This kind of attitude ... <snip>...
...claiming they're ugly for no other reason than you think they look ugly.
As for your other justification:
I think this is just nonsense, but do you care to elaborate? The meatball logo was drawn in the 1950s, before there was any notable space industry to take inspiration from. As for the aviation industry, I am clueless.
it seems clear you have classified me as some pedestrian armchair cynic pretending that negative poo-slingin' makes me a self-qualified expert.
The academic discovery of the subjectivity of art is both the the ultimate blessing and curse of contemporary art philosophy. It at once allows freedom of creativity and expression through art, while also empowering the unwashed masses with an inarguably correct voice of opinion. It is difficult for most to fathom how a formal education in a "fully subjective" field can produce "experts of opinion", so to speak.
You’ve stated that I claim the logos are ugly for no other reason than that I think thy look ugly, and then completely ignore the reasons I have given for not liking them.
I will elaborate on my other justification with a response to your comment.
I’ll repaste my original text here.
And possibly most significantly, the designs do nothing to acknowledge the context and rich history of logo design within the aerospace and spaceflight industry. This last reason is probably responsible for the general negative reception to these mock-ups.
you said:
The meatball logo was drawn in the 1950s, before there was any notable space industry to take inspiration from. As for the aviation industry, I am clueless.
I think what you are trying to say is that the meatball logo is loved but was ITSELF created in a ideological vacuum, so in turn, there is nothing wrong with creating logos from thin air for NASA.
I am trying to say that MY GUESS (notice I did say “probably”) as for why a bunch of space enthusiasts aren’t swooning over these speculative logos despite their thoughtfulness, symbolism, and the qualifications of their respective designers is that the proposed logos don’t fit in with the conventions set for logo design in the industry.
One of the principle differences between the meatball logo and the logos in the article is about 50-60 years. There may not have been a notable space industry in the 1950s but I can assure you the meatball designers did not fashion the meatball logo purely on whim. I honestly haven’t looked into this, but my GUESS would be that it probably drew its art direction from ideas about spaceflight at that time. Since space flight was in the making, most of the ideas about it would most likely have been in the realm of science fiction (this idea intrigues me and I will look into it). Why do the NASA logos look like they belong on the cheesy old 70’s sci-fi TV shows? I would venture to say that science fiction is the real workhorse PR campaign for spaceflight. TV shows and movies capture the imagination of the audience. They show us how the impossible is effortlessly accomplished by the magic of undiscovered technologies. They show us how our fragile chemical rockets are the baby steps we need to take before being able to hop skip and jump through the universe like it was a playground. We can see how the humans will outlive the mortality of our planet, and that we are not a transient smudge but citizens and explorers of the universe.
If you want examples of aerospace and spaceflight logos just search for those terms. You will see a range of bold, lightweight and highly visible logos. There are sweeping chevrons, diminishing texts, and tiny rockets underlining or bursting through the text with their shockwaves and exhaust plumes as viewed from the ground observer as lines punctuated by the tiny geometric spacecraft and airspace vehicles.
Aerospace and spaceflight logos, in my mind, seem to suggest the power and speed of the machines they emblazon. The mission patches are richly saturated with symbolism taken from legends, heroes, gods, and explorers throughout history. Some take cues from military and navy type insignias. Above all, however, the mission patches are very exciting to look at.
Another non-coincidental quality these logos tend to share is their ability to fit neatly on the side of a fiery cylinder with the inferno of hell blazing out the bottom.
For these reasons to start, I claim the inadequacy held by the logos proposed by the graphic designers in the newspaper article. I can pick apart the individual shortcomings each possess if you like, but rest assured I would also be fair to point out their individual strengths as well. For example, since I have mercilessly bashed the hubble star field and unispired bauhaus logos I'll summarize the main reasons why I personally don't like them.
The hubble star field is too tranquil and stagnant. It is too specific to adequately portray the multitude of achievements NASA holds in it's pocket.
The bauhaus rocketships look like galvanized jungle gym toys bolted firmly to the ground.
Neither of them excite me or capture the imagination sparked by spaceflight.
The lego block and mars spoof are leagues ahead of either in this respect.
As they are, I don’t like them, and i CAN tell you why I don’t like them.
If NASA is so enamored by one of these logos that it adopts one, I'll eat my hat! :tiphat:
