Type Talk – Poetry Logos Discussion

Discussion, comments, critiques, opinions on type Throughout  the semester  typographic works  related to projects and assignments will be posted

Instructions

Logos done by Pentagram’s

Michael Bierut. for Poetry Magazine.

  • Do you think the overall concept works?
  • Which one or ones of these do you think works the best and why?
  • Comment below
  • Observe the variety way in which the typography is the concept, illustration,

Resources

http://www.typeroom.eu/article/pentagram-s-michael-bierut-poetry-foundation-s-new-typography

8 thoughts on “Type Talk – Poetry Logos Discussion

  1. Jasmine Domena

    I think the overall concept of the works is interesting but I feel like they won’t always work. For instance, for me, I naturally read from left to right but some cultures do not read from left to right so it depends on the target audience of the Poetry Foundation. I think the one that works the best is the very first one (top left). The two on the left don’t work for me because the lines make the letters feel broken apart and not united into one word. The bottom left feels like too much effort to read. I also feel like it is my inner New Yorker that draws me to the top right because it reminds me of the MTA train logos. The two in the middle are tied for second best with me but I don’t feel as drawn too it as the one on the top right.

    Reply
  2. Wei N

    The concept looks good, but I don’t think they would work well in some places. For me I read the top to bottom first until I realized it meant to say poetry from left to right. I like the first one because its simple and the easiest one to read. The bottom left one is the worst one, too confusing, while the 2nd best one would be the bottom middle one.

    Reply
  3. Hailey Jiang

    I think the third one on the bottom works the best. Because its design create great balance and hierarchy. The horizontal and vertical strokes are thin, so it doesn’t steal the spotlight. The words ‘POETRY’ is big enough, so it grabs the audiences’ attention. Even though the text ‘FOUNDATION’ is small, it was placed in a red bar, so it stands out from the background.
    The second one on the bottom is interesting, too. The shadows differentiate the texts from their background, made it stands out. On the other hand, I do want to point out something in the first design on the bottom. It is aesthetic, yet, it loses a bit of legibility. It’s kind of hard to read because of the patterns.

    Reply
  4. AndrewB

    I’m not a super huge fan of any of these, personally. If I had to pick one I think works the best I’d say the top right one does. The issue with all of them is that my eyes feel like they want to drift down as opposed to reading it like a book. I think the concept in itself makes sense since it’s like you’re reading a poem, so you’re reading from left to right to make the word “Poetry”, but it just feels more annoying than anything to me. The reason I like the top right most is because of how the letters are segmented, so my eyes don’t feel like drifting down as much, and the letters are also very simplistic and easy to look at compared to all the others.

    Reply
  5. Yamileth Hernandez-Garcia

    The designs feel too over whelming and are not creating a positive focal point. But I think the corner right one shows a better and calm tone towards the audience. It may be a simple typeface but the audience can connect towards that font and want to find out more about it. Additionally, the concept itself is being presented in which it is about POETRY, and poetry itself is made to be length wise smaller but longer width. It is presented in some of the illustrations but the audience feels lost and not focus on the word itself. On the contrary, that wont always be the case especially if the details in that concept is not being shown as much. The bottom left has too much details and not one main one therefore it does not bring a positive attention. Likewise, the middle top column has big bold words that are standing out way too much and creating less spotlight to that design.

    Reply
  6. Nadia Chin

    I think the concept is solid overall though it doesn’t necessarily represent the message of the foundation. The general design structure and color definitely catches the eye, though the composition is a little difficult to the eye. I’ve seen a lot of designs that break up type like the logo above, though some others are easier to read and digest. Personally, I think logo on the bottom right, is the best of the six. The first logo makes me think about a concept related to location and travel. The lettering inside of the circle can be interpreted as maybe a train designation. I feel like the bottom far left has too much detail and distracts from the type meant to be seen. Overall, I think the structure of the type is the one aspect of this logo that can be changed to fit the concept more.

    Reply
  7. Kayla

    I understand the concept, but not everyone reads the same way. Some people may choose to read top to bottom, others might say left to right, but in different countries and cultures, people may read right to left. I only see the concept working if this is just for places that read left to right and top to bottom.
    Personally, I believe the first one and third one work well because there isn’t too much going on. They are simple and easy to read and clean. Also maybe the 5th and 6th ones as well. You can’t have too much going on in such a small design.

    Reply
  8. Jesus

    I don’t think the concept of the logos is very helpful in understanding it. The fourth one especially is a huge eye sore with many details that I personally don’t find helpful in being able to read the logo, Out of all the logos, I like the third one because of how simple it is. I think simplicity in a logo is beautiful and makes it easier to understand.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *