Does Logic Imply Its Own Practical Usage?

Why this question seemed to be important for me? - I wanted to understand were there any criteria (within or without logic; mostly about 'within the logic') that can testify about logic might be used somewhere, but not for its own purposes. Or, in other words, what makes logic to be use practically?

Of course, the same is fair to the math, and geometry, and any other theoretical subjects. And anyway, are there any such criteria?

I can speak for math maybe. There are no criteria for that new math discovery must be applicable to anything. But there are examples where some new math looks like something useless and 50 years later it actually gets used for something. So it would be impossible to have some criteria because the practical use might come in the future.

In other words, the only criterion is its application: we apply it; it seems to be fitted; ok, it's ok. It works. 
And, therefore, the criterion is outside the logic, or beyond it. 

A good question. It makes me hold the horses. 

I guess that within the logic such variation of concepts are difficult to maintain. I mean - it was too much to demand logic to reveal its own limits or something.

Probably, it may lead to the conclusion that to view logic by its own (inwardly its own presumable limits) isn't a good move.

Maybe - could be - that we can guess something to be the method in logic, but... indeed, how to be sure about that?..

No, not like that I guess we need to discuss the work of logicians. A logician could be helpful to present some system. For instance, Lotfi Zadeh invented the fuzzy logic that started being used more widely after 20-25 years after. Some of Japan concerns implied it in its creations, and so on. The more prominent example is George Boole.

For mathematician Gottlob Frege, Peano, and Russell (plus many many others) did great job. For the cybernetics there were also many logicians, like Tarski, Church, or Kleene. And also the application of their results had been used even for the physicists (Carnap's, Reichenbach's and so on logicians).

Plus, the style of thinking and discussion that the logicins presented became one of the most prominent in Analytic Philosophy. 

So, I can't say that if we'd asked: "What logicians did (or presented to the world; or brought to the world)?", because it would be the same as to ask about it many literature paperwriters, and the other "artists". And also, there are millions of philosophers, who, I guess, brought much more less, than a most quarky logician.

Do artists have methodology? Is the art based on some methodology? What about mathematician?

In a particular, an extra case, there could be no methodology. When a dentists is working to repair teeth of his client, mostly he's foolowing the instructions he's been practicing in the trainings, but plus he uses some methodology. Speaking of it - that "methodology" (no matter which subject we discuss) - can be gotten from many ways as practice examples, some theoretical issues, and so on. Even new textbooks can offer some new methods to use. Some of disciplines like the sociology does use the other's results (from the different ones sciences), because this science is interdiscipline. 

Thinking - the subject must have methodology, and if it doesn't - it is the empty deity - is a wrong view. 

Some of works of Newton or Galileo started to be used not right after their publication. There had to be some other issues passed, like discovering new planets, inventing new tools, and so on.