On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
I also agree, and I do not see anything wrong with it.
I explained two times what _is_ wrong with it. You have not really addressed my concerns. I still think that the logo has too much details and is not looking serious/professional enough.
I have said before that I like the logo very much. I have not changed my mind, nonetheless I have to agree with Bernhard, at least to some degree.
The logo may actually have too much detail, especially the background-mapped versions (but we see the map may be dropped, at some cost). This is the first and most evident signal for a "lame" logo IMO. But I think this is something that can (and should) be worked on without spoiling its basic concepts.
About the serious/professional issue, that may be partly due to the first observation, but I believe there are other concerns to be taken into account.
We often confuse graphics with art. A logo _must_ not be considered for its "beauty", but for the directness with which it conveys the message it was created to convey (though a beautiful logo is a nice plus IMO).
Said this, I believe that the logo we're talking about carries a strong message of freedom, Europe, and classic culture -- that may not be as serious/professional as the Nike swoosh, but may fit our purpose better. Of course this is my opinion, but I really can't think about explaining on _this_ list why I'd _rather_ care for freedom and culture than business orientation as a message for FSFE.
(please see how rather != only, no flames pls.)
-- andrew