Comments on: 2D or 3D?

By: Jevgeni Strganov

Jevgeni Strganov — Sat, 08 May 2010 14:40:06 +0000

-
When this full process is restricted by the object of vision - as with 2D representations - the brain (the mind as consequence) is “deceived.” It comes out as “is missing something” or the image is not “completed.”

wrong… Only if the logo designer forgot to finish the design.
I see otherwise - when someone look on 3D logo, the brain is “deceived”. Something is missing?! Yes! The other side of logo!
As some IQ test shows, that people perception of difficult forms are different. And visual effect can be different.

By: Scott Lerman

Scott Lerman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:03:46 +0000

Marco writes, “When this full process is restricted by the object of vision - as with 2D representations - the brain (the mind as consequence) is “deceived.” It comes out as “is missing something” or the image is not “completed.”” While that makes 2D logos sound inferior to 3D representations it is that “otherness”, the ability to stand out against photography, texture, and other 3D manifestations that make a 2D logo so powerful.

By: David Airey

David Airey — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:06:57 +0000

Hello Marco,

I think we all agree that an effective logo won’t save a poorly managed brand, and for me, Steff’s final sentiments ring close to what I also believe:

“…if a logo is conceived as a 3D concept, it probably should stay that way and the other way around, unless both 2D and 3D versions are conceived together as alternate versions, rather than as an afterthought.”

Personally, I don’t believe any logo should be conceived as a solely 3D concept, but must be accompanied by a 2D option to improve adaptability. That said, Steff has infinitely more experience in the field than I.

Thanks again to all involved for launching this blog. It’s a great addition to the site.