New Logo

[Kelric]

For example, Kratz thinks Debris is acting like a dick and called him one. I often think Kratz acts the same way but I never call him one. He probably thinks unpleasant things about me at times as well. So I should be clicking the report button every time someone says something I construe as being mean spirited? I don't think OO has ever moderated that way before. It's not an appreciated way to act but it has rarely ever been moderated upon and I'm wondering when it actually became policy to police general behavior.

It's the whole "Spirit of the CoC" thing. We cannot make a rule that will preemptively cover every possible way someone act against it. So, we try to lay down the biggies and then ask that people act in a manner consistent with the CoC. Unfortunately, there will always be people who hide behind the "it's not in the CoC" defense.

Additionally, we did put in the CoC that sometimes people just don't get along and the best thing to do in that case is just be the bigger person and ignore it, so, no I'm not suggesting you use the report function everytime. But it's not true that it's okay to act like a dick as long as you don't call someone a dick.

It may not be okay but it doesn't get dealt most of the time unless it's clearly a personal attack which is a distinct CoC violation. If it's simply someone acting in a socially unacceptable manner it generally gets ignored by the powers that be. It happens quite frequently on these forums. I have no problem with it, I usually don't get riled up by words on a screen. I just wanted to say that I didn't feel like the general behavior of acting rudely was ever really policed and I wanted to point out that you OO moderators generally don't step in in such cases. Which is also fine with me but counter to what you said.

[MHS]

I think this was unfair to Kratz by TPTB. Changing the logo and then offering up for criticism, is likely to make him feel "like a rock star being criticized after his own show." I really think it was mistake to put his work up for the world as a feeler and then ask for opinions without first letting him know that is what you were doing and making sure he was OK with it.

Don't hold me to this, but I'm nearly positive it was discussed with Kratz. Can anyone else verify?

[The Meal]

This has turned into a fairly surprising meta-discussion as to how general behavior is or is not moderated. I say surprising because I really don't see heavy evidence (or even medium evidence) of dickishness in this thread. Clearly things got a little bit above mild, so maybe it's just at Frito-Lay medium or something.

That said, the conversation that got us here is/was an interesting one. I can appreciate Kratzer not liking the tone of some of the commentary directed at his construct. Trying to be objective, I thought the response was a pretty-big overreaction, but we see worse on a daily basis. But it wasn't my creation that someone deconstructed, and I'm not about to propose moderating overreactions.

Kratz made an excellent point about *how* things being said ending up more important than *what* gets said. That's true of many conversations around here. There has to be a combination of trying not to "be a dick" to fellow forum participants just as much as there has to be some thick-skin by those who put their own personal work (be it a logo, an MP3 file, or the ideas comprising a post) onto the internet. If either of those things break down -- well then things tend to go to hell pretty quickly.

Kratz, I'm not motivated enough to go back through your posts (to see if I'm wrong or not), but I have the impression that initially you were upset with the fact that there *was* criticism of your work here in this thread, but then you decided that it wasn't the existence of criticism that bothered you, but the nature as to how it was posed. I don't blame you in the least for that last bit, but hopefully we now both agree that criticism in the first place was appropriate in this thread.

I'd be sad if this sort of thing kept people from offering up their own contributions (again, be they faux-magazine covers, logos, or posts in general). I'm completely untalented artistically (see: Binky), but I do understand what it feels like to put yourself "out there" awaiting criticism to be heaped on. That's a pretty accurate depiction of what a staff member's life is like around these parts (as we don't clamp down on folks offering up criticism/commentary on our methods).

~Neal

[godhugh]

I think this was unfair to Kratz by TPTB. Changing the logo and then offering up for criticism, is likely to make him feel "like a rock star being criticized after his own show." I really think it was mistake to put his work up for the world as a feeler and then ask for opinions without first letting him know that is what you were doing and making sure he was OK with it.

Don't hold me to this, but I'm nearly positive it was discussed with Kratz. Can anyone else verify?

Yes, he knew his logo was going to be used. It had to be resized.

Also, if Rip hadn't opened this thread for feedback then the first person who noticed the change would have.

[The Meal]

So I was being a jerk by telling Hell's Taco that I thought his work was good but not his best? Even after I called him my hero last week, I'm still being a jerk? Are you saying that honesty has no place on this forum if it goes against popular opinion? There was no malice in the comment, only a simple fact according to my tastes.

This one must be for me to field, as I made the comment that ran in those directions.

Were you to say "This isn't your best work," and leave it at that in a thread requesting feedback, then I'd call that a "dickish" thing to do especially compared to saying "I don't like it and here's why... And here's what I would've done differently..."

