This email thread seems to be developing into something of a "design review" so I'll chime in.

I'll start by distinguishing between two categories of critique: conceptual and implementation. In terms of Matt's artistic conception, let me just say that I love it! Like Dave said, it shows a person "looking into the distance and thinking" and I agree with him that whatever changes might be made, we adhere to that original concept. In light of this, I strongly disagree with the recommendation to remove the face. First off, it doesn't clutter the logo in my view but more fundamentally, the face can't be removed without abandoning the concept which I strongly advocate retaining.

Regarding details of implementation (i.e. different ways to achieve the same artistic concept), the similarity between the back of the head and the MNMC logo is something that might ideally be avoided but the overall similarity between the logos is very slight, to the point where I wouldn't worry about it. The point about the mountain shape is a good observation. Ideally, the logo would achieve the twin objectives of (a) conveying the artistic concept and (b) maintaining a reasonable level of fidelity with the real nittany mountain. I feel that Matt has succeeded greatly with (a) and I do agree with Laura that we haven't achieved (b).

I would however raise the question of just how important (b) really is. After all, we're not "Mt. Nittany Freethought". I'm really on the fence here. 

I'd like to finish by again thanking Matt for his time and creativity with this and, like Dave, I would be very happy to have the logo remain as-is. *If* Matt is kindly willing to make further changes, I would strongly advocate we come to a greater consensus on the "requirements" for the logo before more changes are made.

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Dave D. <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi all,

My initial reaction was I really like the logo.  I do think Laura has good points and if they lead to something even better, that's great.  One thing I really like is I definitely get a feeling of someone looking into the distance and thinking.  If we change anything I wouldn't want to loose that.

I also have no idea how much work it is to make changes.  I'd be thrilled to use it as it is, or, if Matt has the time and inclination, it would be great to have choices too.

Dave

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Chuck Berry <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi, Laura - -  I (Chuck) really appreciate your apologies and sensitivity when commenting on Matt's draft.  You seem to have some valid observations ... I'll add a couple of notes below.

At 12/9/[masked]:19 PM, Laura wrote:

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, but while the logo is attractive, it looks to me like Rocky Mountain Freethinkers, or maybe Alps or Himalayan Freethinkers, rather than the Nittany Freethinkers.  "Nittany", after all, means "big hill" rather than a high, craggy mountain. ...

        I thought "Single Hill" or something like that, but surely you're right it's not a real "mountain."  My cousin from Colorado visited.  I pointed out Mount Nittany and he cocked his head back and forth and squinted and said, "Oh, I guess it must be hidden by the clouds, behind that little hill over there."  Anyway, Laura's point is well taken.

        I've never seen it from the side.  I assumed it had a few humps as Matt drew.  Not true?

And I'm sorry to say I don't care much for the face.  To me, it clutters the logo.  If the face is retained, might there be another way to do it? ...

        I liked the way the slopes and valleys of the mountain create the front of the face, and the rising sun creates the rest.  Anything else added, I'd think, would be just an addition and not really a coincidental part of the scene.  But I'm not an artist.

A possible problem could be looking too much like the hospital logo with the gentle curve and ball. ...

        Hmmmm ... I never thought of the hospital logo, nor noticed it before.  (I just looked.)  I would not have noticed the similarity if you hadn't pointed it out.  I feel like the difference in the size of the suns and hill shapes make them pretty different, and the MNHC's sun doesn't even have a purpose, as far as I can tell. What do you think, Matt?

My apologies for being critical, but I didn't want to be dishonest. ...

        Thank you, Laura, for your thoughts, and your sensitivity.  Let's discuss next time we're together (and maybe by e-mail before then).

        And thank YOU again, Matt ... please don't feel discouraged.  We may end up with your original creation, or something close to it.

        G'nite  - - Chuck

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])

This message was sent by Chuck Berry ([address removed]) from Nittany Freethought.
To learn more about Chuck Berry, visit his/her member profile

To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])

This message was sent by Dave D. ([address removed]) from Nittany Freethought.
To learn more about Dave D., visit his/her member profile

To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])

This message was sent by Rob ([address removed]) from Nittany Freethought.
To learn more about Rob, visit his/her member profile

To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]