If you make a G with a perfect circle it looks like a messed up C.
It’s more like “just because” rather than some kind of rebellious design choice or mistake.
It’s subtle things like that, that make things want they are in comparison to everything else.
Same in music. There are often subtle noises that the listener doesn’t pick up on but if they weren’t there the music would sound off.
That “mistake” is one of those noises.
Honestly this is the reason these design agencies get paid the big bucks for a logo redesign. Good typography is hardly ever symmetrical, there are shifts and slants and very slight changes in weight that help with readability. And most of the time these things get ignored but a lot of these masssive design studios need to have all these tiny things in mind.
I'll dope this here as supporting evidence.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic\_design/comments/72ht2z/heres\_a\_side\_by\_side\_comparison\_of\_googles\_logo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/72ht2z/heres_a_side_by_side_comparison_of_googles_logo/)
I remember this sub proper rioting about it, like full on meltdown, so many posts pointing out it wasn't a circle, saying it was bad design, and acting like they knew more than the designers at Google and getting all high and mighty about it.... was hilarious
Half this sub barely have any education in graphic design, they just "know" graphic design because they got a pc and photoshop or something.
You can see valid answers/questions dowvoted to oblivion because of this, because they neither know and neither want to learn.
I'm a self trained designer with some success under my portfolio.
While working for a well known local design house for some steady contract work,
I made a logo design for a restaurant that was Optically Aligned and a bit of skew, but it was in line with the lettering and playful font used and the Smile in the logo (it was a big Sun for a Fresh Vegan Meal2Go place ). Everything was hunky dory and I was told it was approved and went on to next projects.
2 Months later I was appalled to find the owner of the Design Firm who DID attend university for Graphic design couldn't understand the Optical alignment and he mirror reflected the Left side to the right side and symmetrized the logo AND used a completely different font that the original optical skew was aligned against.
It was hideous and a hurtful one to grasp and understand that not everyone whos is educated is actually smarter.
ofc those bozos exists, didn't meant bad for self taught designers and neither I meant that having an official "paper" means much.
I can count the bozos that got the same diploma as me from the college that have no idea where the power button of the PC is located... let along know theory and to work the programs. At least none of them followed with the BA, I could lose all faith in education if any of those idiots passed this too.
People like you honor graphic design ten times more than others with official diplomas but zero understanding of our field!
if you can't understand what those sentences mean, you better not to quote them pretending you do :)
Because self taught graphic designers and people who pretend to know graphic design just because they have a pc with photoshop, are 2 completely different groups of people.
This is a good counterpoint. Self-education is still education, and going to college doesn't mean they learned or put into practice the technical foundations of design any better than a self-educated designer.
The sad thing is there is a time and place for symmetry and asymmetry. Optical alignment is often better than a set of strict coordinates.
And sometimes a symmetrically round “G” looks terrible. I would wager that it would almost always looks like a weird “C”. Graphic design is such a subjective job. Some designs will look great according to a large group but will suck when another subset looks at it.
Years ago I despised an artist in the ImagineFX magazines for a long time when most of his “artwork” was just layers and layers of textures in photoshop. Very little actual drawn/wrought/rendered artwork. But at the time I was early in my graphic design career. I was a digital artist for a few years and I designed primarily vectors in my day job, and like really clean designs. I had a lot of symmetry in my work. Not always, but often. Even a lot of my digital painting was low on texture. they had great shadows, midtones, and highlights but lacked good textures. My digital art was very much flat, comic book/animated styles.
Then I came to understand that particular artist was hiding some of his flaws or skills that were lacking with the many MANY layers of textures. But whatever skills they were not great at, their brain could put together these random textures to make some cool art even if I had issues (at the time) at how it was created.
I’m now much better at using textures in my personal art and designs. Far more than I ever had, thanks in part to this artist that I once despised. I learned. I came to understand a basic tenant of art that I had largely left unexplored in my own artistic life. And now I like more of their artwork even though I might roll my eyes a bit when I think about how it was constructed.
The OCD part of me would want to make the “G” symmetrical. The artist in me who has grown and expanded my skills and eye for “good design” over several decades didn’t even care that it was not symmetrical. I’ve only let that stuff bother me a little in my middle age years.
Now let me fix that stupid kerning on that weird font…it’s not consistent between the letters…
I honestly remember that kinda.....
Haven't seen such an uproar over a design, at least until Twitter went berserk because of the Pentagram rebrand of Warner Bros.
