Established logos work on the already established complexity onto what becomes established. In their developed form they are often mindless. That would not work without the education that goes along with it.
Show me the logo that you think is good on its own accord, and it may be more than the logo you are referencing, you may be forgetting all that "branding" all the connotations, you may not know exactly how well someone else knows how your mind works.
A logo often starts out as a long piece of convoluted text, next to a graphic connotation. Once the graphic is enough, that alone is presented. Cycle the process and you get a more polished version. Foresight is oft sadly lacking, as is evident by these transformations in retrospect.
To me this is systematic ugliness, and that was the best case-scenario... It is also not the right tune to play along to, it says nothing about insight, it is only disqualifying.
The less of a chance of success by surprise, the better.
Understanding the audience, the material, the process, its all part of the game. And if it is, i can play along. Something that is very comradekingu may not be very common, but at-least i can join the broader mass in realizing this
Likewise, factoring in everyone, for how they are different (read: design by committee), is bound to end up inconclusive, but there is a method to the madness, there is common ground. We are a very homogeneous group, aside from how we all seem to disagree, to the finest of variances, when largely we are of the same opinion. The very fact that this is a community means we have something in common. Maybe we can part-take in realizing this, tapping into the collective ego that so often monopolized by personal bias. Think about it, as if you are me. (edit: inception may occur)
Combining something artful with something readable, in a form that is final, isn't easy. As such there is a consideration to be made. (The only known factor is an arbitrary (to the process) word to be worked in, and there is your challenge.) I may take an artistic approach, rather than speculative, but that is not a position of perceived subjectiveness.
As a rationale, rather than making the most out of a subliminal connection, its about emotional attachment for me. Good imagery to me is magic.
What would I want to see in a logo? What do i see in a logo? What can i do about that?
I know enough about sociology and marketing to know what a cheap design is, i can never unsee that, and i see it everywhere. Its a dual edge sword. Ignorance was blissfully unaware. Combine that with good structural knowledge and welcome to my world, where few things make sense. If im wrong, im none the wiser. The winning move is to play along. Pursuit of knowledge is half the battle.
Now that we have questioned the very premise of even beginning to begin, we can start.
Some limits/compromises are very real, they make the canvas, thats what the canvas is in a sense.
If what one does is pixelart, then your imposed limitation is a matrix of squares. The canvas is set, yet it can be expanded, by implying 3d, by tricking human eyes, etc.
Expanding further, onto a broader horizon yet, is the art.
A logo is all of the above, and whatever other tricks you want to pull out, like fancy symmetry or suchlike.
But saying symmetrical is more better just means your logo will be a circle to a width of your choosing.
I'm not going to explain how it works for me, because if it doesn't for you in the same sense that
you become us, it doesn't. Tough but true. Forget egocentricism, forget group mentality. Ego is collective truth.
It is so easy to dismiss something by way of saying it doesn't represent your full pleasing, and it can also be a logical fallacy to delude yourself into thinking the creator is right.
With all of the above established, and understood, it is now narrowed down to a smashing, albeit very theoretical logo.
To help us, there are some restrictions, narrowing down the amount of processing
Logo has to be able to be presented in pure black and white, i can understand wanting to have a perfect geometrical shape outer canvas too, but its not paramount, it is not integral.
I can understand reproducibility from the point of view of having a set shape to start from, however.
Changing what works about the logo is throwing the baby out sans bathwater. It would merely be accidental if that worked, and quite a non plausible event at that.
Its going to be a bit more difficult.
I hope we are all on the same page with this post
and that efforts can be made to rectify all the entropy down to a minimum.