Nobody is trying to tell you that your opinion must conform or that your opinion isn't appropriate to be shared. Actually there are quite a few posters who seem to thrive on taking the contrarian view on various topics or who feel that their opinions should be shared no matter what the general theme of a thread. This has been a long-standing tradition in these parts (go find any love-fest of a thread in the gaming forums, and you'll find one person who wants to crap all over everything that other folks are clearly enjoying -- this kills both birds with a single stone!).

Because you *can* do something, doesn't mean it's not dickish to have done so. And just because something is dickish, it doesn't mean its inappropriate. However, if we've decided something is a dickish statement, I don't think it's appropriate to be surprised if someone takes issue with it.

~Neal

[dbt1949]

[Debris]

So I was being a jerk by telling Hell's Taco that I thought his work was good but not his best? Even after I called him my hero last week, I'm still being a jerk? Are you saying that honesty has no place on this forum if it goes against popular opinion? There was no malice in the comment, only a simple fact according to my tastes.

This one must be for me to field, as I made the comment that ran in those directions.

Were you to say "This isn't your best work," and leave it at that in a thread requesting feedback, then I'd call that a "dickish" thing to do especially compared to saying "I don't like it and here's why... And here's what I would've done differently..."

Nobody is trying to tell you that your opinion must conform or that your opinion isn't appropriate to be shared. Actually there are quite a few posters who seem to thrive on taking the contrarian view on various topics or who feel that their opinions should be shared no matter what the general theme of a thread. This has been a long-standing tradition in these parts (go find any love-fest of a thread in the gaming forums, and you'll find one person who wants to crap all over everything that other folks are clearly enjoying -- this kills both birds with a single stone!).

Every Morrowind and D Smart thread I ever read comes to mind.

Because you *can* do something, doesn't mean it's not dickish to have done so. And just because something is dickish, it doesn't mean its inappropriate. However, if we've decided something is a dickish statement, I don't think it's appropriate to be surprised if someone takes issue with it.

~Neal

But, isn't there a difference between being "dickish" just to get a rise out of someone and merely stating that you don't like someone's work? Why do they seem to be considered the same? As we've seen from this thread, explaining my dislikes won't necessarily change a persons perception and may even exacerbate any ill feelings.

[The Meal]

But, isn't there a difference between being "dickish" just to get a rise out of someone and merely stating that you don't like someone's work? Why do they seem to be considered the same? As we've seen from this thread, explaining my dislikes won't necessarily change a persons perception and may even exacerbate any ill feelings.

Definitely there's a difference between the two, although sometimes only the "dickish" poster knows in which camp they belong. And lacking the ESP-USB connector to my PC, I rarely feel qualified to try to make the distinction.

Which gets back to Kratz's line about how things get said...

~Neal

[Gedd]

I think this was unfair to Kratz by TPTB. Changing the logo and then offering up for criticism, is likely to make him feel "like a rock star being criticized after his own show." I really think it was mistake to put his work up for the world as a feeler and then ask for opinions without first letting him know that is what you were doing and making sure he was OK with it.

I'm unsure what the question is here, LM. Kratz did know his logo was going up. I'm not sure he (or myself for that matter) expected there to be a full critique and review of the logo or not. I'm not surprised that folks are in "I like it" or "I don't like it" mode, but a full-on critique like Debris' was unexpected.

In retrospect, I shouldn't be surprised. One thing I've noticed from checking out some webcomic boards, art folks tend to be more than capable at critiquing one another's work with incredible detail, and more often than not, they are extremely blunt. What surprises me more is that in the majority of the cases, the creator of the artwork seems more than capable of bearing the brunt of the critique and finding some things they can work with, without responding with any malice whatsoever. I've got a somewhat thick skin, but I think I'd stop trying after a few sessions of that.

[Debris]

But, isn't there a difference between being "dickish" just to get a rise out of someone and merely stating that you don't like someone's work? Why do they seem to be considered the same? As we've seen from this thread, explaining my dislikes won't necessarily change a persons perception and may even exacerbate any ill feelings.

Definitely there's a difference between the two, although sometimes only the "dickish" poster knows in which camp they belong. And lacking the ESP-USB connector to my PC, I rarely feel qualified to try to make the distinction.

Which gets back to Kratz's line about how things get said...

~Neal

Apparently not even the caveat, "I'm not trying to be a dick...", is enough to differentiate intent.

[The Meal]

I was under the impression that we were looking back on the event as it transpired, not watching it continue to play out.

~Neal

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

Perhaps in the future, the new artwork could be posted in a preview thread, instead of installing it and then asking for critiques. If my work was chosen, I would be pretty damned proud and I probably would be a little stung by criticism after-the-fact, though it's no fault of Debris' that it came to be that way. If it is previewed prior to official installation, the artist may be a little more open to suggestion. Or maybe not; some people just don't like criticism.

