spyraal
Jedi Master
I have been quite busy with the mundane part of reality these past few days, and it is funny how many things can happen in this forum in such a short time! :D
Actually the need for a symbol was the second thing that came to my mind -after my initial amazement about the FOTCM- while reading this session for the first time.
I have great respect for the great effort and the creative potential of the people involved in designing this so far. ;)
My own visual impression FWIW is that the original design Laura posted is a little "too detailed" to stand for the purpose i understand it is supposed to. So, I kind of find something like nicklebleu's version a little more appropriate, only in terms of it's graphical impression.
I can also understand Laura's point about that visual "complexity" carrying an important and rich symbolism and meaning. In my view any "symbol" in general can have infinite complexity as long as this complexity
has a perfectly aimed existence, and it conveys a certain and definite meaning. In that way, symbols can be used to teach and accurately describe concepts, like Gurdjieff practiced with his students.
So, I have no doubt that the design of that particular crop circle, and the symbol which came up from it and Laura posted, will remain in the Fellowship's disposal as a learning tool regardless of whether it is chosen or not in the end... But IMHO the "symbol" of a religion fits more to the category of a "logo" than that of a "symbol" in the above sense. In this line of thought, i would prefer something closer to the version Nicklebleu did. A "logo" -in my mind- is something that is supposed to be as clear, simple and distinct as possible, since it is more than a symbol or an "accurate graphical representation of ideas": it is the unique visual identity of something. As a "visual identity" it makes some sense to me that it should be as simple and "penetrating" as possible. Easy to draw, easy to remember, easy to "digest" if i may say so.
Laura and the team have worked a lot harder in this to know a little better, but i thought i should express my perspective of us having a choice between a "symbol" and a "logo" in the above sense.
All in all, this is a very interesting subject! Also, i will try to add my own -late timed- skills and creativity to the great sum of what others have done so far. I will post a picture(s) ASAP!
Thank you!
:)
Actually the need for a symbol was the second thing that came to my mind -after my initial amazement about the FOTCM- while reading this session for the first time.
I have great respect for the great effort and the creative potential of the people involved in designing this so far. ;)
My own visual impression FWIW is that the original design Laura posted is a little "too detailed" to stand for the purpose i understand it is supposed to. So, I kind of find something like nicklebleu's version a little more appropriate, only in terms of it's graphical impression.
I can also understand Laura's point about that visual "complexity" carrying an important and rich symbolism and meaning. In my view any "symbol" in general can have infinite complexity as long as this complexity
has a perfectly aimed existence, and it conveys a certain and definite meaning. In that way, symbols can be used to teach and accurately describe concepts, like Gurdjieff practiced with his students.
So, I have no doubt that the design of that particular crop circle, and the symbol which came up from it and Laura posted, will remain in the Fellowship's disposal as a learning tool regardless of whether it is chosen or not in the end... But IMHO the "symbol" of a religion fits more to the category of a "logo" than that of a "symbol" in the above sense. In this line of thought, i would prefer something closer to the version Nicklebleu did. A "logo" -in my mind- is something that is supposed to be as clear, simple and distinct as possible, since it is more than a symbol or an "accurate graphical representation of ideas": it is the unique visual identity of something. As a "visual identity" it makes some sense to me that it should be as simple and "penetrating" as possible. Easy to draw, easy to remember, easy to "digest" if i may say so.
Laura and the team have worked a lot harder in this to know a little better, but i thought i should express my perspective of us having a choice between a "symbol" and a "logo" in the above sense.
All in all, this is a very interesting subject! Also, i will try to add my own -late timed- skills and creativity to the great sum of what others have done so far. I will post a picture(s) ASAP!
Thank you!
:)