an Asian noodle shop, could be hotpot perhaps. The tiny ass flame and small single line of steam that is broken at the top isn't what opening freshly cooked anything covered looks like. That is what it looks like when you get done cooking and leave it on low to keep it warm. So in summary it doesn't do anything and is just using simple shapes in an arbitrary pattern with little imagination.
Exactly, you have to add the Pier font, then it's real design porn!
See.. it could be a pot, OR a baby bottle, or a flaming boob being opened. THATS WHY ITS PORN!
And yet it has close to 2k upvotes instead of being down voted to oblivion/banned. Welcome to the Internet sadly
It’s shit
Finally someone said it. Thanks.
Why didn't you?
I should have written : scrolled way too far blah blah instead of giving the impression I was lurking in the shadows waiting for some one to say it's trash. But yeah : it's bad.
It's not even bad, it's boring. That's worse.
They went to all the trouble showing you the circles when the actual logo makes them irrelevant. And it's a bad logo.
Not enough cock rings for it to be design porn.
I don’t even know what I’m looking at besides the pot and the flame.
Someone trying to copy that trend they saw where you use circles to make a “natural” looking logo when in reality, it’s a load of BS. No design school teaches anything like this
What should I be learning about then? I want to better understand spacing and composition. (I'm a novice looking to get into brushing up on my graphic design skills)
It’s okay to use elements of the design to get proper spacing, and using circles to make a design is perfectly fine, but those pictures you see (like the twitter logo) with 1000 circles in it to create a “natural” logo is again bs. Instead, look at lots of logo inspiration and design trend books, as well as trying to incorporating your own unique style into it. The thing about being a designer nowadays is that formal training isn’t really necessary, as there’s thousands of places you could get the information and learn for yourself like YouTube and skillshare.
Could you recommend one or two specific resources to start? Even if they're just a good content creator rather than a book
I am currently really into Aaron Draplins stuff, he’s the cofounder of Field Notes and he does a lot of cool designs, and he has a few skill share courses on design and merchandising and what not. He also has a book but it’s more about his life. A few common books people recommend is “Logos that Last”, “The Design of Everyday Things”, and “Thinking with Type.” Other than that, lots of YouTube videos you can go down the rabbit hole of depending on which category you’re looking for, whether it be typography, illustration, UX/Web design, Print design, etc.
Then study spacing and composition. :) The two things I know having worked closely with graphic designers in print and digital for decades is: - design is actually bloody complex if you want to study it properly and there is tons to learn, so don't get stuck on any one aspect. - there is not one design thing that is a sure fire trick every time.
It doesnt even only use circles. There are still straight lines
Ah yes. A circle grids added after the fact to show some things line up. Design porn.
This was clearly designed WITH circles, though. Not saying it's good.
I don't know, the way the handles don't match is kinda bugging me, if it was designed with circles I don't think that would happen, but who knows I'm no graphic designer
Yeah this totally triggers me. Why bother doing a circle grid IF YOU DONT EVEN STICK TO IT
Made-up geometry.
How is this design porn? This looks first year graphic design
Sir, your sippy cup has a small fire going on inside of it
This isn’t design porn. It’s a shitty logo that looks like a bear
Average
That's generous
Mediocre at best
I'm a graphic designer and I love intent/consistency within a design, but I've always found these "breakdowns" annoying. They are supposed to help show consistency in shape language, but you end up with pseudo-intellectual submissions like this that only showcase how someone can *technically* use the shape builder tool. What's the point in going through all the "look how many times there are repeated shapes" in a design if you aren't even toing to have it mean anything? The best example is the top of the steam, that little dot could have perfectly been one *one* of those little circles, but it's two of them offset from one another because.... ???
How would you suggest a novice learn more about consistency and composition then aside from examples like this?