[Debris]

I was under the impression that we were looking back on the event as it transpired, not watching it continue to play out.

~Neal

Quite right.

As always, thanks for the guidance.

[gbasden]

I know I'm late to the party, but I like the logo.

FWIW.

[Rip]

Obviously some people see the same thing in his post that I see...

And obviously some people don't. There are as many people saying that the don't think Debris' comments were "dick-ish" and that they were intended as legitimate feedback as there are people saying otherwise.

I think arguments like this are going to accomplish negative things: make fewer people willing to submit art, and make far fewer people willing to offer honest assessments.

So... what? If I think someone is being rude, the official position is that I should do nothing at all? Not stick up for myself?

What if I just don't agree with someone? Should I just not say anything?

You can stick up for yourself and/or your position. I do it all the time with some rather unpopular opinions. Never have I felt the need to call those who disagree with me a name. If it were me I would have called out his artistic ability etc and could have without violating the CoC. You will find our position is rather stiff on this issue. We would rather not use someones artwork rather than have them attack critics. I little thicker skin will take you farther.

For the record I think your logo is great. Anyone who thinks it is below average is probably in a small minority. Sounds like a poll is in order?

But please for the sake of community relations be prepared for some people to be critical of your work. I wish someone with the initials DS could have learned that.

Rip

[Inverarity]

Actually there are quite a few posters who seem to thrive on taking the contrarian view on various topics or who feel that their opinions should be shared no matter what the general theme of a threadl

I disagree with that

[th'FOOL]

I've been lurking here ever since the fall of GG, casually observing the site to see what developed. This is the first thread that I have felt overwhelmingly compelled to comment on, and therefore have finally decided to register and do so.

As a disclaimer, I just want to say that I have been in the web/ graphics design field for several years. I've worked on graphics and logo design for Gone Gold, TimeGate Studios, EvilAvatar, Console Gold and more. I'm not saying that I am the final word on any of this, just saying that I can offer a professional opinion on the matter.

The number one lesson that a designer or artist needs to learn is how to take criticism.

Now, criticism doesn't always come in the form of the polite, holding your hand variety, more often, it will be very blunt and to the point. If someone offers critique in a constructive manner, pointing out things that they think you did wrong, offering up suggestions as to what they think you should do differently, that is the greatest gift you can receive as an artist, even if you don't agree with it. It is the number one way that you can progress and get better at your craft. The best critiques I have gotten have had me near to tears (Mike Carlin of DC comics tearing me a new asshole while looking at my attempts at comic book inking when I went to Comic Con several years ago comes to mind). Remember, you are NOT your art, they are not disparaging YOU. You HAVE to have a thick skin in this field, because everybody has gotten it at one time or another.

That said, I would be happy to offer up my critique if you want it Kratz.

[MHS]

Perhaps in the future, the new artwork could be posted in a preview thread, instead of installing it and then asking for critiques. If my work was chosen, I would be pretty damned proud and I probably would be a little stung by criticism after-the-fact, though it's no fault of Debris' that it came to be that way. If it is previewed prior to official installation, the artist may be a little more open to suggestion. Or maybe not; some people just don't like criticism.

Technically, no artwork has been chosen. The decision was made to have rolling artwork every so often and get feedback until an official logo and theme are decided on. That was stated in a different thread, I don't know if it was stated at the beginning of this thread.

[Dirt]

2) The first thing I thought of when seeing the eyes was the Quarter to Three logo.

Ditto.

Everything else is all a matter of taste. Art is hardly a science.

Edit: This thread should be moved to R&P. kthxbye

[Kratz]

Ugh... this got out of hand so quickly... Ignoring it for 24 hours helped.

Couple things I wanted to respond to:

I'm sorry that it came across that my way was the only way to do it, because it is not. My suggestions are not the absolute right way to do the design, merely suggestions.

Fair enough... if this is the case, I'll just say that your comments came off a bit differently than you intended. This was mainly do to a very few comments ('bad form' springs to mind) that seemed... snotty, or something.

I'm also sorry that I won't lie to you and tell you that I like every aspect of your design.

I don't expect you to. Tastes are tastes. You disliked the style I went with - that's fine... do you need to tell me all the things which, according to you, I should have done? Eh, probably not.

I still create freelance art on the side and design company logo's a few times a year, but it doesn't pay the bills. The term, semi-professional is much more apropos.

Me too. Don't assume too much about people.

Apparently not even the caveat, "I'm not trying to be a dick...", is enough to differentiate intent.

