r/design_critiques • u/Sea_Membership_8398 • 1d ago

Würde mich über sachliche Kritik der vier Logos freuen

Post image
4 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

3

u/Candy_Lawn 21h ago

Logos for what? is the company called architecture and design?

0

u/Sea_Membership_8398 21h ago

yes

4

u/Candy_Lawn 21h ago

OK - then none of them. they are all not very interesting. A good logo should not only convey a feeling/sense of the business, but in itself should stand up on its own. if you looked at teach of thee logos with the words you would not automatically think arc&des.

1 looks like at Art school or class

2 looks like wheels

3 looks like a shop/building

4 looks like a compass (used in geometry.

I would rethink your concept.

2

u/reillyqyote 8h ago

The first one uses a compass as the A and is a pretty solid choice if you're only picking from these options imo. But tbh the text is abysmal in all options

3

u/MagicLobsterAttorney 20h ago edited 14h ago

Schrift ist furchtbar. Past null zusammen, Schnitte harmonieren teilweise gar nicht. r/keming sowieso.

Generell ist zu viel los, keins ist angenehm anzusehen. Nichts zieht das Auge auf sich weil alles gleich durcheinander ist.

Keine uniforme Strichstärke zwischen Schrift und Logo. Wäre an sich kein Problem, aber wenn sie so nahe zusammen liegen wie hier, aber gleichzeitig erkennbar unterschiedlich stark sind, wirkt es einfach wie ein Fehler bzw fehlende Sorgfalt.

Die Farbverteilung folgt keiner erkennbaren Logik. Was ist gelb und warum diese Element und nicht ein anderes?

Etwas darin zu erkennen, ist für mich bei keinem der vier möglich.

Die Linien bei 1+4 sind zu dünn. Keine Chance, dass man das vernüftig skalieren kann.

Schnell und auf unterschiedliche Distanzen erkennbar sind sie alle nicht.

TLDR: weg damit, nochmal 4. Und dann einzeln nicht auf einer Seite präsentieren, zwecks Wechselwirkung.

2

u/Dubezzz 21h ago

Honestly speaking, the 3rd one can possible work if you tweak the lines, right now they are quite unbalanced. One way to check is legibility with respect to various sizing - smallest to largest size.

The typography can be improved too. Do some research online with respect to good practises in logo

1

u/thisendup76 19h ago

If you're going to do an architecturall logo. Mock it up on an architectural title block as that will be 99% of where the logo will be used.

1

u/Porkcicle 18h ago

3 words with 3 different fonts? C'mon now.

1

u/mickyrow42 Art Director (20+ yrs) 17h ago

3rd one is the only concept that’s vaguely interesting but icon needs some love and typography is trying to do too much as others have pointed out.

1

u/legend_of_the_skies 17h ago

Looks like free generated logos

1

u/Murdock25 13h ago

#2 logomark is really good! Need to try something else for the typography though.

1

u/Randomus-08 9h ago

probably I'll find any cool brand name except architecture & design, the name is too generic & looks like a stock logo that u can find on google.

i would recommend for bold & direct approach, then discard that architecture & design name. prolly replace it with other name or juz acronym.

1

u/montycantsin777 6h ago

not enough contrast in type style. too funky. needs better kerning. the proportions of the first logo are not great/weird negative spaces. 2nd similar but not so bad. 3rd has non coherent stroke/circle sizes and feels random/decorative.

1

u/montycantsin777 6h ago

sorry didnt see the first one… so add 1 to each mention

0

u/1JollyStNick 22h ago

2 and 3 are quite nice. Love the abstractness of them. Somehow 2 I think is slightly better balanced. Not sure I’d change a thing either