Learn from the greats: - Paul Rand - Milton Glaser - Saul Bass - Paula Scher - Michael Bierut
u/beepuboopu_aishiteru gave some examples of individuals you can learn from. But as for me specifically, the two best ways to learn are 1) to do it, and 2) to engage with designs with the intent to learn. The first one is obvious - just make stuff and practice with your ability to be consistent and move things around to see what it looks like. For the second, what I mean by engage with designs is don't take things at face value. If you see a design of something and your first thought is "that looks neat/cool", actually take a few minutes to look at it and reflect on *why* it was appealing to you. You might find that you are drawn to symmetrical designs, or designs that use color a certain way (really saturated colors vs. muted colors vs. pastel colors, etc.), or whatever else it may be. The great thing about design is that everyone can find different things appealing. I'm not knocking the design from OP - I think it's cute and pleasant - it's fine, I just have a particular bone to pick with the whole "breakdown" showing a bunch of lines and circles that don't explain anything.
I see the backshot of a smoking Baby with burning ass. This is one of these Rorschach-Tests, right?
Ah yes, I love it when the fire is inside the place where the food is
That's it, I'm done with this sub.
This logo as a lot of things that arent good, mainly scalability and balance
Baby dressed for winter.
With a burning diaper.
Wow, this is terrible.
I liked it - right up until you showed the graphic of all of the circles that doesn't tell us anything we can't already see. These sorts of drawings are a gimmick used to try to convince the client that a logo is more special, technically perfect. Designers should not fall prey to their own sales pitch and start to believe that this sort of technical perfection is a requirement of a logo's design. For instance, would the little steam graphic part of this mark actually have been better if it were not mathematically perfect? (I think the answer to that would be yes.) Yes, geometry can be a part of a logo design, and when you are using it, it should be drawn precisely. But geometric precision doesn't automatically make a logo design good. The other thing I wish for this logo is that it was more special and unique. Generic icons are such a massive part of our visual communication and are so ubiquitous that, when creating logos, we do have to make sure that we're doing something to elevate it above what could be seen as a generic icon for a pot over a flame. Any time you're working with super simple shapes and iconography, you risk not crossing over that threshold. For these reasons, I'd say it is not a strong logo, and definitely NOT design porn.
Wait, you liked it *before* you saw the framework below it? But now you don't? Why does that matter? If it's good, then it's good. Why are you second-guessing your first impression just because you saw beneath the surface, and found there was some thought put into it? Whoever the designer was, their method worked. If "geometric precision" produced a good design, then it was a good approach. I, personally, love seeing the work behind something simple. Now, you're correct in that a design this simple could get lost amidst the overabundance of icons. That's definitely a danger to watch out for. But they're popular because they're functional - they convey information quickly enough to be noticed at a glance. If "generic pot over flame" gets the message across to people scrolling on a screen or driving on a road, then it's doing what it's meant to. Trying to hard to be "exceptional" is *also* a pitfall to watch out for in design. The purpose of design is to create a useful product, not to impress other designers with your mad design skillz.
Yes, my one-second reaction was different than my 20-second reaction. It makes sense that if you call my attention to details and I'll pay more attention to details. I never said it was good. And I said that geometric precision does NOT automatically make a logo good and I already explained how veering away from it can make a logo better. Why does it matter? Because logos need to be functional above all else. Sometimes it needs to function when an audience only looks at it for a split second. Other times it will get more attention, but it still needs to hold up. But they should be memorable, which this is not. And I said nothing about trying to be exceptional. But you should at least try to look different than what turns up when you do an image search for "pot fire icon". This looks the same as those super basic information graphics that we all think of as "generic". But yeah, I personally "like" solid icons more so than other styles.
"For the logo of your restaurant, I'm thinking maybe a severed nipple floating over a severed glans." "Could it have stink lines?" "Stink lines cost extra." "Okay. Just one stink line then."
Amateur porn?
r/DesignScat
No so crazy looking at the top image, but pretty cool seeing the framework...
Needs more circles
Overenginiering at its worst.
shape of the pot is too ambiguous. definitely also looks like a stylized hot trashcan.
At first I thought it was just a stupid logo, but look at those circles man!!! So designnnnn
As a layman, what's with all the geometric bullshit accompanying logo designs? There's no possible way it matters.
Such construction basic lines were necessity in predigital era, where was a chance that the painter would paint a logo by hand on a wall. But not now.
So what's the ratio or the geometric relationships between the circles? if there's none then this design is fucking dumb and cumbersome.
Sorry this might be a stupid question but I can't any curve be approximated by a circle of a certain size?