Heh... this caveat *usually* precedes someone proceeding to act like a dick... I think people see it more as a warning of 'oh shit, here it comes' than as an actual literal statement.

Are you incapable of sticking up for yourself without resorting to personal attacks?

Yes, and I don't think saying someone is acting like a dick is a personal attack. I think people get too hung up on this whole 'personal attacks' thing around here. It's all too pussy for me. It focuses people saying bad words instead of on what people are actually saying. I don't really need lessons on how I should be acting from you, godhugh. You want to run the show, fine, but stick to enforcing the letter of the law and leave the moral judgements out of it - not your job.

Edit

Yeah, I saw it anyway. Maybe you're right. I definitely give these things more energy than they deserve at times. I think if you knew me in a different medium you might understand really *how* I'm responding to things a lot of the time. Eh, oh well.

I think this was unfair to Kratz by TPTB. Changing the logo and then offering up for criticism.

Don't hold me to this, but I'm nearly positive it was discussed with Kratz. Can anyone else verify?

Actually, no, it wasn't discussed at all. Gedd and I solely discussed dropping in a logo. While I fully expected everyone to weigh in on it, I wasn't really expecting it to be offered up as a touchstone for all future artwork.

Never have I felt the need to call those who disagree with me a name.

Me either - but as I've said, that's not the situation. The whole 'don't call people names' thing is getting blown way out of proportion. It was an observation of behavior, not a blindly hurled insult.

The number one lesson that a designer or artist needs to learn is how to take criticism.

Is it ironic that I get snippy when people say this? Maybe annoyed is the word... dunno... anyway, yeah, believe me, I know... I've heard it so many times - hearing it again implies you are telling me something I don't already know. But you don't know that, so no point yelling at you... Anyway, there are some circumstances that shape 'taking' criticism (taking a punch?), namely environment and approach.

Environment: If I were at work, and it's a situation I've been in many times, I'd sit there and take anything the client had to say with a big smile on my face, no matter how he said it. Well, we're not at work, I'm not getting paid.

Approach: Really, this ties into environment quite a bit, but criticism is one thing, being a dick (and I'm no longer saying anyone was a dick at any point, just for the record) is a different thing.

Because it's 'art', people are allowed to say whatever they want, and if you give someone shit back you have a 'thin skin'. If it was any other part of your life, you could turn around and rip their head off without anyone batting an eye, but you involve creativity and suddenly you are just supposed to take it... well... sorry. If someone came up to us after a show and flat out told us we sucked, we wouldn't just smile and take it. Maybe it's because punk rockers are supposed to be unrefined... who knows.

(Mike Carlin of DC comics tearing me a new asshole while looking at my attempts at comic book inking when I went to Comic Con several years ago comes to mind).

He sounds like a real dick if he would tear someone a new asshole for showing him drawings. Don't let people treat you worse than you would treat them.

Remember, you are NOT your art, they are not disparaging YOU. You HAVE to have a thick skin in this field, because everybody has gotten it at one time or another.

Hmmmm... not sure I agree. In the case of this silly logo - yeah, it's not me. In the case of, for example, music... it's very, very much me. If you don't believe that something is worth pouring that much energy, effort and soul into, how is it ever going to be any good?

That said, I would be happy to offer up my critique if you want it Kratz.

Critique it? It's a silly logo with enormous eyeballs... but knock yourself out.

[Grundbegriff]

the two octopus are exactly the same size and shape. In fact, each octopus is only half a design mirrored upon itself. Bad form.

Conspicuous symmetry isn't necessarily a poor design choice. Whether it is depends, in part, on the pictorial referent. For instance, it's potentially interesting to present a highly regulated and schematic version of a creature that's notoriously flexible, dynamic, and asymmetrical when seen in nature. The identity of the two bodies is more of a problem than the abstract, generic quality of the form.

2) The first thing I thought of when seeing the eyes was the Quarter to Three logo.

Correct.

Also, the eyes are 3d while the rest of the logo is 2d. It really confuses the onlooker.

Yes, that's unfortunate for a logo, though it's potentially interesting for a picture other than a logo.

3) The text font doesn't match the mood or the flow of the graphics.

Correct. The font adds a TTY flavor that doesn't attach to the rest of the picture.

1) Have the two octopus

Octopuses, octopodes, or even octopi. But they're not sheep or deer.

I'm just sayin'....

work with each other. Maybe have the tentacles intermingle

I think they're separated because one is transmitting and the other receiving.

don't use the same exact shape for the two subjects. Give them some identity and even a sense of movement.

Correct.

2) Ditch the pictures of the eyes. If you want eyes, design them into the logo, but don't have them stand out so much.

Excellent idea. An ideal logo is reducible to a 2D, one-color version that still enables recognition. Design the eyes with that in mind.

3) Try a font that's a little more flowing or rounded. The whole logo doesn't have a straight line in it, so why is the font the only element without curves?

Correct.

Also, the red and green ... things are perplexing, and the coathanger-transmitter makes it seem as if someone's bootlegging cable TV with parts from Home Depot. Plus, it's too tall; it should descend no lower than the text links to the right.

On the plus side: The symmetry and rigor is interesting, the silhouette effect is cool, and the concept of hinting at how the Overlords communicate their nefarious intentions is interesting.

I think a good fix for the eyes-as-letter-O would be simply to remove the eyeballs -- which have no connection to the anatomy of an octopus anyhow -- and let the outline of each head count as the O. A different background and a font suitable for that effect would leverage the good design choices that led to this pic's layout.

[Grundbegriff]

In the case of, for example, music... it's very, very much me. If you don't believe that something is worth pouring that much energy, effort and soul into, how is it ever going to be any good?

A slight digression:

The idea that "self-expression" is even possible, much less likely, has an interesting history. But let's get factual. Music is a physical thing: patterned vibrations. In what sense can that non-linguistic, non-representational physical medium be "very, very much" anyone?

Consider the fact that for thousands of years, great art and satisfactory music were produced anonymously and by workshops, where the very idea that the product was expressive of someone was utterly unavailable to the consciousness of any maker. Given that a "self" being "expressed" is neither necessary nor sufficient for making something that's "going to be any good", why believe in the myth that one's self or "soul" is magically poured into rhythmic intonations at all?

[Lee]

the two octopus are exactly the same size and shape. In fact, each octopus is only half a design mirrored upon itself. Bad form.

Conspicuous symmetry isn't necessarily a poor design choice. Whether it is depends, in part, on the pictorial referent. For instance, it's potentially interesting to present a highly regulated and schematic version of a creature that's notoriously flexible, dynamic, and asymmetrical when seen in nature. The identity of the two bodies is more of a problem than the abstract, generic quality of the form.

2) The first thing I thought of when seeing the eyes was the Quarter to Three logo.

Correct.

Also, the eyes are 3d while the rest of the logo is 2d. It really confuses the onlooker.

Yes, that's unfortunate for a logo, though it's potentially interesting for a picture other than a logo.

3) The text font doesn't match the mood or the flow of the graphics.

Correct. The font adds a TTY flavor that doesn't attach to the rest of the picture.

1) Have the two octopus

Octopuses, octopodes, or even octopi. But they're not sheep or deer.

I'm just sayin'....

work with each other. Maybe have the tentacles intermingle

I think they're separated because one is transmitting and the other receiving.

don't use the same exact shape for the two subjects. Give them some identity and even a sense of movement.

Correct.

2) Ditch the pictures of the eyes. If you want eyes, design them into the logo, but don't have them stand out so much.

Excellent idea. An ideal logo is reducible to a 2D, one-color version that still enables recognition. Design the eyes with that in mind.

3) Try a font that's a little more flowing or rounded. The whole logo doesn't have a straight line in it, so why is the font the only element without curves?

Correct.

Also, the red and green ... things are perplexing, and the coathanger-transmitter makes it seem as if someone's bootlegging cable TV with parts from Home Depot. Plus, it's too tall; it should descend no lower than the text links to the right.

On the plus side: The symmetry and rigor is interesting, the silhouette effect is cool, and the concept of hinting at how the Overlords communicate their nefarious intentions is interesting.

I think a good fix for the eyes-as-letter-O would be simply to remove the eyeballs -- which have no connection to the anatomy of an octopus anyhow -- and let the outline of each head count as the O. A different background and a font suitable for that effect would leverage the good design choices that led to this pic's layout.

Most of what you said is "correct," isn't correct at all. It's your opinion.

[th'FOOL]

Is it ironic that I get snippy when people say this? Maybe annoyed is the word... dunno... anyway, yeah, believe me, I know... I've heard it so many times - hearing it again implies you are telling me something I don't already know. But you don't know that, so no point yelling at you... Anyway, there are some circumstances that shape 'taking' criticism (taking a punch?), namely environment and approach.

Environment: If I were at work, and it's a situation I've been in many times, I'd sit there and take anything the client had to say with a big smile on my face, no matter how he said it. Well, we're not at work, I'm not getting paid.

Approach: Really, this ties into environment quite a bit, but criticism is one thing, being a dick (and I'm no longer saying anyone was a dick at any point, just for the record) is a different thing.

Well, I wasn't trying to say you didn't know that, but your words here imply that maybe you don't fully comprehend it. Anytime you show anyone your art or design, or play a song, you are offering up your work for critique whether you like it or not. Environment and approach are irrelevant, as many people will take the mere display of the work as an invitation to give you or someone else their opinion of it. It's up to you as to how you take those opinions. Personally, I much prefer a contrary viewpoint as I learn more about how other people see my work and how I can possibly improve on it. On the other hand, yes, I sometimes think other people's opinions are full of shit. But if multiple people come back and give me the same opinion, I'm probably going to rethink things a bit.

Because it's 'art', people are allowed to say whatever they want, and if you give someone shit back you have a 'thin skin'. If it was any other part of your life, you could turn around and rip their head off without anyone batting an eye, but you involve creativity and suddenly you are just supposed to take it... well... sorry. If someone came up to us after a show and flat out told us we sucked, we wouldn't just smile and take it. Maybe it's because punk rockers are supposed to be unrefined... who knows.

First of all, this isn't just 'art', this is design. This logo is a visual representation of Octopus Overlords, a brand, not just a pretty picture. Design is a little less objective than art as more than just the artist's message needs to be considered. And constructive criticism isn't just "it sucked", it's "this is why I think it sucked". You'll never find out if your design is actually worth a shit if other people don't try to pick it apart for you.

He sounds like a real dick if he would tear someone a new asshole for showing him drawings. Don't let people treat you worse than you would treat them.

Oh, he certainly was a dick, and I've encountered many more since. He did give me a good crit, however, and I didn't take it personally. That was as much a test, I'm sure, as the actual criticism. I wouldn't take that sort of thing from anyone now, but the truth is, my inks looked like shit.

Hmmmm... not sure I agree. In the case of this silly logo - yeah, it's not me. In the case of, for example, music... it's very, very much me. If you don't believe that something is worth pouring that much energy, effort and soul into, how is it ever going to be any good?

I pour my heart and soul into every project that I can, but it still isn't 'me'. I get my creative 'identity' from my body of work, not from any one piece. Just don't get married to it. Don't be afraid to tear it down and start all over again. Don't be afraid to change it. Even if it's your own work for the fun of it. I was pretty much just talking about design work in general, though.

Critique it? It's a silly logo with enormous eyeballs... but knock yourself out.

I only offer to critique for your benefit, Kratz. If you want to hear what I have to say, I'll do it, but I'm not going to waste your time unless you want me to.

[Grundbegriff]

Most of what you said is "correct," isn't correct at all. It's your opinion.

Correct.

Correctness is a matter of opinion, by definition, where "correct" implies (as it does here) compliance with best practices.

FWIW, every indisputable fact in the cosmos (say, the law of identity) is X's opinion if X believes that fact. This means that belief in facts is a proper subset of the set of opinions. Every held belief is an opinion, and some opinions enjoy more warrant than others.

That's why saying that something is so-and-so's opinion doesn't really address whether the opinion is not merely believed, but also, well, correct.

I'm guessing, therefore, that what you really meant was that the things I introduced as my opinions and presented as judgments of correctness weren't the products of sufficient warrant (i.e., that they were mere opinions bereft of support). In that, if that's your meaning, you would be mistaken.

[Grundbegriff]

I much prefer a contrary viewpoint as I learn more about how other people see my work and how I can possibly improve on it.

The same can be learned from a non-contrary viewpoint. What yields learning isn't contrariety, but depth. Someone's explaining well and in detail why she likes your work is potentially just as useful as someone's explaining why she hates it.

First of all, this isn't just 'art', this is design.

What does this distinction mean?

You'll never find out if your design is actually worth a shit if other people don't try to pick it apart for you.

That's mistaken. However, some people find it easier to learn from what's negative than from what's positive. That, however, is relative to the artist. The polarity of the critique guarantees nothing.

Oh, he certainly was a dick, and I've encountered many more since. He did give me a good crit, however, and I didn't take it personally. That was as much a test, I'm sure, as the actual criticism. I wouldn't take that sort of thing from anyone now, but the truth is, my inks looked like shit.

You show great maturity in being able to separate the issues this way.

If you want to hear what I have to say, I'll do it, but I'm not going to waste your time unless you want me to.

Laboring under the illusion of exhaustive self-expression tends to expose fragility. In fact, most art in whatever medium consists of the physical practice of moving stuff around and wrapping it in discourse. Identifying the self with so material and mobile a target is bound to be frustrating.

[Kratz]

Well, I wasn't trying to say you didn't know that, but your words here imply that maybe you don't fully comprehend it.

Yeah, I know. Believe me, I get it.

Anytime you show anyone your art or design, or play a song, you are offering up your work for critique whether you like it or not.

Yeah - that's kind of the point in a way - sure, I do things because I like doing them and I like them, but at the same time there is a significant element of wanting *other* people to like them too.

Environment and approach are irrelevant, as many people will take the mere display of the work as an invitation to give you or someone else their opinion of it.

My thoughts on environment and approach were really more about how I would react to what someone said than about their right to say it, so:

It's up to you as to how you take those opinions.

Personally, I much prefer a contrary viewpoint as I learn more about how other people see my work and how I can possibly improve on it.

I don't know... This is a tricky one... Again, something that depends on environment, audience, what you want to get out of it. Take, for example, mixing a recording. We did some mixing last week and played the recording for some different people to get their take on it. Suggestions such as 'I think that snare should be louder', or 'I hear this low frequency right there that kind of washes the rest of it out' were very useful and we appreciated them a lot. If someone had said 'Well I think the melody in this song is all wrong, and you should rewrite the chorus because people don't like choruses with G chords in them'... it wouldn't have been useful at all. It's a criticism not of technical aspects of something, but of the ideas behind them. I think that with a lot of things that are created solely for the love of creating them that people either like them or they don't and while critique of technique (what I'm guessing got you a new orifice with your inking) is valid, critique of creativity/talent, etc. is less so and tends to start being preachy and egotistical as it assumes that there is a formula for creating things the 'right' way, and that people should follow it. That make sense?

On the other hand, yes, I sometimes think other people's opinions are full of shit. But if multiple people come back and give me the same opinion, I'm probably going to rethink things a bit.

Oh, certainly... the most important criticism people can make is if they like something or not. If everyone says they don't like what you create, maybe you need to change what you create or get out entirely... all depending on what you want out of it, of course.

First of all, this isn't just 'art', this is design. This logo is a visual representation of Octopus Overlords, a brand, not just a pretty picture.

That's a very good point. I also wouldn't call any of it art... I tend to think art is crap in general anyway. I'm just trying to make something that looks cool. My comments where more about things that people do creatively. But yeah, there is a commercial aspect to this stuff. I've been trying to solicit that feedback since these graphics were created last october and haven't gotten much from the people who would be choosing things for 'their' site. Now it gets tossed in there without that discussion, so some of my reaction is tempered by frustration knowing that I took it as far as possible with what I thought was a good concept and sought out feedback so that I could fine tune what they wanted and didn't really get it. What we're left with is where we are and something that was kind of 3/4 of the way through the 'what kind of direction do you want to go in' process... not to say I'm not happy to have it up or that I'm not happy with it - just that it might've been a more solid 'fit'. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Design is a little less objective than art as more than just the artist's message needs to be considered. And constructive criticism isn't just "it sucked", it's "this is why I think it sucked".

I'd rephrase that to 'we don't like it and these are the sorts of things we're interested in seeing', but yeah, more or less. It's something for the people who decide things to discuss with the people who make things. The reason that I ended up where I ended up was because I started in one direction and incorporated feedback and ideas from other people to go in a direction that lead me here.

You'll never find out if your design is actually worth a shit if other people don't try to pick it apart for you.

I disagree - if people like something, they like it. I don't need someone to deconstruct something and tell me all of the things that were 'wrong' with it to see if I like it, and more importantly in this case, to see if other people like it. If nobody is liking something, yeah - having someone go through and let you know why they think it wasn't 'working' can be very helpful. However, you can't really convince someone to like something by picking it apart and pointing out why it is good, no more than you can convince someone to dislike something by picking it apart and pointing out why it's no good.

A the basic level, people look at or hear things and either like them or don't.

I pour my heart and soul into every project that I can, but it still isn't 'me'. I get my creative 'identity' from my body of work, not from any one piece. Just don't get married to it.

True - and things like this logo are certainly not 'me'. I was referring more to music, and yeah - the body of work is where it really lies, but each piece is a small part of that. But married to it? No... returning to the music thing, I've thrown out plenty of things that I wrote, liked, then realized didn't quite fit the bill in one way or another. That's part of doing creative things, I think - constantly moving on and creating new things.

Don't be afraid to tear it down and start all over again. Don't be afraid to change it. Even if it's your own work for the fun of it. I was pretty much just talking about design work in general, though.

As with most things I do, I went through revisions on this graphic and it evolved out of things I'd done previously, changed, thrown out, etc. I've rewritten entire songs the day before they were recorded. Believe me, I understand.

If you want to hear what I have to say, I'll do it, but I'm not going to waste your time unless you want me to.

Sure - PM me or drop it here, whichever you prefer.

[ChrisGwinn]

Also, the red and green ... things are perplexing, and the coathanger-transmitter makes it seem as if someone's bootlegging cable TV with parts from Home Depot.

I think this is exactly why I like it.

[LawBeefaroni]

I saw the new logo on Hark's BF2 server sponsor banner it is cool there thank you for your time goodbye.

[Kratz]

Yeah, but have you seen my masterpiece of sacrilege Tony Danza on the #gg server?

[Enough]

You can stick up for yourself and/or your position. I do it all the time with some rather unpopular opinions. Never have I felt the need to call those who disagree with me a name.

Well... save for telling someone quite recently that they apparently know nothing of history I can see your point.

I think all of us get hyper-critical on the forums at times (some in more obfuscated ways than others, heh), hell this post could be interpreted as critical. I think a good balance of thick skin and decency usually smooths over most of the incidents/tension and we move on. I would have to say when it comes to handling criticism we are in better shape here overall than at GG during the end times. Of course it helps having a smaller population, but geez compared to most other forums I've participated on this one is exemplary.

[CeeKay]

We should make it this one:

[D'Arcy]

I've never consciously noticed him before, but now that he has been replaced by disturbing eyeball monsters, I miss Binky.

The logo needs to be cute and fluffy. I'm thinking Binky meets Kirby. I'm thinking Takosuke from Parodius. With a slight Chaplinesque touch of melancholy introduced through the out-of-place umbrella.

[Hell's Taco]

I like the new logo.

...

I started a whole list of criticisms and refutations of criticisms, but I can kinda see where Kratz is coming from.
If he had shown it to me before before he submitted it, I think a detailed list of criticisms would have been appropriate. But after his design has been "published", I think it is kind of rude to pick it to pieces right in his face. Especially if your nitpicking is pure opinion.

But, saying that, I agree that an artist, in any field, has to develop a thick skin and every display of work is an invitation to commentary. I also think that every artist has the right to challenge the commentator to pistols at dawn. However, as dueling is strictly prohibited by the CoC, calling bullshit seems the next best thing.


I actually forgot to check back into my magazine thread so I missed Debris' comment in it. So, without reading it, I would just like to say -

Revenge will be mine Debris. Twenty years from now, when there is a knock on your door, and you open it to find a burning bag on your front steps, you better stomp it out quickly, without regard for what is inside, because you never know what highly flammible material it may contain.

[Grundbegriff]

But after his design has been "published", I think it is kind of rude to pick it to pieces right in his face. Especially if your nitpicking is pure opinion.

After all, it's not as if we have a multi-millennial cultural tradition of evaluating published artworks....

[Lee]

But after his design has been "published", I think it is kind of rude to pick it to pieces right in his face. Especially if your nitpicking is pure opinion.

After all, it's not as if we have a multi-millennial cultural tradition of evaluating published artworks....

Not a good metaphor. This was something that someone did to help the community, not something put up as a piece of art.

[ImLawBoy]

I meant to post this before, but I got sidetracked by something shiny.

This was always one of my favorite logo submissions for the site. One of the big reasons I like it is the same reason I liked the Binky logo - it's got a very whimsical feel to it that counters out some of the darker Lovecraftian tones of the site name. I know that a lot of folks want to go with a slightly more sinister look, and that may be where we end up in the long run, but I think this type of logo helps us from being seen as taking ourselves too seriously.

A few other odds and ends. I thought that the 3d effect on the eyeballs was nice and added some interest to the otherwise 2d image.

The coathanger antenna is wonderful, and goes nicely with the '80s high tech font to show that maybe the overlords aren't quite as ready for domination as they think they are. Someone else mentioned Kang and Kodos, and that's a good comparison. These octopodes think they're badass, but I bet they'd go running from a plank with a nail through it.

Grund makes a good point about how this logo might not take well to a simple reduction for branding/recognition (I think that's what he was getting at, anyway), but it could probably be done with one or both of the octopus outlines. They're distinctive enough that they would enable some recognition, but we still have the full blown version of the logo for those times we feel like being show-offy.

As for the eyes looking like the Qt3 logo, I didn't notice that at first, but I can see it now that it's been mentioned.

Anyway, my overall impressions of the logo are very positive, and thanks to Kratz for putting it together.

[Grundbegriff]

Not a good metaphor. This was something that someone did to help the community, not something put up as a piece of art.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. It was put up as a piece of art to help the community.

[Lee]

Not a good metaphor. This was something that someone did to help the community, not something put up as a piece of art.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. It was put up as a piece of art to help the community.

Well if he was trying to sell it, I would say let loose with both barrels.

[Odin]

Most of what you said is "correct," isn't correct at all. It's your opinion.

I think "agreed" would probably have been a better choice of words in this instance, as he really seemed to be expressing more an attitude of concurrence rather than a confirmation of fact.

Sith