How Complex Can a Logo Be?

[devbanana]

I hope this isn't considered as a site review. I just want to see how complex a logo can be. I am completely blind, as some here may know, and I am trying to find a designer to do a logo for me. I have ideas, but I was told that an idea I had was too complex.

My site is a religious site named Christ's Little Flock. Due to the name, I wanted the theme to portray at least one or more sheep, and perhaps portray Jesus in some way as well.

In my idea, I had Jesus picking up a lost lamb, separated from the flock. But that is probably a lot to show in just a logo, though it'd portray the meaning of our site perfectly.

So just to give me an idea, how complex can a logo be? I'm just not sure where to go here. The designer wasn't really helpful in giving me any alternative ideas, so I'm pretty lost.

[dresden_phoenix]

Clients take this personally, but they shouldn't .. it's merely the science of art.

I understand why you would want (be tempted) to include a figure, a staff, some sheep, rolling meadows, a wolf and a sun, maybe some fluffy clouds, in the pictogram which would reflect your organizations name. This urge is natural for non brad professionals and non-designers. But keep in mind ( technical /reproduction difficulties aside) that logo building is a REDUCTIVE process. The urge that you feel is to create an ILLUSTRATION of your organization name or, better yet, mission. So simple , even abstract is better.. both technically and communicative in the long run.

Keeping with your xtian theme, for example look at the "fish" logo. it's ONE BENT LINE ... the GESTURE which represents a fish. note the designer could have been tempted (by the way am not punning) to render a fish.. ( but what fish? a talipa, a guppy?) have used multiple fish, loaves of bread, the crowd.. a shore line...

During logo design, one is forced to delete the details as unimportant and focus on the telling line.

The APPLE logo for example was originally based on NEWTONS APPLE. Which is why the company targeted education early on... but it was HORRIBLE because it tried to tell a story rather than make a name memorable with a gesture.

hope my advise has been useful.

[devbanana]

Clients take this personally, but they shouldn't .. it's merely the science of art.

I understand why you would want (be tempted) to include a figure, a staff, some sheep, rolling meadows, a wolf and a sun, maybe some fluffy clouds, in the pictogram which would reflect your organizations name. This urge is natural for non brad professionals and non-designers. But keep in mind ( technical /reproduction difficulties aside) that logo building is a REDUCTIVE process. The urge that you feel is to create an ILLUSTRATION of your organization name or, better yet, mission. So simple , even abstract is better.. both technically and communicative in the long run.

Keeping with your xtian theme, for example look at the "fish" logo. it's ONE BENT LINE ... the GESTURE which represents a fish. note the designer could have been tempted (by the way am not punning) to render a fish.. ( but what fish? a talipa, a guppy?) have used multiple fish, loaves of bread, the crowd.. a shore line...

During logo design, one is forced to delete the details as unimportant and focus on the telling line.

The APPLE logo for example was originally based on NEWTONS APPLE. Which is why the company targeted education early on... but it was HORRIBLE because it tried to tell a story rather than make a name memorable with a gesture.

hope my advise has been useful.

Thank you. I understand. Like I said I am completely 100% blind, so I have not seen what other logos look like, to be able to know what is the norm. I was just trying to figure out the complexity that is usual for logos.

[dresden_phoenix]

My apology, I thought you used that as a 'metaphor' .
The idea is you want to make it a symbol not an illustration. My mentor used to say 'a telling line' . try to think of a concept with as few elements as possible. Hopefully the designer will also be able to make a minimalistic representation of said elements. If nothing else you can at least understand WHY having a myriad of elements is self defeating; I mean if you were to find a good, clean stylistic representation of a sheep.. only to clutter it by repeating it 7 times. Hopefully that guides you in refining your brandmark concept.

[devbanana]

My apology, I thought you used that as a 'metaphor' .

Lol, most people seem to think that.

The idea is you want to make it a symbol not an illustration. My mentor used to say 'a telling line' . try to think of a concept with as few elements as possible. Hopefully the designer will also be able to make a minimalistic representation of said elements. If nothing else you can at least understand WHY having a myriad of elements is self defeating; I mean if you were to find a good, clean stylistic representation of a sheep.. only to clutter it by repeating it 7 times. Hopefully that guides you in refining your brandmark concept.

Understood. I will certainly think about that. Your help is appreciated.

[zot]

I think you should keep the idea of the sheep, especially as it relates to the name. Adding a shepherd or something else (like a cross) will lessen the impact of the logo. In my opinion.

[devbanana]

I think you should keep the idea of the sheep, especially as it relates to the name. Adding a shepherd or something else (like a cross) will lessen the impact of the logo. In my opinion.

That's what I'm thinking about. My concern is whether just a sheep would really portray what we are trying to represent. Perhaps a sheep looking up towards a light or something.

Thanks for your input.

[dresden_phoenix]

again, a logo is a symbol not an illustration. consider that , properly styled, two or better yet a single sheep can REPRESENT a flock. I would also consider using a shepherd's crook .. perhaps that can be styled SUBTLY from a cross?

[felgall]

I recently read something where it stated that a logo needs to work when it fills the entire side of a building and that it also needs to work when as small as a postage stamp. The smaller of these sizes combined with screen resolution means that your logo needs to work when it contains perhaps as few as 70 x 90 pixels (even less if you also want to use it as a favicon) - this doesn't give a great amount of scope for including anything even slightly complex. With logos simpler is generally better - what you need is something easily recognisable.