TotJO Logo Design

this is not important but it is. (he he)

the logo used in the banner is not right
Also is not right the one we are using in the web

here the right one (is white) so someone can fix the ecard banner with the right one.



a lil bigger


thank you
mtfbwy

Not too sure about it being "not right". It's really just an alternate version of the star, which, where one version uses a circle to contrast itself, the alternate uses the inherit background to contrast itself. It's been an accepted version for the banner (the current one created by myself and chosen by ren) for quite a while, though eventually, with a new site design this might change. Both are valid though, at least to me, and I'm sure many other's here.

Proteus wrote: Not too sure about it being "not right". It's really just an alternate version of the star, which, where one version uses a circle to contrast itself, the alternate uses the inherit background to contrast itself. It's been an accepted version for the banner (the current one created by myself and chosen by ren) for quite a while, though eventually, with a new site design this might change. Both are valid though, at least to me, and I'm sure many other's here.

we can have as much alternatives as people exist....
when i ask 2 days ago, for the right logo, the one "legally right" the answer was "the one with the circle", and actually they point to the one in the banner to be wrong.

a logo is not only a trademark, is a sign, and i can make 100's of different stars... all different but all fit in the description.

my question now is.... who decide about this?

it doesn't matter for me, if they like to use it with a circle, without, with snow on top, or a horse under.... i like to know, what is right, what is wrong, and if is possible for everyone to create an interpretation "different", and even that one, is
legally right.

this is not the place, and i am nobody, but... for me it doesn't look right to use a different logo.
so now i can use any of this (MY INTERPRETATION as totjo logo) and it's ok?






maybe someone need to tell us, what is the right logo to use , and i agree, with circle, without, or any of this.

just because is a logo, a sign, an identification, we all need to use just one.

@666

If I understand it correctly, the star bursts are the TotJO emblem. The black circle is just a field to put it on. Unlike in Heraldry where the field is important I believe this field is just a background. I’m sure someone can think of some relevance or significance it holds… but I’ll be darned if I can remember it.

I feel like I read somewhere that the logo was comprised of equal amounts of light and dark, and that was part of the symbology. I can't remember where I read it, whether the old main page or a forum thread somewhere, but I'm sure I got that notion from somewhere....

welll....
right now I have 2 members of the Council saying to me, the one WITH the circle to be the right one.
and another saying, the one without is valid too

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/faq#TotJOSymbol

it say

1. The orthodox Jedi Code (5 star)
2. 16 basic teachings of the Jedi (inner 16 star)
3. The interdependence of Light and Dark- A Jediist is in harmony with the Force.


The TotJO symbol (above) is owned by TotJO. People are free to use it, but we ask that it is not used to misrepresent our organisation. If the symbol is used in some piece of work then we would appreciate the appropriate citation to be made.




so the one with the circle is owned by totjo, but.... the one without is part of it, so maybe i am wrong, but the right one, registered, is the one with the circle, the other is just PART of the logo.

if we remove the circle, can we remove also one pick of the star? or remove the inner star?, or the outside star?
they are all part.... so ....

I say this one time, i do understand art, i do understand interpretation, and in my opinion, the logo is the one WITH the circle, all the others are part of the inspirational art, fan art, or whatever you call it, but not the totjo logo.
like the one i've made in gold, looks nice, but can not be used as totjo main logo, because is not.

without the circle is a different logo, there is no delimitation, and i like it... i am not trying to push one or the other, i am looking for the right thing.

if totjo say use whatever you like... we are free to use....

but when totjo say, the above logo is owned, it shows a logo with a circle around ( not a square, not a star, not a hexagon, and that make me think, the circle is part of the logo ( other than the description)

in the website, it doesn't say we own all this logos, and show more than one.


I appreciate if someone can clarify this.

666 wrote: I appreciate if someone can clarify this.

Here's the deal, and I'm gonna lay it out as succinctly and elementary as I can:

Trademark law in regard to logos is directly descended from the laws of heraldry used in various cultures at varying times.

In Western Heraldry the color of the field matters, because

1. all the colors in Western heraldry matter; any two coats can be exactly the same but have different colors, and that makes them different coats
2. the field is an integral part of the design, though its shape is mutable depending on its manner of display; i.e., as long as the field exists in some fashion, it can be any shape--shield shaped, square for banners, diamond for lozenges, etc.

In Japanese heraldry the color of the field doesn't matter. In fact, none of the colors matter. All kamon are based on the visual integrity of their lines in monochrome, and therefore, they can be any color they want as long as the lines are the same.

