> > The problem, as I see things right now, is we are spending too much time
> > going around in circles on the logo issue, and I'd like to lay things to
> > rest already :)
> > My vote is towards Jan's work...as far as "official logo"...there is
> > nothing wrong with working on more cartoon'd versions from a humor
> > perspective, but, IMHO, Jan's work displays so nicely as shown by Dmitry's
> > work with it...
At least a couple of people have tried to point out the criteria which
we should apply to a logo selection, and imho a *single* choice can
not fullfill all of them. We would like a nice, "rich" logo for the
web page, cover art, etc, but that same logo, without changes,
*cannot* shrink down to a suitable 16x16 pixmap button on a GUI.
Scrappy's desire to somehow incorporate both concepts is *important*,
and should not be ignored. We have the theme (elephant) and a good
candidate for a rich logo, but we shouldn't discourage the discussion
of simpler logos for other uses.
The last time we were discussing logos and branding someone had posted
a very good, short, treatise on the subject which pointed out that
once you have chosen a "base" logo then you can derive logos and other
art from that without having to propagate the exact image or all
details. For example, istm that if we used Jan's logo as the cover art
for the web page, then our "cartoon" logo might consist of line art
which traces the outline of the elephant's head profile. Or has a
diamond with a single line through it which evokes our elephant's head
and nose. The important thing is that the content of the image is
clearly derived from the same theme.
Cheesy example included...
- Tom
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
