@istvanb
Exactly! That's what I was TRYING to show, by poking fun, with my post #267.
I wonder if anyone got it though.
Exactly! That's what I was TRYING to show, by poking fun, with my post #267.
I wonder if anyone got it though.
Still no Android App Update, almost the end of the year!
@chessspy1
You think art is totally subjective and scold people who say they don't like the new logo, but you feel free to say that you like it. I wonder how that logic works.
As @GSP0113 pointed out, issues of a subjective nature not only can be voted on but they are the type of decision where voting makes the most sense.
You think art is totally subjective and scold people who say they don't like the new logo, but you feel free to say that you like it. I wonder how that logic works.
As @GSP0113 pointed out, issues of a subjective nature not only can be voted on but they are the type of decision where voting makes the most sense.
Scold, is that the best you can do?
@chessspy1 said (#284), relating to @President_DonaldDuck (#283):
> Scold, is that the best you can do?
It is the best the English language can do, actually. According to Merriam-Websters Online dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scold) it means:
"to censure usually severely or angrily : rebuke"
and cites as synonyms: berate, castigate, labaste, lecture, rail (at), reproach, ... among others.
But even taking into account that you are probably not as fluent in English as a English-as-a-second-language speaker like me, the question remains: if, as you said, art is totally subjective and if, as you repeatedly did, people shouldn't state that they dislike the new logo therefore, shouldn't you, for the same reason, refrain from stating that you like it?
After all, that is not a matter of art, it is a matter of logic, no? But i suppose, in logic everything is totally subjective and therefore you are right with every fallacy while we all are wrong pointing it out, yes?
krasnaya
> Scold, is that the best you can do?
It is the best the English language can do, actually. According to Merriam-Websters Online dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scold) it means:
"to censure usually severely or angrily : rebuke"
and cites as synonyms: berate, castigate, labaste, lecture, rail (at), reproach, ... among others.
But even taking into account that you are probably not as fluent in English as a English-as-a-second-language speaker like me, the question remains: if, as you said, art is totally subjective and if, as you repeatedly did, people shouldn't state that they dislike the new logo therefore, shouldn't you, for the same reason, refrain from stating that you like it?
After all, that is not a matter of art, it is a matter of logic, no? But i suppose, in logic everything is totally subjective and therefore you are right with every fallacy while we all are wrong pointing it out, yes?
krasnaya
So, as we get nearer and nearer to debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, I thought I'd quickly weigh in with a few observations. To keep things succinct, I'll number my points.
1. I've seen a lot of comments bringing in the subject of art. This is a misunderstanding and isn't helping the discussion. We're talking about a logo here, not the Mona Lisa; this is the realm of graphic design, not art. What's the distinction? Art is, by definition, devoid of utility (that is, it isn't created to solve any kind of practical problem). Design and artistry, on the other hand, are all about function. The logo for Lichess serves many practical purposes: it helps brand the endeavor; helps users recognize the website; it communicates an attitude and purpose of the community; et cetera.
2. Confusing a logo with artwork has led to the fallacious argument, "There's no point in voting on it because it's art and art is subjective." Yes, there would be little point in voting on the Mona Lisa. That painting has no utilitarian purpose; it wasn't trying to accomplish anything other than to please the patron and to instill the satisfaction that comes with experiencing art in the viewer. A website logo is entirely different. It has a practical purpose and it can be evaluated on objective criteria.
3. Some of the objective criteria that a graphic designer will use to evaluate a logo are as follows: (A) Does it clearly convey the line of business? If you are selling office supplies, you probably don't want a logo that is a gear, since that would suggest auto parts or some other enterprise. (B) Is it generic? If the logo could work for any number of different businesses, that's a weakness. That's one of my complaints about the current logo. It could be the logo of a riding school or horse farm. As for chess sites, it could be the logo for any chess site or chess club on the planet. (C) Does it convey what is unique or special about the brand? In the case of Lichess, I'd argue that what is unique or special about the brand are that the website is built on open-source code and is free to users.
4. Resistance to change is not unusual when changing any design of a website. If you'll remember, a lot of people were flipping out when the website's look-and-feel were changed about a year ago to increase cross-platform compatibility. That said, I do think the designer, @sadsnake1, hit upon a logo concept that is far better than the current choice.
5. I don't think the current logo is bad. I said early on that I'd grade it a B, and still feel that way. It's OK. I was just pained to see that the designer came up with a choice that was a solid A late in the process. I wish the concept of a winged knight was proposed earlier. It's a great idea and, as I've mentioned before, I think it's almost inevitable that Lichess will eventually be using the design.
6. So far as I know, no one, outside a few Lichess staff, was aware that the website was looking for a new logo. As another user observed, that's a pity because it would have been interesting to see what some of the users would have proposed. Among Lichess's thousands and thousands of users are, no doubt, many graphic designers. It was a bit of a lost opportunity, frankly.
1. I've seen a lot of comments bringing in the subject of art. This is a misunderstanding and isn't helping the discussion. We're talking about a logo here, not the Mona Lisa; this is the realm of graphic design, not art. What's the distinction? Art is, by definition, devoid of utility (that is, it isn't created to solve any kind of practical problem). Design and artistry, on the other hand, are all about function. The logo for Lichess serves many practical purposes: it helps brand the endeavor; helps users recognize the website; it communicates an attitude and purpose of the community; et cetera.
2. Confusing a logo with artwork has led to the fallacious argument, "There's no point in voting on it because it's art and art is subjective." Yes, there would be little point in voting on the Mona Lisa. That painting has no utilitarian purpose; it wasn't trying to accomplish anything other than to please the patron and to instill the satisfaction that comes with experiencing art in the viewer. A website logo is entirely different. It has a practical purpose and it can be evaluated on objective criteria.