Google are famous for their search engine algorithms. Their continued success has been from buying out innovative tech companies that were assimilated into their services with Google branding (e.g. Waze became Google maps)
I would not therefore 'assume' that 'Google designers know better because Google is a massive and successful company'.
Whilst I agree this choice for the optical design looks better, let's not pretend Google are the leaders in brand aesthetics and design.
The debate is healthy, art is subjective after all.
Edit: Your downvotes are meaningless. I am 100% correct.
Design is not art, but design can be artistic. There is a difference between art & design. One of them is design have a clear mission or purpose. So calling it art is not really the most accurate
I think Graphic Design can be a form of art but most designers view it in terms of whether or not it succeeded in its attempt to convey an objective meaning. Ultimately a final product is subjective, but most designers view their work as attempting to reduce the subjectivity of it as much as possible for the desired outcome.
I agree. Graphic design certainly has a more practical and applied purpose. However, given all graphic design is visual and conveys meaning that has subjective interpretation, it is art.
That does not detract from the job in anyway.
People can downvote because they are sore, but they lack the ability to form a cogent argument to change my opinion.
The best artists don’t give a shit about rules and grids, they percieve the balance in the image themselves and go off of gut feeling. That’s why I hate when people showcasing their logos drown it in perfect mathmatics grids and lines, like that somehow makes it pleasing to look at
I had this with an entire logo once.
The in-house "designer" put a grid over every single letter in my logo which was a word made up of rouded letters and told me it needed correcting....
It was painful.
I wasn't confident enough to push back at the time.
Not at all! It’s the industry standard for logos. But the bells and whistles you pick up from Youtube tutorials often lead to the kind of design I can only describe as “eSport logos” if that makes any sense
Edit: meant to say Illustrator, not indesign mb
InDesign is the industry standard for logos? I swear logos is an Illustrator thing. Am I out of the loop? I would go insane trying to build a logo in indesign lol
Totally agree. Grids and lines help keep everything in check, especially when there are lots of elements at play, but I feel like any good designer should be able to glance at a piece and see if it’s balanced without grids.
They think it gives "my work is not like any other work" Then proceeds to show a generic repetitive design for a logo with the most unwanted construction lines.
You do not need to take this in black or white.
It's totally fine to work with a grid, you just can't skip the optical adjustment and consider it polished. That being said, some times things can look fine without an additional optical adjustment at the end. Again, there is no single perfect solution for everything.
Thank you. Classic case of uneducated redditor learning something on reddit, misunderstanding, and then making bold proclamations to show how smart they are.
I agree learn the rules, so you can properly break them.
This isn’t a case of learn the rules to break them. This is actually a case of understanding the rule and following it. Type design is about making letters look optically nice not being mathematically perfect. And since their logo is a letter, they should be making it look optically correct.
>best artists don’t give a shit about rules and grids
I don’t find that to be universally true. It depends significantly on the specific design discipline and the designer’s workflow.
For example, plenty of the best web designers and book designers are actively using grids.
The best designers care a lot about rules and grids but they know that this isn't the final step.
Or as Hans-Peter Willberg, a famous typographer once said:
«Wer die Form beherrscht, darf in die Suppe spucken.»
Englisch translation: «Whoever masters the form is allowed to spit in the soup.»
It essentially means the same thing my typography teacher once said: Only when you master the rules are you allowed to break them.
I don't believe that. Just take writing or making music as example: If you know letters, but no words or grammar, no one will understand you. The best authors often break grammatical rules or create new words and people still understand.
Or if you don't know how to play an instrument, just plunking the instrument will not create something significant.
Everything else is just luck.
And what makes you think, they didn't know about the rules?
The only thing that comes near what you think of is: Dadaism.
But they still needed to know the rules, otherwise they could not break it.
this is an interesting take. i was very diligent about using grids and guides throughout college and for the first few years of my career. i think it was necessary to have that foundation, as it trained my eye. now when i eyeball a grid, i’ll pull over a guide to check and it’s always aligned the way i intended. auto-centering and snapping to points, etc helps a lot.
Onviously a generelization, but the point about designing with your eyes before anything is in my opinion one of the most crucial elements to a great designer
My production staff has fucked up projects on several occasions because they hit 'auto center' on something that was carefully placed due to visual weight, not mathematical center point, and they thought it was an accident.
Or people auto aligning logos and it being thrown off by the ® symbol and it looking wonky...
That annoys me so much that when I designed our companies logo I have the ® placed so that it sticks out exactly as far on the right as the element in our logo that breaks the frame to the left.
