Re: [gNewSense-art] artwork proposal

[Eus]

Hi Ho!

--- On Fri, 9/19/08, Patricio Maciel <address@hidden> wrote:

>  Hi all guys...
> 
> i'm very glad for the feedback we are receiving here in the list, this
> indicates we are working in the right direction, i think gNS is evolving
> to a new stage, in this process is absolutly necessary start to redefine
> the gNS identity, ain't telling gNS has no identity, i mean it's
> identity must to follow this evolution, this is a personal aprecciation
> but i feel the original logo do not represents the spirit of gNS.
> 
> Eus, said in past messages the logo has three elements, a tree, gnu and
> a human head, we can think in a tree like a "ad factum" element in the
> logo, and that's acceptable, but the gnu and the human head/face are
> elements that not offer nothing to the identity, in the meaning this are
> common elements to the major distributions, i have not to explain
> why...all we know what represents the gnu,  and the human face...well,
> we can think in that like the conceptualization of the final
> users...anyway, these graphical elements are representatives but aren't
> distinctive and when we talk about identity we have to think in a
> graphical identification, and that should be unique, representative by
> itself and mainly must contain the meaning of the spirit of the project,
> and i think the main concept we must to remark is the freedom,
> technically talking (and this is an absolutly personal opinion) a tree
> doesn't the better option to represent the freedom, it's an element that
> is stuck to its environment, that is opposed to the freedom
> (conceptually talking), but being objective, i think we should found a
> way to refresh the logo...

IMHO, FSF logo does not represent freedom as obvious either. And, so with GNU 
logo.
Also, Debian and Ubuntu logos are not obvious as well.

After all, a logo may not always be obvious, for example, the flag of the US.
If I were never told that the stars represent the number of the states, I would 
never know about that either.

The way that the logo can be broken down to three pictures suits the creative 
thinking of hackers.
And, we can explain it to other people just like when we explain what the stars 
on the flag represent.
So, I think there is nothing wrong with the original logo.

> At this point, surely we'll find some resistance, first at all i don't
> know if the project leaders are agree with that, i sent a message to
> Paul O'Malley a few days ago about this matter, i had no answer yet, i
> think the actual logo it's not a mature graphic element, it's hard to
> work with it, would be important we can discuss about the "gNS concept"
> to define a graphical identity that can reach the evolution process of
> the project...I feel identity it was left in the path...

Ummm... yes, sure I resist the change to the original logo.
But, if the new logo can prove itself worthy, I don't mind changing the logo.

> Daleduro...

Best regards,
Eus