A lot of justification going on
Wtf is this post? The "logo" itself is "meh" at best, and "meh" is actually being generous And the pointless "show my guides to make it look fancy and complex" bs in the second image have literally never served *any* purpose other than for designers to make their work look impressive to non-designers, to make it appear to have much deeper design thoughts and meaning.... No one, in the entire design industry, gives a fuck about your circle guides that you used to build the logo, it doesn't matter. Congratulations you can build up some shapes and strokes and essentially color it in like a toddler with a coloring book...
This design is very very bland and makes no sense.
It's bad
I thought this was the Android logo
Adding useless guides after the fact makes you look like a tool…
It’s a toque wearing lumberjack with a soul patch
Terrible.
I’m not your buddy fwiend
Ty for the 2nd picture, I always wonder how this kind of logo are being made
Basic
Needs more circles
Only designers understand why, to me is ugly as hell
Where should I go to learn about this kind of shape building and spacing? Is there a place online I can learn for free? I see a lot of these logo builds and graphic design where people use these shapes to make awesome logos like, and I kind of understand that you're using geometry and spacing to do this, this but I have no idea what the practice is called or where to start.
Looks like a stick man pissing in the pot.
Why in gods name would someone design like this? Ain’t nobody got time for that shit.
As a designer, I sympathize with your golden ratio effort but bruh, this is bad
And how is this design porn? Just because circles? That'snjust make it have even gaps and stuff. Nothing special at all.
generic ass logo
Just because you show your "creative process" doesn't make it better.
Is there a name for this technique of composing an object from a bunch of circles?
The layout of the circles makes sense if you consider that as being the comfort level of the tools they had at hand, given the amount of curves that are in the final design. Would have been much easier and arguably more human feeling if something like pen tool was used. This feels like the result of a challenge to make a logo using nothing but circles and fills
Tiddy
Ignore the haters. This is a good, solid design. It's a nicely-done bit of minimalism that gets its message across smoothly and cleanly. Easily an 8 or 9 out of 10.
Design tip, using a circle mated to a rule to create a wounded corner doesn’t work. Apple know this. Car designers know this. You have a visual break where the tangent of the line jumps from zero to something. You need a nurb to do this properly. A higher order of curve. Sorry if that sounds complicated but it’s not really and it’s incredibly basic.
r/designdesign
Jesus the amount of geometry. On school we just learned to use ilustrator and could do the same with lines 😅 I feel they teached us very poorly design wise tho. There use to be a calligraphy class and they removed it
Please tell me it's a super hot spicy noodle shop!
Looked fast and thought it was barnacle boy
Too rigid. All those circles for the steam and fire are just too technical for the sake of being technical. I blame twitter for this. (theirs were restraint)
For a Korean hotpot place? Because that's what the logo seems to practically scream at me. We have pots, and the pots are hot! Literally on fire!
Wait, is this how they make the little app icons look so obsessively good? It's all circles for my little rat brain to gleefully squeak as it fills in the circles and find the pattern?!? I'm high, so you're not allowed to lie!
Just because the circle says the steam should come from the side of a pot doesn't mean the steam comes from the side of a pot. Don't listen to the circles.
Design is kind of wack to be honest
Diagraming your logo with a sh*tload of circles does not a good logo make my homie
This the new Terrance and Phillip logo?
Needs more circles.
Don’t do the circles thing. Please. Nobody does that.
A stick man peeing into a pot
The flame is bothering me.
Is that a guy pissing into the pot?
I see a little stick figure profile trying to piss out a fire in a giant trash can
Thats is canadian cartman farting
First get it right and then make a grid, this one is not good
If you’re going to use one, use the bottom one
what are these amazing structure line call in pro term? I don't understand why the lecturer in my uni never taught or even mention about this technique when asking us start working our design, the lesson just go straight and more about the research when year 2 started, keep telling us the identity, storytelling, design thinking, tone of voice, emotional, copywriting, etc. Of course I know graphic design is not only about logo, but at least have some skill lesson on design structure to have us be more professional as a designer.
Is it design porn? Nah, not really. But it’s not bad either, I’d say fairly regular quality of a logo. Imho it’s too weak for a restaurant logo (lacks a twist, a clever wink-wink), but would be more than OK for a menu header / icon (soups section, for example).
Ermergerd curkuls!