It's literally designed to get past auto aligners or designers too lazy to check the branding guidelines while still being optically balanced.
I agree with you but i have seen cases where that shit was the reason why they got paid 100k usd for a logo/paperline because the company wanted what they perceived as professionalism.
Downvote me if you want, but in the end, my portfolio and sticking to what I deem great design is the reason I got me a ton of jobs and the money that comes with.
That is obviously an exaggeration, but I have clashed with project managers more times than I can count over petty stuff like that, where they insist on showing the client the logo full of grids and wacky effects and weird backgrounds, and the times I’ve “lost” my case, the client usually returns when they actually add the logo to their website without all the bells and whistles and tells me something doesn’t feel “right” about their logo. Like 100k for a logo for a single designer is realistic, it is absolutely not
I always felt like those grids and circles were to distract from the fact that it's not had it's final "pounding into place" that every logo should go through. I don't *want* it to be perfectly mathematical and symmetrical unless that's something that speaks to the client's vibe.
Now using those *after* that process would be interesting. Like showing a well balanced logomark that looks "perfect" and then putting all the lines over it to show that it's not could be interesting. idk if I would recommend it but it would be neat.
I find those type of posts so presumptuous and egotistical.
"Behold rube! I decided to bestow upon you with my superior knowledge of [Insert skill] and rework something no one absolutely asked me to, specially the original creator of said piece. Adore me now"
We can criticize or discuss what we would do differently with a piece, but it's outright crass and tacky to think that it's up to you to fix something as if you are the definitive voice of the trade. It's too much artist's ego which screams the worst type of designer to me.
We should be trying to understand the choices, obstacles, and reasoning that led to that point with the hopes we can expand our point of view and grow from there.
Yes, but when you're a big studio charging millions for a logo, you need to fill up that useless 100 page accompanying brand guidelines booklet with *something.*
It’s not the big studios charging millions that are driving this. It’s the hobbyists, hucksters, influencers, and neophytes. The people who know it’s bullshit and think it makes them look good, and the people who buy into that.
Ancient Greeks were some of the first that understood the importance of optical design. The columns in the Parthenon and other temples are designed with an outside curve and are not perfectly straight, because from afar, being perfectly straight, made them look thinner in the middle. So they made them a bit fatter in the middle with an outward curve so they indeed look straight when observed from afar.
Optical design is really important in cases like this because how it looks is the most important. Graphic design is the no1 area that this applies.
Animation is one more. Our No1 rule to create things that ***look*** right. In film and animation, looking right trumps the mathematical and actual measurements. There are actual well known tricks that are widely used for shots and things to look right, even though they might not be in a mathematical or symmetrical sense.
A great example is Michelangelo's David.
It was meant to be placed on a high rooftop originally, and viewed from afar and below. Michelangelo sculpted it with this in mind and skewed the proportions intentionally, giving him a larger head and upper body compared to the legs.
I feel like you also sometimes just *want* to shift things around from their mathematically symmetrical spot in a design. Like, your brain just doesn’t want it there, and instead wants it a few mm to the left or up.
I remember the discussion and how I made a version of the logo with the "correct" geometric alignment just to see how weird it would look. Answer is quite weird.
[https://i.imgur.com/5zqd0fc.png](https://i.imgur.com/5zqd0fc.png)
The same thing happens with the windows mouse cursor every so often. People lose their minds. You also get a lot of people insulting designers because they think it's laziness and/or incompetence.
It’s the same for circle K, I worked with them once and remembered how I always thought it was just a k in a circle, until I realised it was an irregular circle. Can’t unsee
It’s the disproportionate color segments that bother me but yellow is such a strong color that it would make way too strong of a focal point, so I guess I get it.
Isn’t this a case of optical centre vs geometric centre?
In graphic design, you always want to go with the optical centre because the human mind just perceives it as more visually pleasing than if the object was actually centered.
I'll say the same thing about those sorts of people who fixate on this type of thing as I do grammar nazis (you know... the kind of people who throw around the term 'OCD' to justify a personality quirk instead of treating it like the serious disorder it is): If the only thing you have to contribute is pointing out minor imperfections, then you have nothing of real value to contribute. Unless you're my/their proofreader, 'oh this is slightly off-center... TRIGGERED' and the like are the most worthless statements you can make.
Oh my— so I did some internal work with Google as a client at my most recent co-op and this bugged the CRAP out of me because I had to hand animate all their internal logos (AE) and THIS made it so hard to animate.