3. Some of the objective criteria that a graphic designer will use to evaluate a logo are as follows: (A) Does it clearly convey the line of business? If you are selling office supplies, you probably don't want a logo that is a gear, since that would suggest auto parts or some other enterprise. (B) Is it generic? If the logo could work for any number of different businesses, that's a weakness. That's one of my complaints about the current logo. It could be the logo of a riding school or horse farm. As for chess sites, it could be the logo for any chess site or chess club on the planet. (C) Does it convey what is unique or special about the brand? In the case of Lichess, I'd argue that what is unique or special about the brand are that the website is built on open-source code and is free to users.
4. Resistance to change is not unusual when changing any design of a website. If you'll remember, a lot of people were flipping out when the website's look-and-feel were changed about a year ago to increase cross-platform compatibility. That said, I do think the designer, @sadsnake1, hit upon a logo concept that is far better than the current choice.
5. I don't think the current logo is bad. I said early on that I'd grade it a B, and still feel that way. It's OK. I was just pained to see that the designer came up with a choice that was a solid A late in the process. I wish the concept of a winged knight was proposed earlier. It's a great idea and, as I've mentioned before, I think it's almost inevitable that Lichess will eventually be using the design.
6. So far as I know, no one, outside a few Lichess staff, was aware that the website was looking for a new logo. As another user observed, that's a pity because it would have been interesting to see what some of the users would have proposed. Among Lichess's thousands and thousands of users are, no doubt, many graphic designers. It was a bit of a lost opportunity, frankly.
Well @krasnaya at least you gave me a laugh. chuckle, guffaw, chortle, titter, snigger, (have a bubble, have a giraffe)
etc.
etc.
@GSP0113 said (#286):
> Art is, by definition, devoid of utility (that is, it isn't created to solve any kind of practical problem).
Your premise is wrong on several levels: first, i'd like to see such a definition of the word "art" that supports this and the distinction to design and artistry you draw further on. Second, and in sharp contradiction to what you said, the word "technics" is derived from the greek noun "techne" (τέχνη) - which means "art". What, do you think, is the reason for this if not, that technics and art, works of ingenuinity and works of creativity were considered essentially the same?
> Does it convey what is unique or special about the brand? In the
> case of Lichess, I'd argue that what is unique or special about the
> brand are that the website is built on open-source code and is free to users.
This is a concern i can understand and actually support. Instead of concentrating on this we have this lamentable business with "freedom", which is - in my untrained ears - not the same concept as "openness" or "gratuitiousness".
krasnaya
> Art is, by definition, devoid of utility (that is, it isn't created to solve any kind of practical problem).
Your premise is wrong on several levels: first, i'd like to see such a definition of the word "art" that supports this and the distinction to design and artistry you draw further on. Second, and in sharp contradiction to what you said, the word "technics" is derived from the greek noun "techne" (τέχνη) - which means "art". What, do you think, is the reason for this if not, that technics and art, works of ingenuinity and works of creativity were considered essentially the same?
> Does it convey what is unique or special about the brand? In the
> case of Lichess, I'd argue that what is unique or special about the
> brand are that the website is built on open-source code and is free to users.
This is a concern i can understand and actually support. Instead of concentrating on this we have this lamentable business with "freedom", which is - in my untrained ears - not the same concept as "openness" or "gratuitiousness".
krasnaya
@krasnaya Ars gratia artis. Honestly, I think the non-utilitarian nature of art is self-evident. When art, be it painting or writing, moves away from being created solely for the sake of art, it moves into other realms: propaganda, journalism, the decorative arts, artistry, wallpaper, graphic design, craftsmanship, industrial design, et cetera.
Yes, I know: A lot of people make statements such as, "These shoes are gorgeous. They are works of art." (No: They may be beautiful; they may be the paragon of craftsmanship and artistry; but no, a pair of shoes that are, first and foremost, intended to be worn are not works of art.)
That said, if you want to agree with the ancient Greeks and argue that the design of a Lamborghini V12 is every bit as much a work of art as a landscape painting, you are welcome to do so. I hold a different view and can disagree amicably.
Update: I wrote all of the above before consulting an online dictionary. I was thinking it might be difficult to find a definition to support my view. It wasn't. The very first definition I found reads: "Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
Source: www.google.com/search?q=art+definition&oq=art+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.2207j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Yes, I know: A lot of people make statements such as, "These shoes are gorgeous. They are works of art." (No: They may be beautiful; they may be the paragon of craftsmanship and artistry; but no, a pair of shoes that are, first and foremost, intended to be worn are not works of art.)
That said, if you want to agree with the ancient Greeks and argue that the design of a Lamborghini V12 is every bit as much a work of art as a landscape painting, you are welcome to do so. I hold a different view and can disagree amicably.
Update: I wrote all of the above before consulting an online dictionary. I was thinking it might be difficult to find a definition to support my view. It wasn't. The very first definition I found reads: "Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
Source: www.google.com/search?q=art+definition&oq=art+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.2207j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Perhaps a new feature, that allows a user to select their own logo for their page...like selecting a piece set or board theme. Any thing...as long as this thread gets to page two. After awhile the logo goes mostly unnoticed anyway. :]
Next...how about a new design for the lobby page to go with the new logo. Can you imagine that chaos that would cause? :]
Next...how about a new design for the lobby page to go with the new logo. Can you imagine that chaos that would cause? :]
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.