Huh? No. The original logo was crafted poorly, full stop. You may still like and that's great and cool for you. It doesn't change the fact that it is horrible from a craftsmanship standpoint. Again, do you remember the Yugo? The Yugo was horribly made car. It was cheap and broke down a lot because it was horribly made. People may still like the car, but it is horrible. Same with the original logo.
The logo, like a thought or idea, is abstract. The execution of the design is what makes it into a physical product. You make something from that design or using that design. Then you can use terms like craftsmanship or build quality to hold it to objective standards. Until then, it's subjective.
I value the original logo for the fact it looks handmade. The new one looks like an amalgam of a ton of data thrown into a computer to make something completely neutral. Looks like it belongs as the back logo of a fishing boat.
I like it for a similar reason. It's the Dolphins, it's a realistic depiction of a dolphin(plus a helmet) without overthinking a design. Just a straight up representation of the namesake, and on to football. I never cared for the original sunbursts though. That is where the new logo made an improvement in my opinion.
Yeah, no. The logo is a thing. It was designed. The craftsmanship used to create that thing is poor, objectively. You are basically making word salad. You either don't understand the VERY SIMPLE concept explained to you VERY SIMPLY, or you're trolling. You like the look of the logo. That is subjective. Your opinion is that it looks good. My opinion is that it looks ridiculous. Subjective. The craftsmanship behind the logo is poor, that is objective. This part is not based on opinion but on fact. Objective.
The logo is art and thus subjective. It could be an orange pixel on an aqua background. Your opinion on this matter is subjective just like anyone else's. You have no way to prove what you state.
Again, no. It is art and art only unless it is used for a purpose outside of art, like branding. Once a piece of art becomes branding, it is then subject to judgement on it's craftsmanship and effectiveness...like anything. For example, the line quality is beyond poor in the original logo. It wasn't;t an artistic choice to have poor line quality, it was because it was created by a person that didn't;t know what they were doing trying to win a competition.
They didn't know what they were doing so skillfully that they beat out every other design. What's your favorite band/musician Fin D? Let's try to put this in layman terms for you since you seem to be challenged in one way or another. Are you a graphic designer?
By your logic Picasso was also a bum because his interpretation of faces did not mirror what reality did in terms of "line quality".
how could it be? This is like saying you are an idiot for thinking Metallica is good because Beethoven is what I like.
Your analogy is very cleverly biased in your favour, so let me try and redress that with an equally biased one in my favour. Like the mid-nineties Dolphins logo, everyone loves the Maserati GranTurismo and recognises its pre-eminence. So just because you might not like the colour, it doesn’t mean to say that it still isn’t vastly superior to just about anything else on the road, in every way, shape or form….
You really are having a hard time with this very simple concept. I am not the one having a hard time understanding things. You just can't grasp that a person like something even ion that something is done poorly. I was a graphic designer actually. I even taught graphic design for a few semesters at a local community college. The craftsmanship aspect has nothing to do with you liking it. You may love the Sharknado movies, but they are done horribly.
No, that isn't my logic nor is it the same thing at all. In fact, it further displays your ignorance on the subject by saying Picasso's line quality was bad.
It isn't about biased in my favor. The Maserati's craftsmanship is impeccable. You are thinking this about subjective looks or the performance.
I am thinking that this... ..is the Maserati of all logos. Look. it's all about opinions. Opinions are like a***holes - we've all got one and they're all different. I aint falling out with anyone over this. At the end of the day, you will have your wish as I can't see the organisation changing the tuna logo any time soon. Thank heavens for Sebastian the Ibis is all I can say...
I'm not talking about that version. I don't like it from a subjective level, but the craftsmanship is perfectly fine. Im talking about the version(s) before that .
There is a difference between a functional piece of machinery that happens to look good as well and a drawing of a dolphin. I can't drive the dolphin. The dolphin is to look at. I like to look at the 1st dolphin. I don't like to look at the new dolphin.. You tell me I stupid because you prefer to look at new dolphin. I think you stupid.
The difference is irrelevant for this conversation. You are making it that way to bolster your ego driven argument. The simple fact of the matter is you refuse to separate your emotional feelings from the discussion. You can like a thing and that thing still have poor craftsmanship. Take the old Superfriends cartoon. People may love it, but it had VERY low craftsmanship. Very little effort was given the stories, the animations were reused over and over and over to save money. Poor craftsmanship, people love it, still built poorly. If you could step outside your ego and childish emotions, you'd be able to compartmentalize this very simple concept. Wha you're doing now, is like saying you love Zach Thomas, therefore he was tall.