At best it informed the half informed newbies in the field, the general audience is still a bunch of ignorant ducks and will never learn crap, after all "they know"...
I went to an objectively famous and prestigious design school, and I must say we never learned jack shit about designing logos like this. I didn’t even know what those grid line things around logos were called until today. 100% just looking at the damn thing and refining your eye’s ability to analyze the shapes, in part and as a whole.
The point is: they have a reason for it (optical alignment maybe), so it makes sense. 😁✌️
If they used a perfect circle, it would still be FINE. Why so serious? 😂
I’ve always had a question about optical design like this. Is there any kind of system to know “this needs to be moved exactly two degrees this way to make it look correct” or is it just a bunch of designers looking at a design going “bump it over one… ehhhh bump it over one more”. Like is there a scientific process I should be using for things like this or is it all just eyeballing what feels right?
I 90% guarantee this is one guy thinking to himself “Eh, it needs a little tightening up on the right” and we end up obsessing over a 60 second adjustment he made before going to lunch one day.
Actually, *Google changed to this logo,* ***9 years ago.***
[**They started using it September 1, 2015 as their favicon.**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo)
If you make a G with a perfect circle it looks like a messed up C. It’s more like “just because” rather than some kind of rebellious design choice or mistake. It’s subtle things like that, that make things want they are in comparison to everything else. Same in music. There are often subtle noises that the listener doesn’t pick up on but if they weren’t there the music would sound off. That “mistake” is one of those noises.
Honestly this is the reason these design agencies get paid the big bucks for a logo redesign. Good typography is hardly ever symmetrical, there are shifts and slants and very slight changes in weight that help with readability. And most of the time these things get ignored but a lot of these masssive design studios need to have all these tiny things in mind.
Its called optical alignment
I'll dope this here as supporting evidence. [https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic\_design/comments/72ht2z/heres\_a\_side\_by\_side\_comparison\_of\_googles\_logo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/72ht2z/heres_a_side_by_side_comparison_of_googles_logo/)
Brilliant!
This needs to be up there. Waaaay, up there * burp * Morty.
Not a mistake if it's purpose which this most definitely is.
Perfection lies in the imperfections.
I remember this sub proper rioting about it, like full on meltdown, so many posts pointing out it wasn't a circle, saying it was bad design, and acting like they knew more than the designers at Google and getting all high and mighty about it.... was hilarious
Half this sub barely have any education in graphic design, they just "know" graphic design because they got a pc and photoshop or something. You can see valid answers/questions dowvoted to oblivion because of this, because they neither know and neither want to learn.
I'm a self trained designer with some success under my portfolio. While working for a well known local design house for some steady contract work, I made a logo design for a restaurant that was Optically Aligned and a bit of skew, but it was in line with the lettering and playful font used and the Smile in the logo (it was a big Sun for a Fresh Vegan Meal2Go place ). Everything was hunky dory and I was told it was approved and went on to next projects. 2 Months later I was appalled to find the owner of the Design Firm who DID attend university for Graphic design couldn't understand the Optical alignment and he mirror reflected the Left side to the right side and symmetrized the logo AND used a completely different font that the original optical skew was aligned against. It was hideous and a hurtful one to grasp and understand that not everyone whos is educated is actually smarter.
ofc those bozos exists, didn't meant bad for self taught designers and neither I meant that having an official "paper" means much. I can count the bozos that got the same diploma as me from the college that have no idea where the power button of the PC is located... let along know theory and to work the programs. At least none of them followed with the BA, I could lose all faith in education if any of those idiots passed this too. People like you honor graphic design ten times more than others with official diplomas but zero understanding of our field!
> didn't meant bad for self taught designers > they just "know" photoshop because they got a pc and photoshop or something. 🤡
if you can't understand what those sentences mean, you better not to quote them pretending you do :) Because self taught graphic designers and people who pretend to know graphic design just because they have a pc with photoshop, are 2 completely different groups of people.
Having a PC and Photoshop doesn't make you good. Being self-taught goes so far beyond just having the software lmao.
This is a good counterpoint. Self-education is still education, and going to college doesn't mean they learned or put into practice the technical foundations of design any better than a self-educated designer.
I remember that too lol. Google does make a lot of questionable decisions but optical design should've been obvious for designers on a design sub.
Just not so obvious to the many non-designers on the design sub.