Since the circle is not used consistently throughout (that is, you see no border around it if the logo is on a black background), we must accept the fact that it is not an integral part of the design; that the black circle merely makes it easier to see the white logo on a light-colored background, or for use as a pin or a badge or whathaveyou.

So, what does this lead me to?

WHY THE CIRCLE DOESN'T MATTER:

1. The existence or non-existence of the circle does not change the meaning of the logo as set forth in the logo FAQ. That is to say, the logo FAQ explains the significance of the twin starbursts, and never mentions the circle at all. Period. Ever.
2. The existence of the circle is not required for the meaning of the double-starburst logo to show through. That is to say, you lose nothing by not displaying the circle in the form of meaning.
3. The existence or non-existence of the circle has no bearing on its ability to be recognized for trademark purposes. Ford always puts their logo in the blue oval, always, without fail, so that makes it part of the logo. TOTJO does not, and therefore, the double-starburst is the logo, and the circle is just a background available for readability. (If TOTJO has registered this design with the circle, I would highly suggest they also trademark the double-starburst without the circle, for purposes of legal versatility)
4. The existence or non-existence of the circle does not hamper the visibility of the double-starburst logo, nor does it inhibit the meaning given in the FAQ of the "interdependence between light and dark." In the sense of Western heraldry, the double-starburst logo must always be placed on a contrasting background, giving the full appearance of the interplay between light and dark, and in the sense of Eastern heraldry, so long as this contrast is maintained, the colors themselves do not matter, because the "interdependence" clause is still met by the negative space in the double-starburst logo design.

Furthermore, as a circular design (and especially as a design with perfect radial symmetry) for an organization that is primarily focused toward Eastern senses and forms of spirituality (Tao, Zen, etc.), it makes more sense for the TOTJO logo to be presented in a kamon style--that is, as the double-starbursts alone, with the color changing dependent on the background, rather than with an integral field 100% of the time.

The field behind the double-starburst is only part of the design if it never ever changes. Ever. Since you wouldn't take the time to paint a black circle around the double-starburst on a black car, and since sometimes it's been shown as square (for website avatars which are almost universally exactly square), then the design cannot necessarily be said to include the circle; the circle is simply a field of convenience for the viewing of the logo itself (the double-starburst), and is rendered in the round for the aesthetic purposes of complementing the radial symmetry of the logo.

Questions?

If not, can we PLEASE get this thread back on topic, since the OP specifically asked that it only be used for these ecards?

steamboat28 wrote: can we PLEASE get this thread back on topic, since the OP specifically asked that it only be used for these ecards?

I've moved all replies pertaining to the logo, here into its own topic from the eCards topic.

666 wrote:
1. The orthodox Jedi Code (5 star)
2. 16 basic teachings of the Jedi (inner 16 star)
3. The interdependence of Light and Dark- A Jediist is in harmony with the Force.

The TotJO symbol (above) is owned by TotJO. People are free to use it, but we ask that it is not used to misrepresent our organisation. If the symbol is used in some piece of work then we would appreciate the appropriate citation to be made.

I can see the 5 star....

I can see the 16 star

Now, without the circle, show me the interdependence of dark and light...

I say the circle is important, and belongs...

I can see how the difference in tone (dark circle, white star burst) represents a duality of nature and their balance. I also think of it as light shining through the darkness.

But if the emblem is pasted on to a dark background would the darker circle not be redundant? Meaning, is it the contrast that is more important or the circle? If the star burst are on a white field, then you would need the circle... right?

I guess what I'm saying is that if you put the emblem on letterhead than yes, the dark circle is important and should be the emblem for that. If your pasting it on to a picture and that area is already very dark, does the circle need to be there? :huh:

Just wondering. :laugh:

Jestor wrote: I can see the 5 star....

I can see the 16 star

Now, without the circle, show me the interdependence of dark and light...

I say the circle is important, and belongs...

1. If this white logo is placed on a black background, there's your interdependence of dark and light.
2. If you change the logo (i.e., the two stars) to black, and put it on a white letterhead, there's your interdependence of dark and light.
3. If you have a dark red header bar on the website, and the logo is white, there's your interdependence of dark and light.
4. If I paint the logo in yellow on a green car, there's my interdependence of "dark" and "light".