Your analogy game is awful. Zach Thomas is not tall because there is a unit of measure to determine he is below average for a football player. There is no unit of measure for a logo, there is only taste. A better cartoon analogy would be South Park. How do you grade their artwork? The mouths don't move very smoothly and neither do the characters. South Park sucks. Stop grading this like a graphic art homework assignment. There is a reason people gush over the throwbacks. They simply look good (to the majority, apparently not you. We get it.)
Dear god.... There are things to measure if a logo's craftsmanship is high. That part is objective, like height. That is what you're not getting. I'm not saying it is a bad logo because I don't like it. I'm saying it is a logo that was designed with poor craftsmanship. You are the one that keeps making these jumps, not me. You think I'm saying I don;t like the logo therefore everything about it is terrible. I'm not. You, OTOH, are saying you like the logo therefore everything about it is perfect, even the parts that are objectively terrible, like craftsmanship. South Park is made specifically to look like poor craftsmanship. The original logo wasn't.
OK. Show me the parameters you are using to grade each logo on "craftsmanship". You are the only one speaking in absolutes. I understand why one would not like the old one. I understand why one would like the new one. I am saying it is arrogant to consider someone's taste to be "incorrect". You start every argument with a snide "No, it's not" "Wrong".. It is not objective. It is subjective. Art is subjective. Do you not see how ridiculous this is to say after using Sharknado as an analogy of poor movies?
I am not gauging your taste. This is why I keep saying you are not separating your emotions from my point. Again, reread the following as many times as it takes to get through..... The craftsmanship can be poor and you can still like it. They are unrelated. Sharknado was not originally made to look poorly crafted. It was just poorly crafted and people liked it anyway so then they made sure the sequels had the same poorly crafted feel. Same with South Park. The original short, was made with construction paper. The guys had no idea what they were doing, and the look showed. Comedy Central bought it because it was funny and they decided to not change the look. Now it is done with computers to mimic that same poorly crafted look. Now explain to me how you're so sure you just love the look of the original logo based solely on its own merits and separately from your fandom of the team. I doubt you can, because you've shown, just in this conversation you lack the ability to compartmentalize that sort of thing.
Again, you simply make up your own facts to further your terrible analogy. Sharknado was written, produced and advertised as a sci-fi disaster comedy. It was intentionally bad. It was written by the guy who made "Mutant Vampie Zombies from the Hood!" which I am sure you would try to spin off as intending to be a harrowing look at inner city violence if left unchecked. You really do sound like a bitter graphic arts teacher. You know what they say.. those who cannot do teach.
Objectively: - The colors represent Miami, the city. - The sunburst's only problem is that the small straight lines of the rays are a problem from a practical standpoint, as they make resizing difficult. Going too small and they start to merge together, which is probably why they changed it eventually. - The dolphin itself is represented poorly. It is a blotchy mess. It is most assuredly built from a photo by using too heavy an ink (like the old ditto machines) causing the single tone highlighting to appear chunky. All this means the line quality is poor as it wasn't intended to be blotchy. - The helmet is constructed poorly. The open ends at the top and in the front, means when the logo is placed on any other color but white, there must be white that just ends without a border. Every other element of the logo has a clear border, so it makes the helmet incongruent with the rest. - The M, is poorly done as it also blotchy. There's no consistency in the widths of the parts of the M. The serifs are inconsistent as are the rounded vs. angular joints of the letter. Subjectively: - The helmet looks stupid on the dolphin. It doesn't look like a real NFL helmet anyway, so not making it actually fit the dolphin is effing stupid. - The dolphin should tilted forward more to look more intimidating instead of playful. - The sun looks frilly and soft.
I didn't make anything up. Don't shy away from the question, explain to me why you think it is great separately than your love of the team. I doubt you can because you still aren't understanding my point at all.
I like the way the dolphin is made up of a lot of handmade strokes as opposed to the hyper sharp defined lines that every other logo is. Same reason I think the patriots old logo looked better. I also like the sunburst with the fine lines in between. You just going to gloss over the made up Sharknado statement you tried to pass as fact to further your point?
I didn't make anything up. The movie, like all their projects are poorly crafted. They do not improve the crafting even if they get a higher budget. I get it, you desperately want to win internet points. But you're just wrong. You are conflating things and flying off the handle and you're doing it about things you have no actual knowledge of and can't separate your emotions from.
So no response on any point I actually made including the point that shows the objective and subjective analysis, and then your subsequent apology for conflating objective and subjective reasons?