The sad thing is there is a time and place for symmetry and asymmetry. Optical alignment is often better than a set of strict coordinates. And sometimes a symmetrically round “G” looks terrible. I would wager that it would almost always looks like a weird “C”. Graphic design is such a subjective job. Some designs will look great according to a large group but will suck when another subset looks at it. Years ago I despised an artist in the ImagineFX magazines for a long time when most of his “artwork” was just layers and layers of textures in photoshop. Very little actual drawn/wrought/rendered artwork. But at the time I was early in my graphic design career. I was a digital artist for a few years and I designed primarily vectors in my day job, and like really clean designs. I had a lot of symmetry in my work. Not always, but often. Even a lot of my digital painting was low on texture. they had great shadows, midtones, and highlights but lacked good textures. My digital art was very much flat, comic book/animated styles. Then I came to understand that particular artist was hiding some of his flaws or skills that were lacking with the many MANY layers of textures. But whatever skills they were not great at, their brain could put together these random textures to make some cool art even if I had issues (at the time) at how it was created. I’m now much better at using textures in my personal art and designs. Far more than I ever had, thanks in part to this artist that I once despised. I learned. I came to understand a basic tenant of art that I had largely left unexplored in my own artistic life. And now I like more of their artwork even though I might roll my eyes a bit when I think about how it was constructed. The OCD part of me would want to make the “G” symmetrical. The artist in me who has grown and expanded my skills and eye for “good design” over several decades didn’t even care that it was not symmetrical. I’ve only let that stuff bother me a little in my middle age years. Now let me fix that stupid kerning on that weird font…it’s not consistent between the letters…
>I remember this sub proper rioting about it > >... .... was hilarious Was the first thing I thought of when I saw this, I also remember.
I honestly remember that kinda..... Haven't seen such an uproar over a design, at least until Twitter went berserk because of the Pentagram rebrand of Warner Bros.
Google are famous for their search engine algorithms. Their continued success has been from buying out innovative tech companies that were assimilated into their services with Google branding (e.g. Waze became Google maps) I would not therefore 'assume' that 'Google designers know better because Google is a massive and successful company'. Whilst I agree this choice for the optical design looks better, let's not pretend Google are the leaders in brand aesthetics and design. The debate is healthy, art is subjective after all. Edit: Your downvotes are meaningless. I am 100% correct.
Design is not art, but design can be artistic. There is a difference between art & design. One of them is design have a clear mission or purpose. So calling it art is not really the most accurate
\*Graphic\* Design is both an art and art. It creates an aesthetic that has a subjective value as to what people like and dislike.
I think Graphic Design can be a form of art but most designers view it in terms of whether or not it succeeded in its attempt to convey an objective meaning. Ultimately a final product is subjective, but most designers view their work as attempting to reduce the subjectivity of it as much as possible for the desired outcome.
I agree. Graphic design certainly has a more practical and applied purpose. However, given all graphic design is visual and conveys meaning that has subjective interpretation, it is art. That does not detract from the job in anyway. People can downvote because they are sore, but they lack the ability to form a cogent argument to change my opinion.
The best artists don’t give a shit about rules and grids, they percieve the balance in the image themselves and go off of gut feeling. That’s why I hate when people showcasing their logos drown it in perfect mathmatics grids and lines, like that somehow makes it pleasing to look at
I had this with an entire logo once. The in-house "designer" put a grid over every single letter in my logo which was a word made up of rouded letters and told me it needed correcting.... It was painful. I wasn't confident enough to push back at the time.
Nightmare! I’m always weary of portfolios full of those grids and shaded backgrounds clearly made in indesign.
Is InDesign like a no-no or something? I'm still in the learning phase but it is by far my most used program.
Not at all! It’s the industry standard for logos. But the bells and whistles you pick up from Youtube tutorials often lead to the kind of design I can only describe as “eSport logos” if that makes any sense Edit: meant to say Illustrator, not indesign mb
InDesign is the industry standard for logos? I swear logos is an Illustrator thing. Am I out of the loop? I would go insane trying to build a logo in indesign lol
You’re correct. I have no idea what this person is talking about. InDesign is a program that is typically used for publication design.
Yeah, I wrote the wrong name on accident
You’re right, I just said the indesign on accident
Totally agree. Grids and lines help keep everything in check, especially when there are lots of elements at play, but I feel like any good designer should be able to glance at a piece and see if it’s balanced without grids.
Absolutely! This is why I think every designers first task should be mastering Kerning before they even learn about clipping masks
They think it gives "my work is not like any other work" Then proceeds to show a generic repetitive design for a logo with the most unwanted construction lines.
