Re: Proposed Logo

I can vouch for the designer as a true artist, neither grim nor dumb -- who BTW, are easily mastered with or without art, just look at M$ user base. What is lacking from just looking at the logos posted on the wiki is the progression of thought into building the logo. It has meaning. It is well informed by the core tenets of the project. I'm not sure if you clicked through the explanation, but to get where we are, from where we were is something. He got most of what folks seemed drawn to throughout the conversation. If you look at established brands and logos, and you get warmth you are actually getting a pavlovian response that is rooted in what the company does for you. This is a pass at visual identity, which is one piece of what some call the "brand promise" -- what you say. The rest, the most important part, is made up of what some call the "brand experience" -- what you do. There are rules about logos, and it may seem "flat" or 2D to you, but you can't translate Cingular's 3D dancing avatar to print. It works for them b/c they use TV, a lot. You may see "plain", where others see "elegant". For example: no one could look at the Nike swoop and get *anything* from it at face value. The name itself has a broad, and not so original inferred meaning, but still not too telling of the company. Yet, you look at the swoop and you think "Just do it." or "lemme go crush my competitors with glee and impunity" Or you see the logo and you say "filthy sweat shop mongerers". Why? b/c that's what Nike puts *behind* the logo. Neither feeling comes from the logo, per se. What does that chick on a Starbucks cup mean? She doesn't scream over-roasted beans and death to local roasters to me. Nor does she say "this is damned fine coffee". I had to get that opinion from Starbuck's actions. How many people thought of Battlestar Galactica when they first heard the name? What do you think of it today? Think of Apple. An Apple with a bite out of it is incredibly un-original considering what you know of Apple, but yet when you see it, you are infused with either a cult-like longing to buy whatever they want you to, or a sense of lifestyle affirmation -- or you don't get it, and they don't care b/c the right people *will* get it, and if you're not into joing the tribe, they're not into having you as a customer. That's [art of their "promise". Anyone in the Cult of Apple can attest, it's core to the "experience". I see the Windows logo, or those crappy "touchy feely" commercials they have been running, and I want to fling myself out a plate glass window and grind my face around in the dirt. I'll bet you $1 the color scheme or four wavy panes isn't triggering that response in me. Where is the warmth? It's in the Fedora experience, in the community, in the roots of the movement. This is a jumping off point, and merely a way for people to always know what the logo means *to them*. I don't mean to rant, but this logo -- or whatever logo wins the day -- will only mean what we make it mean, no matter how cleverly we dream up subliminal meaning. We will either deliver an experience that more people like than hate, or we won't. --jeremy On 9/20/05, Stanton Finley <stanfinley(a)comcast.net&gt; wrote: