Logo nerds: Is this a good organ donation logo?
Previous noteworthy logos:
• The TOUS Titty Bear.
• QSOL's oral sex logo.
• The War on Terror's terrible logo.
• And the biggest logo fail of all time:
"I heart cum" Swedish real estate logo.
posted by copyranter @ 10:30 AM
13 Comments:
Yes, it is a great logo. And how exactly did you come up with the percentages?
Via a proprietary copyranter® formula.
Idiotic. I mean the formula. :-p
Can't stop thinking about the SNL "Dick in a Box" skit.
All I know is that once he gives that gift, the dude is going to be a lot shorter.
My professional opinion is, er, yuck.
It looks like Alfred Hitchcock is giving his gut away.
Not sure if that's good or bad.
Yes, I agree that it's a good logo.
A sapphic approach, a la AA's latest ad, would NOT have been a good approach.
Fantastic
Dude has chopped himself into THIRDS and is now just givin' it away?!
That is an awesomesauce logo.
Simply awesomesauce.
It's "clear" in a semiotic studies way, a designer trying to logo-fy the central point (the guy giving a "present" of one of his organs) but that's not reflecting the larger issues whenever potential death is part of an act - which makes it near corporate then.
I'd like to know if this a logo for the committee that convinces living people to donate a kidney etc.. so doing that while still alive? Or more akin to agreeing to allow them to be taken after death. Big difference in sensibilities. If the former, then no, this logo isn't addressing the person who has to make one of the most charitable, profound decisions (to give up an organ while alive, for a stranger...)but goes the corporate route, reducing to a cute sign to better identify the company literature. The audience for this logo is already old enough to understand the gravity of their act without needing a sign with a logo-human identifiying it.
Which leads to the other point, I would have ditched the logo-man because it already genders unnecessarily. A symbol would have been easier all around, that expresses something larger than "here I cut this out and gave it to you as a present because it is graphically easy to do...."
Absolutely wrong motives:
The gift would be the point, not the human cutting it out and giving it and focusing on empty space.
The living person is not so "empty" and "void" after giving a gift, but full of something spiritually different.
So why isn't at least that in there? What is big is in terms of the act of giving, not the physical space where the organ comes from. This makes a shock for anyone illiterate to understand requiring such a sign to explain what they are going to consider doing.
The act should be the gift, big, magnifying the size of the spot that is taken away, but is replaced by something else, something spiritual at least. Not empty void.
It is too satisfying for a graphic designer needing one line, rather than the idea.
It's a good logo but it's not nearly good enough to make me give away my organs for free.
Post a Comment
<< Home