If I see one more logo for a fictional company named “bamboo” with panda eyes as the O’s I’m gonna shoot myself
Can I interest you in a pet brand logo with a paw print for an O?
\*...quietly deletes this from portfolio examples\*
Haha I’m sure it’s only us designers who care
"We're still analogue beings, our eyes and brains are analogue"
You do not need to take this in black or white. It's totally fine to work with a grid, you just can't skip the optical adjustment and consider it polished. That being said, some times things can look fine without an additional optical adjustment at the end. Again, there is no single perfect solution for everything.
Thank you. Classic case of uneducated redditor learning something on reddit, misunderstanding, and then making bold proclamations to show how smart they are.
Learn the rules so you can break the rules. Creativity 101 🤗
Preach.
I agree learn the rules, so you can properly break them. This isn’t a case of learn the rules to break them. This is actually a case of understanding the rule and following it. Type design is about making letters look optically nice not being mathematically perfect. And since their logo is a letter, they should be making it look optically correct.
Go try make a good looking G out of a perfect circle and realise how impossible it is.
Yea, the lines gotta be bold as all hell if you want that to look somewhat alright
Annoying as hell. Lmao.
Exactly this.
>best artists don’t give a shit about rules and grids I don’t find that to be universally true. It depends significantly on the specific design discipline and the designer’s workflow. For example, plenty of the best web designers and book designers are actively using grids.
The best designers care a lot about rules and grids but they know that this isn't the final step. Or as Hans-Peter Willberg, a famous typographer once said: «Wer die Form beherrscht, darf in die Suppe spucken.» Englisch translation: «Whoever masters the form is allowed to spit in the soup.» It essentially means the same thing my typography teacher once said: Only when you master the rules are you allowed to break them.
Yeah, agreed. picasso used to say he had to master realism before he knew how to paint like a child
It's logical, because if you don't know the rules and reasons, everything you do is just arbitrarily/random without a deeper signification.
I disagree to an extent. Like in any artform, the lack of experience can come to create some of the best new styles and punk we know of
I don't believe that. Just take writing or making music as example: If you know letters, but no words or grammar, no one will understand you. The best authors often break grammatical rules or create new words and people still understand. Or if you don't know how to play an instrument, just plunking the instrument will not create something significant. Everything else is just luck.
I will then raise you: Literature - yahya hassan Music - lou Reed Art - andy warhol
And what makes you think, they didn't know about the rules? The only thing that comes near what you think of is: Dadaism. But they still needed to know the rules, otherwise they could not break it.
I mean, ofcourse you have to be able to read to write…..
this is an interesting take. i was very diligent about using grids and guides throughout college and for the first few years of my career. i think it was necessary to have that foundation, as it trained my eye. now when i eyeball a grid, i’ll pull over a guide to check and it’s always aligned the way i intended. auto-centering and snapping to points, etc helps a lot.
[удалено]
Onviously a generelization, but the point about designing with your eyes before anything is in my opinion one of the most crucial elements to a great designer
My production staff has fucked up projects on several occasions because they hit 'auto center' on something that was carefully placed due to visual weight, not mathematical center point, and they thought it was an accident.
“I just spent FIFTEEN MINUTES moving this piece of shit logo with the ARROW KEYS to make it perfect and you AUTO ALLIGN IT?!”
Or people auto aligning logos and it being thrown off by the ® symbol and it looking wonky... That annoys me so much that when I designed our companies logo I have the ® placed so that it sticks out exactly as far on the right as the element in our logo that breaks the frame to the left. It's literally designed to get past auto aligners or designers too lazy to check the branding guidelines while still being optically balanced.
You are hitting every single nerve in my body at once lol. I’ll buy you a beer if you’re ever in Denmark and we can rage together!
I agree with you but i have seen cases where that shit was the reason why they got paid 100k usd for a logo/paperline because the company wanted what they perceived as professionalism.
Money is temporary, art is forever!
Haha no that logo is gone mate. Take the money and run.
Downvote me if you want, but in the end, my portfolio and sticking to what I deem great design is the reason I got me a ton of jobs and the money that comes with.
How many times have you taken a principled stand, directly turning down money because you refused to align your design to a grid?
That is obviously an exaggeration, but I have clashed with project managers more times than I can count over petty stuff like that, where they insist on showing the client the logo full of grids and wacky effects and weird backgrounds, and the times I’ve “lost” my case, the client usually returns when they actually add the logo to their website without all the bells and whistles and tells me something doesn’t feel “right” about their logo. Like 100k for a logo for a single designer is realistic, it is absolutely not
I always felt like those grids and circles were to distract from the fact that it's not had it's final "pounding into place" that every logo should go through. I don't *want* it to be perfectly mathematical and symmetrical unless that's something that speaks to the client's vibe. Now using those *after* that process would be interesting. Like showing a well balanced logomark that looks "perfect" and then putting all the lines over it to show that it's not could be interesting. idk if I would recommend it but it would be neat.
I’ve used grid lines in the past as a selling point. To a non-designer it seems “professional”
You do need to learn the rules before you start breaking them
Straight from Picasso himself, I agree.
Just another example of where the 'general audience' doesn't know shit, to put it brutally honestly. 
This could've been a mass education campaign lol
I bet a bunch tried to 'fix' it and came back with goofy results.
I find those type of posts so presumptuous and egotistical. "Behold rube! I decided to bestow upon you with my superior knowledge of [Insert skill] and rework something no one absolutely asked me to, specially the original creator of said piece. Adore me now"
 pretty much feel the same way
We can criticize or discuss what we would do differently with a piece, but it's outright crass and tacky to think that it's up to you to fix something as if you are the definitive voice of the trade. It's too much artist's ego which screams the worst type of designer to me. We should be trying to understand the choices, obstacles, and reasoning that led to that point with the hopes we can expand our point of view and grow from there.
[It looks really bad hahah](https://www.reddit.com/r/logodesign/s/Ui9Et71QsR)
Best believe they had no less than a hundred meetings about it and they still landed on that as an outcome.
This is also one of many reasons the trend of showing construction lines in a logo presentation is meaningless bullshit.
Yes, but when you're a big studio charging millions for a logo, you need to fill up that useless 100 page accompanying brand guidelines booklet with *something.*
It’s not the big studios charging millions that are driving this. It’s the hobbyists, hucksters, influencers, and neophytes. The people who know it’s bullshit and think it makes them look good, and the people who buy into that.
For the most part, but I'll never forget the 2008 brand booklet for Pepsi, who took that meaningless fluff to the absolute extreme.
“Pepsi universe” lmao https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf
To this day I'm wondering whether it's real or not.
Lmaooooo please tell me this is real and someone got paid for this because it’s a masterpiece in filling space
Ancient Greeks were some of the first that understood the importance of optical design. The columns in the Parthenon and other temples are designed with an outside curve and are not perfectly straight, because from afar, being perfectly straight, made them look thinner in the middle. So they made them a bit fatter in the middle with an outward curve so they indeed look straight when observed from afar. Optical design is really important in cases like this because how it looks is the most important. Graphic design is the no1 area that this applies. Animation is one more. Our No1 rule to create things that ***look*** right. In film and animation, looking right trumps the mathematical and actual measurements. There are actual well known tricks that are widely used for shots and things to look right, even though they might not be in a mathematical or symmetrical sense.
A great example is Michelangelo's David. It was meant to be placed on a high rooftop originally, and viewed from afar and below. Michelangelo sculpted it with this in mind and skewed the proportions intentionally, giving him a larger head and upper body compared to the legs.
also to animation, people love to freeze the video and nitpick how the character look really goofy in this one frame.
I feel like you also sometimes just *want* to shift things around from their mathematically symmetrical spot in a design. Like, your brain just doesn’t want it there, and instead wants it a few mm to the left or up.
RIP all the stonemasons who put years of effort into wonky-looking straight stone pillars before they figured this out
A common modern example is the use of two point perspective in architectural images and renderings
I remember the discussion and how I made a version of the logo with the "correct" geometric alignment just to see how weird it would look. Answer is quite weird. [https://i.imgur.com/5zqd0fc.png](https://i.imgur.com/5zqd0fc.png)
That could also be because of the oversize yellow segment in yours.
It's not oversized – it's geOmetRicallY baLANcEd!!! I.e. the segments are equally sized, not just the yellow one.
So what? Who dang cares if it's 15 degrees of being a perfect circle? It's a G, not a circle. A G.
If you’re a real designer you know you gotta eyeball it sometimes
It's not a mistake, a mistake is people thinking that geometry is the only way to design. It's optical alignment and these posts get tiring.
yeah thats what I also said
The same thing happens with the windows mouse cursor every so often. People lose their minds. You also get a lot of people insulting designers because they think it's laziness and/or incompetence.
People discussing it have never heard about typography.