None of those inherently require the circle. The circle just makes it look prettier if you want to put a white star on a white background. It's damn pretty, and my preferred method of displaying the logo, but it's not needed to fulfill the requirements of the "meaning."

**EDIT** - I'm not sure how long the editing window on posts is, but if you give me a little time to finish the IP lesson I'm working on first, I'll give visual samples of each of these (and more) examples I've given above.

Here's the original (Example 1):


Here's the inverted color scheme without the circle (Example 2):


Here's one that approximates the header (with a more vibrant red) (Example 3):


Here's the green-and-yellow car design (Example 4):


And here are three based on my school colors--

Elementary School:

High School:

and College:


As long as the contrast between the logo and the background is kept, the interplay of light and dark is still seen in the negative space of the design, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated with a circle. It is not wrong to display the logo in the circle, it just isn't necessary all the time.

The body of the background is not the TOTJO symbol...

Using your green/yellow example, the green car is not a part of the symbol....

Yet, now the whole thing is, and it becomes washed out...

Do as you like, I appreciate the art, but, unless Br. John corrects me, or I find evidence in the archives, I'm telling you the circle is important, as it separates the entire symbol from the background...

The balance is gone... There is more green than yellow....

The percentages of dark to light may not be 50/50, but its nowhere close with the circle gone...

Jestor wrote: The body of the background is not the TOTJO symbol...

Using your green/yellow example, the green car is not a part of the symbol....

That's exactly what I'm saying, actually. The interplay of dark and light, from a graphics and artistic perception, is about the interplay of positive and negative space (which, honestly, i think makes a more profound philosophical statement, personally) and less about the actual colors, I think.

Also, if you said the circle was necessary. then questions will arise about whether or not it has a border, and how thick the border is, and/or you're stuck with that color combination (black/white), which means that the lovely art 666 did that we enjoy (the black/gold) is good, but it's not the logo.

Furthermore, I love the circle for aesthetic purposes (and vastly prefer to use it), but I object to it as a philosophical representation. In religious/spiritual/esoteric/etc. symbolism (and symbology, though the two are different), circles are seen as limiters. Circles are typically seen as spiritual boundaries, dividing what's inside them from what's outside them. This could take many forms--in our case, it could be misinterpreted to be limiting the power of the Force, set boundaries on an infinite universe, project an "us v. them" ideology to non-members rather than our actual inclusive nature--and I don't think any of those are really representative of Jediism.

that said, these are just my opinions.

And, that is my point...

The circle separates the symbol, from the car...

And correct, I've never considered the black/gold as the symbol...

It is just an artistic interpretation...

One I happen to like...

Also, just my opinion....

The circle is part of the symbol.

Br. John wrote: The circle is part of the symbol.

Sweet, an official answer! I do have a few questions about this, though:

• Can we continue to use it without the circle in unofficial formats, such as the header bar?
• What do we do when the black circle goes on a dark background?
  • Do we invert the colors?
    • If so, is it still the same symbol?
    • If not, must we still draw the circle?
  • Do we give it a border?
    • If so, does the border become part of the logo?
    • How thick should the border be in relation to the rest of the circle?
  • Do we ignore it, or assume it's there, even if we can't see it?
• How do we handle it if it's monochrome? (true monochrome, only one color, not contrasting, like, if we were embossing it, or making paper cutouts, or what-have-you) Do we circle back to the border questions?

I'm all for the official verdict on this, but it does raise some other interesting design questions, in my opinion.

Jestor wrote: The circle separates the symbol, from the car...

I can live with that.

It's not just the contrast but the separation from the object that is being achieved keeping the emblem sacred from a common item. Cool.

There's all sorts of artistic interpretations. There's nothing wrong with them and much to be said for them. The Councillor's badge does not even use the official logo and neither does the banner at the top of this webpage. They're still our logo. I'm only saying the original concept was in a circle. If it's against a black background there can be a white circle to set it off thick enough to see but not so wide as to look bad.

Br. John wrote: There's all sorts of artistic interpretations. There's nothing wrong with them and much to be said for them. The Councillor's badge does not even use the official logo and neither does the banner at the top of this webpage. They're still our logo. I'm only saying the original concept was in a circle. If it's against a black background there can be a white circle to set it off thick enough to see but not so wide as to look bad.

Awesome. Thanks for the input!

steamboat28 wrote:

Br. John wrote: The circle is part of the symbol.

Sweet, an official answer!

What, my answer wasn't good enough?

"I get no respect" ~Rodney Dangerfield~

:lol:..