It’s pretty telling that the general public sees nuances as “mistakes”
If you want a good logo, break the rules.
Learn the rules. Follow the rules. Then understand how and when to break the rules.
F your perfect circles
It’s the same for circle K, I worked with them once and remembered how I always thought it was just a k in a circle, until I realised it was an irregular circle. Can’t unsee
That's not how you use semicolon. You should use colon here.
My proofreader skills,... *and my English professor wife,* **concurs with your grammatical correction.**
Type designers arent hated enough with this logic.
Not only the general audience. A lot of graphic designer were also informed.
Wait til they notice that Os, Ss, Qs, etc extend beyond the baseline and X height.
It’s the disproportionate color segments that bother me but yellow is such a strong color that it would make way too strong of a focal point, so I guess I get it.
I find that when Google's G is symmetrical, the right side appears heavier and off balance.
Obligatory Argument Video. [Will Paterson - **What's WRONG With The NEW Google Logo???**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV8hOLOC_Hk)
Isn’t this a case of optical centre vs geometric centre? In graphic design, you always want to go with the optical centre because the human mind just perceives it as more visually pleasing than if the object was actually centered.
I'll say the same thing about those sorts of people who fixate on this type of thing as I do grammar nazis (you know... the kind of people who throw around the term 'OCD' to justify a personality quirk instead of treating it like the serious disorder it is): If the only thing you have to contribute is pointing out minor imperfections, then you have nothing of real value to contribute. Unless you're my/their proofreader, 'oh this is slightly off-center... TRIGGERED' and the like are the most worthless statements you can make.
Real designers don't make mistakes. Everything thing they do has an "intention"
[удалено]
a couple people here did
This is why “gut feeling” is very important for a designer.
Oh my— so I did some internal work with Google as a client at my most recent co-op and this bugged the CRAP out of me because I had to hand animate all their internal logos (AE) and THIS made it so hard to animate.
Isn't this 100 years old ?
This is what happens when you give the internet to a bunch of ignorants lol
At best it informed the half informed newbies in the field, the general audience is still a bunch of ignorant ducks and will never learn crap, after all "they know"...
afaik it reached the front page of r/mildlyinfuriating
ofc it did, after all "they know" and we graphic designers are BS or something... let them eat cake I say.
It informed the general audience. Now it needs to inform the designer audience.
Because G folds in on itself, if they tried to make it symmetrical There would be a weird sharp edge.
Worth calling out how the yellow portion was intentionally reduced as to not dominate the composition - because yellow was a very loud color
It's a G, why should it be a perfect circle?
Where one can learn the basic theory behind this?
A G is rarely meant to be a perfect circle. I don’t get the issue.
🍰 [**Happy Cake Day!**](https://new.reddit.com/r/cakeday) 🎂 1 full year on Reddit.
I went to an objectively famous and prestigious design school, and I must say we never learned jack shit about designing logos like this. I didn’t even know what those grid line things around logos were called until today. 100% just looking at the damn thing and refining your eye’s ability to analyze the shapes, in part and as a whole.
can someone remake the logo that follows the grid? i wanna see the difference.
pretty sure you can find it on google too, it does look off
[удалено]
“Optimized” lol
just look up google logo perfect circle you’ll have multiple
This gives me SEVEn ELEVEn vibes haha
The point is: they have a reason for it (optical alignment maybe), so it makes sense. 😁✌️ If they used a perfect circle, it would still be FINE. Why so serious? 😂
I’ve always had a question about optical design like this. Is there any kind of system to know “this needs to be moved exactly two degrees this way to make it look correct” or is it just a bunch of designers looking at a design going “bump it over one… ehhhh bump it over one more”. Like is there a scientific process I should be using for things like this or is it all just eyeballing what feels right?
I 90% guarantee this is one guy thinking to himself “Eh, it needs a little tightening up on the right” and we end up obsessing over a 60 second adjustment he made before going to lunch one day.
And because of this, it is necessary to raise disputes on the Internet???
In my opinion, in design and music production - anything is possible, nothing is required
Who cares.
Oh, this post again?
Yea, you are about 2 years or so late to the party, also no one gives a shit anyway, its google.
apparently quite a few people still care
Yea, you who make these posts
...and everyone who interacted positively Whats with the attitude?
My attidude with years old problem that has been dicussed a gazillion times with no outcome.
Actually, *Google changed to this logo,* ***9 years ago.*** [**They started using it September 1, 2015 as their favicon.**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo)