[HN Gopher] Oxford University Press's new logo is unfathomably bad
___________________________________________________________________
Oxford University Press's new logo is unfathomably bad
Author : vitabenes
Score : 254 points
Date : 2022-11-10 14:23 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (joukovsky.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (joukovsky.substack.com)
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Why is it that Japanese wave painting and/or an ouroboros and/or
| a tire turned half inside-out?
|
| Yikes, the old one was _so_ iconic. New one 's actually not
| terrible _per se_ , but it's a huge step down in this case.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| It was and is in fact iconic
| christkv wrote:
| Looks like Oprah's brand logo but in blue and a bit of tat.
| vpribish wrote:
| did no one point out that the new logo is looking down a rifled
| gun barrel - hardly a visual metaphor for education. Maybe they
| were trying to connect with the globally revered UK institution
| of James Bond?
| phnofive wrote:
| Yeah, after I saw that I couldn't unsee how it looks like a
| partially masked illustration of rifling. Money well spent.
| [deleted]
| heywherelogingo wrote:
| In keeping with Oxford's preferences, the new one does look more
| woke than the old one.
| przemub wrote:
| Do you really need a sans-serif font here?
|
| The old font _looks_ like something you could see in an academic
| book, especially so that a similar one is used for printing in
| the UK. The new one looks like for... anything and therefore
| nothing.
| [deleted]
| 323 wrote:
| The new logo is awful, but nobody really cares.
| fergie wrote:
| I quite like it.
|
| It has a progressive feeling that reminds me of the Open
| University, and harks back to the idealistic expansion of British
| higher education in the '60s.
| zeristor wrote:
| How relevant is having a Psalm as a motto?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_illuminatio_mea
| JasonFruit wrote:
| Relevant to _what_? Things aren 't relevant in isolation.
|
| We're talking about the logo of an historic institution, part
| of an institution with an even deeper history, the sort of
| place where you might expect a person chosen at random to be
| able to understand that motto.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| Relevant to the common alive person. I'll be that person
| chosen at random; I don't understand the motto. How is it
| relevant to a school? Good riddance.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| Maybe you aren't relevant to Oxford University Press --
| very seriously, no insult meant. You're not the audience,
| and whether you understand it is not their concern.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| That is likely, but you're alluding you know who the
| audience is when you don't. I'm correct in assuming you
| don't work for Oxford. I obviously lied and said I didn't
| understand to entertain the conversation that I was
| confused by the use of a psalm. If I'm honest, I mostly
| just find it archaic, which is maybe appropriate for a
| school as old as Oxford.
|
| Why do you personally think they removed it? Bad Design?
| inChargeOfIT wrote:
| A camera shutter? Are they getting into photography?
| petesergeant wrote:
| > It is worse, though, when such a logo replaces a world-class
| symbol of scholarly excellence. A maxim I remember from business
| school: a brand is a promise of a repeatable experience.
|
| Imagine thinking any part of Oxford's notability came from its
| butt-ugly coat of arms
| webwielder2 wrote:
| Every rebranding ever has been lambasted by armchair design
| critics.
| Sunspark wrote:
| The new logo is actually quite good for a property management
| firm.
| irrational wrote:
| Wow. I own a number of Oxford university press books. I always
| really liked the old logo. Very distinguished. The new logo
| really does look stupid.
| cpcallen wrote:
| I am trying to to think of a single rebrand / new logo / new icon
| that I actually liked at the time--that didn't seem to signal a
| degradation in the integrity, quality or trustworthiness of the
| entity represented.
|
| (There are some cases where the new brand has grown on me, to the
| point that I have come to prefer it to the old one. The most
| recent examples I can think of are the 1999 rebrand of Northern
| Electric as Nortel Networks--I do still love that globemark!--and
| the 2015 sans-serif Google logo which has become so ubiquitous as
| to make the previous serif version look weirdly quaint. But I
| liked neither of those at the time they were unveiled.)
|
| Am I just a stick in the mud? Can you point out some rebrands
| that have been so wildly popular that I might begrudgingly admit
| that I actually liked them?
| 323 wrote:
| The Amazon "smile" logo is pretty good.
| cpcallen wrote:
| This is _definitely_ a _brilliant_ rebrand, at least in
| hindsight: I'm not sure I loved it at the time, and seem to
| recall finding the asymmetry and curviness of the arrowhead
| slightly disturbing.
| Nathanael_M wrote:
| Ooh, I'll give it a shot!
|
| Burger King: https://jkrglobal.com/case-studies/burger-king/
| Simple, but fun. Retro, instead of over modern. Better than the
| logo is all the supporting fonts and imagery. Super aesthetic.
|
| InstaCart: https://www.wolffolins.com/case-study/instacart
| Pretty recent, tech company, not a beloved brand at the time of
| rebrand, but wow it's a great rebrand. Way more character, way
| more fun.
|
| Leibniz: https://auge-design.com/work/leibniz-design-relaunch/
| Subtle changes, embraces the character, modernizes the
| packaging, makes a consistent design system. Maybe not what
| you're looking for, but still a cool example of new design done
| well and embraced.
|
| New York State Parks: https://id29.com/our-work/new-york-state-
| parks Clean and happy.
|
| CNET: https://www.wearecollins.com/work/cnet/ Big name, awesome
| rebrand. Tons of character, no one misses the old logo or vibe.
|
| Midi: https://www.pentagram.com/work/midi/story Really
| interesting supporting logos and graphics. Maybe a little too
| heavily minimalist, but man that's a cool idea to have a
| dynamic icon for your logo!
|
| Mojang: https://www.boldscandinavia.com/work/mojang-studios/
| Tons of fun, reflective of blocks and pixels.
|
| DK: https://www.pentagram.com/work/dk Good example of
| modernization without losing character.
|
| These are some bigger names, but honestly the really
| interesting stuff is inside smaller companies who don't have to
| worry so much about legacy. There's some beautiful, character
| filled work out there.
| cpcallen wrote:
| > Burger King
|
| I like this one. Not spotted the new logo in the UK yet, but
| it would definitely make me less determined to avoid the
| company's restaurants.
|
| > InstaCart
|
| I'm not really familiar with this company so I don't really
| have any feelings about the rebrand per se. I do like the new
| logo, which is clever--but after looking up what it used to
| look like I can say I prefer the aesthetics of the original.
|
| > Leibniz
|
| Again a brand I'm not familiar with. Fair point about the
| consistent design system, but again I prefer the original
| logo.
|
| > New York State Parks.
|
| Again not one I'm familiar with, but here I can say I LOVE
| the new logo: who can not love it when an organisation makes
| it so obvious they wish they were Canadian?
|
| > CNET
|
| This one I definitely was familiar with. Hadn't seen the new
| branding. My reaction is "looks weird; those letters make me
| feel uncomfortable".
|
| > Midi
|
| WTF. The new logo is cool in and of itself, but this
| rebranding makes me actively angry:
|
| - The MIDI logo has been used as a symbol to identify
| connectors for decades. Changing it will cause unnecessary
| confusion.
|
| - The important feature of MIDI is that it is _digital_, but
| the new logo is all about _analog_ waveforms.
|
| - It's also stupidly confusing. Literally the first thought
| that passed through my mind when I saw the new logo is "did
| the MIDI organisation get bought by Meta??"
|
| > Mojang
|
| I'll give you this one. The new logo is pretty bad, but the
| original was _awful_.
|
| > DK
|
| I am literally* crying. (* not literally).
|
| > These are some bigger names, but honestly the really
| interesting stuff is inside smaller companies who don't have
| to worry so much about legacy.
|
| I think this raises an important point. Smaller companies
| without much history do not destroy much when they throw
| their old branding away. Bigger, older companies do.
| bombcar wrote:
| The original "Federal Express" logo wasn't bad, but FEDEX rocks
| it hard.
|
| Some of the old LEGO logos aren't great (this may partially be
| from years of consistency, however).
|
| But most of the "best rebrand" articles you find on google are
| just "logo in one font became similar logo in slightly
| different font".
| cpcallen wrote:
| > The original "Federal Express" logo wasn't bad, but FEDEX
| rocks it hard.
|
| I will give you this one, but...
|
| > Some of the old LEGO logos aren't great...
|
| True, but in the context of my original question, I don't
| think it's reasonable for me to have an opinion about
| rebrands that occurred before I became aware of the brand,
| and LEGO has been using the same logo since I got set 20 in
| 1977.
|
| I _do_ vaguely recall the old Federal Express slanty logo,
| but I must admit I don't remember the rebrand _as such_, so
| I'm not sure how much I can count this one. But yes: a good
| example of a definite win as far as rebrands go.
| bombcar wrote:
| I suspect that some sports teams have "rebranded
| successfully", especially given how silly some of the 80s
| baseball uniforms look now.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| My favorite part of the FedEx logo is the arrow.
| taeric wrote:
| I'm trying to think of a rebrand that I truly hated and that
| led to actual decline in something. I... can't.
|
| There are plenty that I confess I don't like. But I would be
| struggling to put any actual significance to a label. The new
| street fighter one, as an example. I agree that it feels off
| that they are ditching the styling that they have used for
| literal decades. That said, I fail to see how that is at all
| important to the success/failure of the game they are building.
|
| The MIT Press had an amusing amount of thought that went into
| their logo. But... I would wager the vast majority of folks
| just don't see it.
|
| Reminds me of that parody pepsi logo document. (At least, I
| think it was a parody?)
| Null-Set wrote:
| As far as I know it was real, but Lemon Demon's take on it is
| some classic parody. https://youtu.be/fu3ETgAvQrw
| cpcallen wrote:
| > I'm trying to think of a rebrand that I truly hated and
| that led to actual decline in something.
|
| I'm not claiming that a bad rebrand spells doom for the
| entity (though I guess there are probably examples of
| that)--only that I can think of few rebrands where the new
| brand _made me more positively disposed towards the entity in
| question_.
|
| And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one; consider this list
| of brand U-turns: https://www.yourprojector.com/rebranding-u-
| turns/
|
| The last one is particularly hilarious, because I attended
| the University of Waterloo in the late 1990s when they
| rebranded from a crest even older than the one shown as
| "original". In fact, that older crest looked just like the
| "final" crest. I'm glad they've finally brought it back; pity
| it took more than a decade to rectify the error.
|
| > Reminds me of that parody pepsi logo document. (At least, I
| think it was a parody?)
|
| No, I'm pretty sure that was actually real. At least if it
| was a parody, even CBS fell for it:
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pepsis-nonsensical-logo-
| redesig...
| taeric wrote:
| Coca Cola is the classic example for this sort of thing.
| However, I feel that something is off on that story. For
| one, the brand has moved on from the "classic" with
| basically no fanfare. Similarly, they have marched on from
| the recipe, again with no fanfare. I remember a case study
| once that showed that they actually did taste test the
| changes and that, at large, the change was the one that was
| liked by more people. However, the narrative got out of
| their control and the perception was that the old way was
| better. So, they cashed in on that and basically used the
| event as a way to re-establish their brand. Very odd story.
|
| Would be interesting to see what the others are like. The
| GAP is an odd one, to me. As they, notably, don't have
| branding on their clothes. At least, not universally? (Do I
| just not see it on the ones I'm checking?)
| nkrisc wrote:
| I actually liked the Windows rebrand with Windows 8. It's
| simpler, cleaner, still recognizable, works as mono or dual
| tone, and actually looks like the namesake of the product.
|
| Most previous versions were complicated messes. Windows 7 was I
| think the best version of the four color version.
| 331c8c71 wrote:
| The transition from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 is the
| greatest leap in the Windows product line for me (including
| design).
|
| I remember seeing the '95 start-up screen and its new UI for
| the first time - I was quite amazed by how much better it
| looked (I was at an impressionable age back then).
| ziml77 wrote:
| The Windows 95 logo always felt unsettling to me. At least
| part of it is because the main part of the logo curves
| downwards in a sad/frowning sort of way.
|
| The Windows XP logo was a massive improvement.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Agreed, but I'm just talking about the logo. The Windows 95
| logo was pretty bad as far as logos are concerned.
| bearmode wrote:
| >Am I just a stick in the mud?
|
| Yes. But it's normal. People who weren't involved in the
| project, or don't know design, very commonly have strong
| negative reactions to a company they know rebranding. I don't
| know why.
|
| Come next year you'll have either completely forgotten about
| this, or have no opinion at all.
| js2 wrote:
| Apple losing the rainbow from its logo?
|
| https://imgur.com/DvKPvYz
| 323 wrote:
| DoctorOW wrote:
| Generally, no. There is a lot of backlash "around pride
| merchandise created and sold by companies that do nothing
| for queer people." [1]
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkwashing_(LGBT)#Corpo
| rate_m...
| js2 wrote:
| Please abide HN guidelines when commenting here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| cpcallen wrote:
| This is the ultimate example of a _terrible_ rebrand, in my
| opinion. I _loved_ the colourful logo, and I think that
| getting rid of it was the ultimate travesty. (At least the
| flat black Apple is better than those terrible shiny ones,
| though.)
|
| I do wonder if I'd have liked it if I'd previously been
| familiar with the original woodcut logo, though.
| an1sotropy wrote:
| (I don't know about wildly popular, but) I remember linking the
| older UPS logo (with the string-tied box on top, designed by
| Paul Rand, who also made the IBM and NeXT logos, and lots
| more), and thought the new logo was sort of dumb, but now I
| appreciate its simplicity.
|
| https://blog.logomyway.com/ups-logo-history/
|
| (interesting to me: the 1937 logo used a san-serif font)
| systemicdanna wrote:
| An unpopular opinion: there are too many other logos that look
| like the original logo. Some amalgamation of Latin words and a
| coat of arms. It's also pretty unattractive visually (weird
| thickness exterior curves, all caps words with hyphens).
|
| First impression of the new logo: boring. Second impression: nice
| play on an open book and capital O, very clean lines, will look
| good in print (perhaps with some light gradient/shading). The new
| typeface reads very well.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| > An unpopular opinion: there are too many other logos that
| look like the original logo. Some amalgamation of Latin words
| and a coat of arms.
|
| The issue is not that it's unpopular. That's the actual
| University of Oxford coat of arms. The thing is 600 years old.
|
| Should it be changed because every institution which wants to
| look somewhat respectable is copying Oxford?
| systemicdanna wrote:
| I love old books (first pressings, especially signed). There
| is a lot of character to them. Holding a century old book is
| a very satisfying experience, you get to own something very
| authentic, a piece of a bygone era.
|
| However, I don't see a problem with people, artists,
| businesses, places updating their individual branding. To me
| it's a sign of a refreshed outlook, a new way to both see
| oneself and to present oneself to others. Clinging to the
| past because it's (a priori) old is not the right motivation.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| The new logo is borderline painfully boring, this trend is
| going to end in there being one logo for everything, and that
| logo will be a single circle. Clean, minimal, elegant, and
| capable of instantly putting anyone who sees it to sleep.
|
| It's pretty amusing that this is on the front page at the same
| time as the below.
|
| https://medium.com/knowable/why-everything-looks-the-same-ba...
| systemicdanna wrote:
| That's were we started: all logos were coats of arms. And
| then all logos were something else. These are design trends.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| That's not true. While there have been fads in the past
| that some logos adhered to, the history of insignia is
| overflowing with what we would today call logos that were
| not coats of arms.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| Every epoch in the insignia design had a distinct style,
| right? Roman military insignia looked like Roman military
| insignia, there wasn't a vast range of styles within that
| use case / time period.
|
| Outside of military use and maybe some rare other state
| uses, there wasn't much insignia, and especially not much
| insignia that you would call a logo by today's
| application.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| Of course there was, especially in Roman times when most
| couldn't read. The gods all had their symbols, as did the
| many vendors. Many cities had emblems they added to
| things like gates, walls, and money, and prominent
| families had seals they would use for official documents
| as well as decoration.
|
| These came in many styles and had a lovely variety which
| sprang from the message the person wanted to send and
| what they thought looked cool.
| onetimeusename wrote:
| a coat of arms is meant to identify someone or something. The
| new logo does not identify anything to me and reminds me of the
| James Bond intro gun barrel sequence.
| gauravjain13 wrote:
| Raytheon is another example.
|
| I think the open book metaphor gets lost in the aggressive
| roundness of the O. When I first looked at it, I thought why
| would they make it look like a turbo fan...? Now in the case of
| Raytheon, a turbofan makes complete sense.
|
| Hindered by this bias, it took me a bit to arrive at the open
| book representation, and was only able to do that because it's
| OUP.
|
| https://www.rtx.com/
| jamessb wrote:
| > An unpopular opinion: there are too many other logos that
| look like the original logo
|
| There are also too many logos that look like the new logo. The
| first blue circle logos that spring to mind are Blue Circle
| Cement/Tarmac/Lafarge [1] and Oxford Nanopore [2].
|
| (The generic sans-serif font is also visually similar to many
| logos)
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmac_(company)
|
| [2]: https://nanoporetech.com/
| systemicdanna wrote:
| I am not saying the new logo is amazingly unique. I am saying
| that the cries about the individuality and character of the
| old logo are overblown. It's a pretty generic coat of arms.
| [deleted]
| kybernetikos wrote:
| I like the stairs feel to the new logo, which I think fits with
| a University Press's mission rather nicely.
| mikkergp wrote:
| I imagine the new logo looks more appropriate on a book about
| computer science or theoretical physics.
| [deleted]
| SergeAx wrote:
| > a brand is a promise of a repeatable experience
|
| Oh, really? I thought the promise of repeatable experience is
| user rating stars nearby, totally controlled by an online
| marketplace, by the way. /s
| themodelplumber wrote:
| It's interesting to see the discussion unfold.
|
| I used to do a lot of logo design, some for the replacement of
| time-honored logos even. Spicy jobs those were, both on pro and
| con sides!
|
| One thing I learned was that new, individual, and fresh
| leadership psychology often brings new logos into being.
| Differentials in psychology can't help but expose new
| perspectives on organizational concepts. And that's what a logo
| is, a conceptual organization pointing to a new or updated
| organizational concept! :-)
|
| Some of those fresh perspectives are normal elsewhere, but have
| been ignored in a given organization for so long that they seem
| prophetic when a leader considers them. And so sometimes even the
| doomed new logos I saw developed were like prophets sent from on
| high. They might not have been well-loved, they might not have
| lasted 5 years, but they meant something, and it was often a big
| something.
|
| In my experience, when the new Director of Whatever deemed that
| the amazing old woodcut logo had to go, it wasn't usually that
| this individual hated history and tradition. It was their
| expression of an obvious need for a new concept.
|
| To the outside world, the need for radical change is not always
| as obvious as it is to even just a small set of insiders, people
| who have developed what you might call "woodcut PTSD," along with
| some damn good ideas for how the org needs to change, and soon.
|
| So, to me--no opinion on the graphical look, since it's often a
| red herring in a bunch of ways. But some big "!" interest in the
| individuals and perspectives behind the scenes, due to the nature
| of the change.
|
| (Also, seeing people redesigning the new logo to much applause is
| kind of a cringe. Again a big risk here is that they are
| unwittingly reconnecting a really unhealthy feedback loop, based
| on assumptions from an outsider's perspective/demand on the
| organization.)
| mturmon wrote:
| Let's follow your hint. The CEO of OUP is trying
| [https://www.thebookseller.com/news/oup-rebrands-it-
| becomes-d...] to effect a transformation to digital
| distribution and digital "tools and resources" which I assume
| means going beyond digital versions of books and journals.
|
| So yeah, the coat-of-arms/bookplate format of the old logo is
| not where he's headed.
|
| Absent from the OP is consideration of the new logo on its own
| terms. I get an O for Oxford, the turning pages, and hint of a
| Mobius strip. It works for me.
|
| On the other hand, the translation of the Latin on the old
| motto is "the Lord is my light," paired with the crowns
| invoking royal fiat. Traditional, yes, but...
|
| Another signal in the new logo may be a declaration of
| independence from the University of Oxford itself, because the
| old logo was just the University's coat of arms.
| logifail wrote:
| > One thing I learned was that new, individual, and fresh
| leadership psychology often brings new logos into being
|
| Could it be that new leaders feel they have to demonstrate
| they're in change, and initiating a logo replacement is
| unfortunately much easier than doing something that is
| genuinely positive for stakeholders and shareholders?
| themodelplumber wrote:
| You mean you think that's the main reason for any given logo
| change, or one of many possible reasons?
|
| While not outside of the realm of possibility, it's actually
| rare to see that kind of thought process play out in practice
| of working with businesses & NPOs on their logos.
|
| Much more common is that there is a base of support for
| change from above, outside, and below.
|
| Maybe related to the fact that "I changed our logo to suit
| myself" isn't broadly seen as a masterstroke in objective
| leadership practice.
| logifail wrote:
| > there is a base of support for change from above,
| outside, and below
|
| I'm sorry, I have no idea what that statement actually
| means.
|
| How do you quantify "a base support for change"? Would you
| ask staff if they'd prefer a pay rise ... or for that money
| to be spent on a new logo? Would you ask customers if
| they're prefer improved products ... or a new logo?
|
| There is a reason I wrote "initiating a logo replacement".
| If a new-in-the-job boss pitches up in a meeting and
| announces "I think our logo is _old_. I think we need a
| new, fresh, relevant, inclusive logo ", then who do you
| suppose is going to tell them they're wrong? The yes-crowd
| of middle managers just nod and agree. And there's your
| logo replacement process started.
|
| No need for data, no need for any actual reasons to do
| something, just someone new in the neighbourhood marking
| their patch, like a dog at a lamppost.
| s1mon wrote:
| Sometimes it's just some new big dog pissing on a tree.
|
| [I worked at Pentagram for a while, though not on branding. I
| have seen plenty of vanity projects from big CEOs.]
| Nathanael_M wrote:
| You worked at Pentagram! That was kind of my dream employer
| for a few years. I'd be super interested to know your role if
| you can talk about it.
| [deleted]
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| The Louvre's logo is my favorite: a cleverly disguised
| Pythagorean Tetractys.
| virtualritz wrote:
| The curious but unsurprising[1] bit is that the typography, too,
| was replaced with a mundane and unrecognizable typeface.
|
| [1] https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-
| their-...
|
| Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32040506
| pcurve wrote:
| As far as rebrand is concerned, this one is actually good.
|
| The new icon is clever. I think they could've kept the serif
| font. The new type isn't doing it for me.
|
| The Met museum logo is brilliant. I've been going to that museum
| for 30 years, so there was emotional attachment to the old one. I
| like them both.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| While I don't think it's as big of a crime as this article
| makes it out to be (and I personally prefer the look of sans-
| serif fonts), I still don't see what's "clever" about the logo
| - it seems like a generic O with an unpleasant proportion of
| full vs striped portions. The striped portion can be take to
| look sort of like the pages of a book being flipped, but only
| if you know the context - otherwise the first thought would be
| tire marks or perhaps a keyboard.
| pcurve wrote:
| "The striped portion can be take to look sort of like the
| pages of a book being flipped, but only if you know the
| context - otherwise the first thought would be tire marks or
| perhaps a keyboard."
|
| I could be reading into the logo, but I think it's clever
| because the logo could be interpreted many different ways:
|
| 1. "O" for Oxford. 2. The striped portion is paper flipping,
| as you pointed out. 3. The round O evokes old mechanical
| paper press / publishing machine, machines, so it has
| connection to the word "Press" in the Oxford University
| Press. The stripes also create movement / motion.
| low_tech_punk wrote:
| Was James Bond involved?
| shove wrote:
| There's some fine (not great, just ... acceptable) ideas in the
| new logo, but it's pretty sloppy for an institution of this
| stature. A few things I could point to that are probably
| subjective, but objectively the kerning desperately needs
| attention.
| CharlesW wrote:
| The kerning doesn't look terrible to me. The exception that
| stands out is the whitespace between the OX and XF pairs, which
| is optically a bit unbalanced.
| karencarits wrote:
| As the saying goes: If you marry the spirit of your generation,
| you will be a widower in the next
| Krisjohn wrote:
| If they want to appear modern and inclusive, why does it look
| like the inside of a gun barrel from the opening sequence of a
| Bond film?
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I have no stake in this race but I think it looks pretty good
| bearmode wrote:
| I always love reading the angry rants from people who get angry
| about any change in an organisation's branding. Every single
| time. Absolutely _every_ time there 's a logo change, you can see
| the hoard of pointless blog posts coming over the hill.
|
| And they _always_ fail to understand what actually happens in
| design, what it 's actually _for_.
| wnoise wrote:
| Well, why don't you explain what actually happens in design,
| and what it's actually for?
| Cupertino95014 wrote:
| A logo change, like mergers, divestments, and reorgs, are one of
| the few things where the C-suite can feel important. It gives
| them something to do, issue a press release about, and give
| interviews to the BBC.
|
| Unlike those other things, it's hard to _prove_ it was a mistake.
| Maybe over time, sales fall off and prestigious authors migrate
| to other publishers, but if you approved the new logo, you can
| find a hundred other things to blame for that.
| ape4 wrote:
| They should have simplified the old logo - for continuity.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| Ooh, ooh. I have one to share! The infamous "Case" Fat Man With a
| Surfboard logo:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Western_Reserve_Universit...
|
| Is it as bad as the Met's new logo? Probably not. Is it pretty
| objectionable, and universally maligned? Yeah, definitely.
|
| Anybody else got one to share for our shared schadenfreude?
| finnh wrote:
| Serious Pie, in Seattle:
|
| https://www.seriouspieseattle.com/
|
| scroll down until you see the man with his penis on fire. It's
| on all their signs.
| peatmoss wrote:
| Wow, I can't unsee this now. I guess I can thank you for some
| regular humor in my life as I go walking now.
| toast0 wrote:
| > scroll down until you see the man with his penis on fire.
| It's on all their signs.
|
| Why does he also have no arms?
| systemicdanna wrote:
| I don't even understand what was supposed to be the intended
| interpretation. A man holding a tiny pizza on fire?
| Beltalowda wrote:
| Having your penis on fire seems like some pretty serious pie,
| so seems appropriate.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Fat Man With a Surfboard logo:
|
| Yeah, this new OUP logo looks great for a surf school too.
| Definitely a wave in the circle.
| 13415 wrote:
| Academic logos are often awful. Take Roskilde University's
| logo, for instance:
|
| https://euclidnetwork.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/roskilde...
|
| I used to call it "brain sponge" when I was a PhD student
| there. (I liked that university a lot, don't get me wrong, just
| talking about the logo).
| lelandfe wrote:
| > Fat Man With a Surfboard
|
| Wow, this took me a second but now it's the only thing I can
| see.
|
| The 2020 MLB spring training hat logos were universally hated,
| but the Padres had a notably bad one:
| https://www.crossingbroad.com/2020/02/padres-changing-spring...
| artificial wrote:
| It's a good luck charm.
| tzs wrote:
| Some therapists moved into an office in the same building my
| employer was in, and they had this logo on their sign [1].
|
| I think it is supposed to represent two arms grasping each
| other, but that wasn't the first thing that came to mind when I
| saw it.
|
| [1] https://imgur.com/a/kXl5S36
| jdlyga wrote:
| None of the new logos on this page are necessarily bad.
| tonmoy wrote:
| The whole article feels like profanity filled, nostalgia driven
| passionate drivel void of any actual analysis. As someone who was
| not familiar with either of the logos before today, I don't think
| the new one is "shite" compared to the old one
| Nathanael_M wrote:
| I think there are valid points against it to make. Interest,
| uniqueness, memorability all suffer with this new logo. They're
| throwing away an established brand with a lot of associations
| for people, but obviously they considered that and deemed it
| worth it. I think one of the worst things about is that it's
| already aesthetically dated, and, because it has nothing really
| unique or interesting or stylistic about it, it won't age well.
|
| But it's not worth a crusade over. I find it interesting how
| emotionally attached people (myself included) are to brands,
| sometimes. A bad rebrand (or even a clever, but sufficiently
| different rebrand) can feel a bit like cutting down a big old
| tree in your yard. Why are you getting rid of something so old
| and beautiful? There are some good reasons, but it still hurts.
| Dig1t wrote:
| >signal commitments to (1) digital transformation and (2)
| diversity & inclusion
|
| Just another victim of the ongoing cultural revolution we are
| living through.
| uni_rule wrote:
| What of those platitudes makes you feel victimized?
| Dig1t wrote:
| I do not personally feel victimized, the shitty logo is the
| victim.
|
| The point is that a redesign wasn't necessary, it was a good
| logo with a long and interesting history. But it was redone
| to signal that they are falling in line with the prevailing
| ideology of the day.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| My guess is that there are many reasons to redesign a logo
| like that. It looks:
|
| 1. Elitist (who speaks Latin?)
|
| 2. Forgettable (show this logo to a student from India and
| then ask to pick it out of 10 similar coats of arms)
|
| 3. Ugly (subjective, but... thick curves everywhere, all
| caps words with hyphens, 3 crowns?..)
|
| 4. Hard to adapt to new global use cases (too detailed to
| make small, too confusing internationally)
|
| 5. many more reasons...
| kesava wrote:
| Another example of "everything looks the same".
| flenserboy wrote:
| Yet another example of designers not being happy until they've
| rooted out the work of other designers.
| kabdib wrote:
| I remember when SGI (Silicon Graphics) paid a bunch of money to
| rebrand to . . . drumroll . . . SGI!
|
| The consultants must have been high-fiving each other after that
| one landed, it's like trading in your car only to find that the
| saleswoman has sold you your own car back, at a profit.
|
| (SGI later collapsed due to "Corporate Campus Syndrome", and
| other companies, including Google, now occupy the wacky buildings
| they spent even more money on. It's kind of like a higher order
| of hermit crab).
| blowski wrote:
| A university in the UK (Portsmouth?) hired an expensive
| creative agency to come up with a new name. They whittled it
| down to three options:
|
| * University of Portsmouth
|
| * The University of Portsmouth
|
| * Portsmouth University
| Paianni wrote:
| Would that have been in the early 90s when it was a
| polytechnic?
| blowski wrote:
| Yes, I can't remember if it was actually Portsmouth or one
| of the other polytechnics.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Middlesex Poly went through a similar, expensive process
| before becoming Middlesex University
| willcipriano wrote:
| The reason I'm not allowed in polite circles is after they
| present those 3 options, I'd laugh, compliment the great joke
| and ask them when the real presentation was going to begin.
| kuschkufan wrote:
| Yeah, so a couple years back the "Technische Universitat
| Berlin" rebranded to "Berlin Universitat der Technologie" or
| Berlin University of Technology. Because they thought that
| would be more similar to e.g. MIT and the like. Of course the
| abbreviation then would be BUT... Thankfully it did not stick
| and they are back to Technical University of Berlin.
| 2143 wrote:
| > Because they thought that would be more similar to e.g.
| MIT
|
| Why would a superficial similarly to "MIT" be any be
| useful?
|
| Any potential student should be able to look past that.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| In 2006, the University of Karlsruhe rebranded (for the
| same reason) to Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT),
| aping MIT.
| crtasm wrote:
| I guess it got reverted pretty quick, the only search
| result for "Berlin Universitat der Technologie" is your
| post here.
| kuschkufan wrote:
| See https://www.pressestelle.tu-
| berlin.de/newsportal/internation...
|
| Guess it was for English only
| crtasm wrote:
| ah, and that explains why I didn't find it looking for
| the English either. It was "Berlin Institute of
| Technology"
| torstenvl wrote:
| Is "pee ew" a slang interjection indicating that something
| stinks in British English like it is in American English?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Always got to watch those acronyms. Reminds me of back in
| the day when Oregon State started advertising its website
| on billboards. www.orst.edu. [1] Nobody in their marketing
| department managed to see that before the rest of the world
| quickly started making fun of it. They quickly rebranded to
| www.oregonstate.edu.
|
| [1] Yes, that's not -exactly- an acronym
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Orst for Oregon State is technically an acronym:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym
|
| It's not an initialism, like IBM, but it is an acronym,
| like Benelux.
| Eduard wrote:
| Corporate Campus Syndrome?
| virtualritz wrote:
| Usually a logo/rebrand change keeps the name. So no real
| suprise.
|
| That said, SGI had an iconic logo of a cube formed from a
| single periodic pipe before. I was using SGIs daily at the time
| and I almost cried when they did the rebrand.
|
| The rebrand replaced it with a contemporary (at the time, mind
| you) typography logo that would look outdated if the compamy
| still existed.
|
| To their credit, the rebrand did include a typeface design for
| use with all their design, i.e. detached from the logo.
|
| The resp. fonts would have the aforementioned issues though --
| one variant was used for the logo which is kinda cheap.
|
| But at least they had a tyepface designed and it was
| recognizable. That rarely happens. Commonly a rebrand will just
| swap the old typeface for something different but already
| existing.
| Someone wrote:
| > That said, SGI had an iconic logo of a cube formed from a
| single periodic pipe before.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Graphics#/media/File%3.
| ..
|
| Rebranded in 1999, according to Wikipedia. I would think the
| old logo looked really bad on the web at the time, with
| monitors being 640 x 480 at 256 colors, if you were lucky. It
| also would have been expensive to reproduce well on
| letterhead, and I wouldn't dare think of how that looked on
| photocopies (often monochrome at the time)
|
| Now, could they have stylized/simplified the old logo and
| keep it nice? I wouldn't know.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Rebranded in 1999, according to Wikipedia. I would think
| the old logo looked really bad on the web at the time, with
| monitors being 640 x 480 at 256 colors, if you were lucky.
|
| Now this is just silly. By 1999 most web users had at least
| True Color displays at SVGA if not XGA. While VGA
| resolutions with 256 colors were a design consideration
| those users were not the norm.
|
| With that said, the old SGI looked just fine even at 256
| colors. The shape was distinctive and it was all grayscale
| so 256 color palettes had all the colors needed for the
| logo with little noticeable dithering. There were even good
| 1-bit versions that were very distinctive.
| jonathanyc wrote:
| TIL Google occupies SGI's former headquarters. A college
| professor mentioned working for SGI, so I knew they existed and
| had importance, but I didn't realize their business had
| collapsed.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| The workstation market got undercut by the improving
| performance of intel PCs with accelerators from companies
| like 3D Labs. There's plenty you could criticize SGI
| management for, but all the unix workstation vendors ended up
| getting pushed out by that in the end. SGI continued on for a
| bit selling supercomputers, as they had some multiprocessor
| interconnect technology that was good for its time. But that
| got spun out as SGI died, and is now the Cray division of HP.
|
| It's sad what happened to them, as in their prime they really
| were a category of their own.
| kabdib wrote:
| SGI had some seriously cool tech that they could charge a
| premium for, then $300 3D graphics cards for PCs came out
| and ate their lunch (around the time that Windows NT was
| basically destroying the Unix workstation market).
|
| I remember sneaking over to their cafeteria, from the
| Landings office park across the street (where I did stints
| at some startups). They didn't bother to check badges. I
| met up with a bunch of old cow-orkers from Apple and just
| kind of hemmed and hawed when they asked what group I was
| in. :-)
|
| But the lessons are clear: Watch your competitors
| carefully, and don't build a stupid corporate campus
| because the gods simply _hate_ that kind of hubris.
| LanceH wrote:
| They were one of the contenders in the early days of the web
| as everyone was trying to get bigger web servers, rather than
| numerous commodity web servers that we have today.
|
| They built single big machines and gave away the best swag.
| The leather jacket, in particular, was coveted.
| arketyp wrote:
| Going all secular feels a bit passe, but granted that move, and
| the move of renewal, the Mobius strip hits the marks.
| nbzso wrote:
| There is no logic in the madness.
| andybak wrote:
| First reaction upon seeing it - I quite like it.
|
| I haven't considered context or reputation or brand continuity -
| but the article seems to be claiming it's _intrinsically_ bad and
| that feels like hyperbole.
| elijaht wrote:
| I found the Met's rebrand interesting to consider.
|
| I am on the younger side/moved to New York recently. Without
| knowing the history of the Met logo I have always found the (new)
| logo fairly iconic- the stickers visitors wear, and the various
| paraphernalia with the logo look _good_ to me. I find it clean
| and sharp. I think I actually prefer it to the old logo (which I
| do not remember seeing before today)
| dfxm12 wrote:
| People fear change and cling to nostalgia. That's part of it.
| Another thing is people identify themselves with brands, so
| when the brand changes, it's like a part of them changes,
| _without their input or consent_ (!!). That you 've never known
| the old logo frees you from these constraints.
|
| I try not to care about corporate logos too much, but I have to
| say I was little betrayed when my football team changed their
| typeface from a unique font to a more generic one, because I
| feel that represents me and my city (even moreso than my city's
| local museum, whose new logo I don't prefer, but I don't let it
| get to me).
| zksmk wrote:
| I like the old logo more. It looks less commercial, more old-
| fashioned, and less sleek, which I think is a good thing for a
| museum.
| tonmoy wrote:
| As someone who never saw the old or the new logo before today,
| the old logo looks ugly and forgettable to me. If you gave me
| $1000 a week from now, I don't think I can recall what
| organization that logo belongs to
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| It reminds me of that Structure clothing store that was in
| malls in the 90s.
| fingerlocks wrote:
| Still around, just rebranded as Express for Men
| jurip wrote:
| I cringe every time I see the second E. That weirdly mangled
| serif just rubs me the wrong way.
|
| The old logo was honestly a bit messy, too, though.
| thih9 wrote:
| Anecdotally, I don't mind the Es, I like some sort of organic
| flow in them.
|
| Lower serifs on the Ts though, those I dislike very much.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Yeah, big picture design trends aside, the new Met logo is
| substantially more beautiful than the previous one. The old one
| is frankly clipart-y.
| elliottkember wrote:
| I like it because it adapted its image to its nickname. "The
| Metropolitan Museum of Art" is the museum's full name -
| embracing "The Met" formally is a nice, humanizing touch.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| "The Met" is also the opera. "The Mets" is a sports team.
|
| It's pretty confusing.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| It confuses me. There's also the Metropolitan Opera, the
| Metropolitan Club, the Metropolitan Life Insurance company
| and probably a dozen more. At least the baseball team, the NY
| Mets, is plural.
| OJFord wrote:
| Ask any British person what 'The Met' is and they'll say
| 'London police' (or similar).
|
| I _doubt_ an American museum could ever change that,
| embracing something so generic is limiting for identity &
| brand awareness IMO.
| signatoremo wrote:
| London has the Underground. Something that sounds generic
| actually is well known to the locals and is part of the
| culture, the identity, the attraction of a place. Same
| story here.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Everyone calls it the tube there but still.
| sangnoir wrote:
| As a non-local, when I hear "tube" I think toothpaste,
| swimming and repairing tire punctures. Mass transit may
| not even be in my top 5 - and that's fine.
|
| Human language ambiguity and locals have their
| shibboleths - we don't have to optimize for tourists.
| collegeburner wrote:
| Ask anyone outside of Britain what "The Met" is and you'll
| hear about the museum.
|
| I don't think one very small country should be the primary
| blocker to their branding decisions.
| jimjimjim wrote:
| I'm outside of Britain and I've never heard of the
| museum. never.
| OJFord wrote:
| I didn't mean it like 'think of the British', I meant
| 'think of yourself' - you want a strong brand identity
| right, that's the whole point of this kind of exercise I
| assume, and you have a much better shot at that with
| something unique/specific/weird.
|
| Nobody outside of the UK is thinking about police
| foremost when they here 'met', (unless there's similarly
| named constabularies elsewhere perhaps, wouldn't surprise
| me if someone piped up from HK/India/Australia to say
| their city's police is also 'the met' for example) but
| that doesn't matter to that met.
|
| Say there's some artist called so-and-so Park, you'd be
| ill-advised to start a gallery called 'The Park', it's
| not at all unique, it's poorly googleable, it's unlikely
| to ever be the first thing that comes to mind when
| someone hears the name.
|
| Another example: I think OnePlus (or is it OnePlusOne? I
| honestly don't even know) - the phone company - is held
| back by its poor choice of name. I'm not denying its
| success, I just think it's despite the name, that it
| could be a lot bigger, have a much stronger brand.
| wl wrote:
| American here. My first thought is the opera. And I've
| traveled to NYC _just_ to visit the museum.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| Spent most of my life in NYC, and if you say "The Met" in
| to someone in the city 99/100 people will assume you mean
| the museum.
| pacaro wrote:
| Curious as to what your definition of _very small_ is.
| The UK is above median land area for a country, #21 for
| population, #6 for gdp, it 's principal island is the 9th
| largest.
|
| I mean, yes, the UK is not the same scale as the USA,
| China, India etc, but I'd put to you that it is not so
| very small
| munificent wrote:
| England has about 2% of the area of the US, so from a US
| perspective, it's quite small.
| OJFord wrote:
| Double the population of Canada though.
|
| I agree we're small, much smaller than the USA by any
| metric, but surely we're talking about population rather
| than land mass here.
| johnaspden wrote:
| I imagine you'd hear more about the Opera. But then I am
| British.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Even in Britain, the context will clear it up straight
| away. Humans are, theoretically at least, very good at
| dealing with ambiguity. I'm hard pressed to think of a
| conversation where context clues wouldn't either make it
| abundantly clear, or prompt further questions about,
| which "Met" one is talking about, between a world famous
| art gallery and the police head quarters probably more
| famously known by another name.
|
| Would this conversation ever happen?
|
| _I 'm going on holiday to New York City. I'm going to
| the Met to check out their impressionist paintings._
|
| _Oh, they turned Scotland Yard into an art gallery now?_
| FredPret wrote:
| As a tourist, I prefer the full name. I never knew what "the
| Met" was until know. It clearly stands for Metropolitan. But
| Metropolitan what? Police? Works? The full name is much more
| accessible and less intimidating.
| pastor_bob wrote:
| It's interesting because there also are The Mets. So you
| have the Met and the Mets, but nobody familiar with both
| would ever think of the other when hearing either.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Sounds like a local nickname for a train line to me.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Oh good, now they're easily visually distinguished from Raytheon
| [1], Frost Bank [2], and the other turbofan logo companies.
|
| [1] https://www.rtx.com/
|
| [2] https://www.frostbank.com/
| Eduard wrote:
| A further entry in the turbofan logo category:
| https://www.hertie.de/
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| I had completely forgotten about that logo. Shows how old the
| turbofan motif is really.
|
| https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertie_Waren-
| _und_Kaufhaus#/me...
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| Imagine complaining about the design while having a fucking
| jittery user-hostile popover spam wall fading out and covering
| your content.
|
| Also the logo is completely fine, as is the example of the Met.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| > "Try to be brutally honest with yourself: is the goal actual
| innovation? Or is really to appear innovative?" I have asked
| these questions of many senior executives now, assuring them I am
| not being glib
|
| This type of reaction eats itself. If you're a person who
| prioritizes "actual innovation," why are you spending so much
| time complaining about a fucking logo redesign?
|
| > explaining that these objectives are often in fundamental
| opposition to one another.
|
| No, they're not. Is Apple innovative? Is Google? Both examples of
| companies who have demonstrated tremendous amount of investment
| in design updates over the years. Heck, they even created custom
| fonts for their blog posts.
|
| I totally understand and appreciate design critiques. Aesthetic
| opinions are valuable in and of themselves. I even happen to
| agree with the author that the new Oxford Press logo is worse
| than their old one. But I have to jump off the wagon when this
| sort of exaggeration shows up.
| jayant_kaushik wrote:
| The new logo reminds me of the Anaconda logo
| (https://anaconda.org/). The old logo was so much better, it
| displayed historical significance of the institution, it's
| legacy, and the basic fact that it is related to education. The
| font had its own charm too. There was absolutely no need to
| change it. Wasteful expenditure of donations money.
| kazinator wrote:
| It looks like something for a telco.
|
| Someone peeled the skin off a 3D model of the AT&T death star,
| and origamied it into a coffin wreath.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| "That iconic beauty and excellence was the province of rich white
| dudes--and can only be expanded by lowering our standards."
|
| That's egalitarianism for you.
| etempleton wrote:
| I feel like we are going to look back at logos from this time
| period and wonder what was going on and why everyone ceased to
| enjoy nice things.
|
| I understand why graphic design has taken this direction.
| Everything needs to be able to scale to the tiniest little
| profile icon on websites, but it doesn't make it much better.
|
| I also think a lot more graphic designers these days lack a more
| traditional art background and so you don't see the same amount
| of artistic flourishes.
| blackhaz wrote:
| Add Royal Astronomical Society logo redesign to the collection:
| https://www.creativebloq.com/news/royal-astronomical-society...
|
| Because every damn hipster with a custom mechanical keyboard
| who can install Photoshop on his Mac is now suddenly a
| Designer. This is beyond appalling. These people must be beaten
| very hard with metal poles.
| chrstphrknwtn wrote:
| The Royal Astronomical Society seems like a pretty good
| example of the opposite.
|
| The old logo was, well old, very forgettable and not
| particularly well constructed in the first place.
|
| The new logo presents the society as a modern scientific
| institution, and the logo itself is executed well. And the
| animation actually works, a rare example where logo animation
| is not gratuitous.
| layer8 wrote:
| The new logo looks like an anime-typical eye with
| reflecting highlight.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| That RAS logo is beautiful, stylish, intricate, and quite
| recognizable - especially with its clever use of telescopes
| as rays and of the empty spaces to remind one of celestial
| bodies. I have no idea why you think it's comparable to the
| simplistic unintelligible symbolism of the new OUP one.
| chengiz wrote:
| It looks like a bunch of screwdrivers arranged in a circle
| with a random black spot for no reason. Terrible logo. As
| bad, if not worse, than OUPs. Beaten with metal poles is
| correct.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| Ahem, we don't "beat" our designers with metal poles anymore
| due to climate change.
|
| We only use artisanal free-range wooden spatulas to deliver
| "corrective encouragement" in a carbon-free manner.
| [deleted]
| sega_sai wrote:
| I don't like it as it seems to remind me of the James Bond intro.
| But it seems most (or at least a large fraction) of people don't
| really like rebrands. So it probably doesn't really matter
| (unless unreasonable amount of money was spent on rebranding).
| civilized wrote:
| Even then it still doesn't matter. Anyone who spends an
| unreasonable amount of money on rebranding probably has a far
| more unreasonable amount of money remaining afterwards.
| Ma8ee wrote:
| My interpreter is that they lack any good ideas for real
| change.
| sega_sai wrote:
| In this case I kinda care if too much money was spent on
| rebranding, because OUP publishes science books and journals,
| so I don't really want pay extra of page charges for that...
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| I don't particularly like the new logo, but nor do I particularly
| rate the old one.
|
| Brands update every so often, I'm not sure we need to take every
| bit of waffle they generate as part of the PR push seriously.
| WoahNoun wrote:
| It looks like a mobius strip. Not sure if that is intentional. I
| don't hate it.
| tfsh wrote:
| I profoundly dislike the new logo as it erodes an ever
| diminishing bygone-era of graphic design.
|
| Traditional cyphers, monograms and other iconography are time-
| bound to the pre-20th century (n < 1901). In recent years I've
| noticed an acute shift to brutalism, minimalism and a loss of
| individuality in all facets of life. One needs to look no further
| than something as mundane as bollards, forgive me for my tangent
| but consider these two examples, one from the 19th century [1]
| and another from the 20th [2]. Granted this is not a scientific
| or thorough analysis, it is surely riddled with bias, but there
| is an unmistable trend towards not just forgetting, but
| neglecting our history of design and ornamentation.
|
| Not everything needs to be redesigned, not everything needs a
| modern sans-serif font. Oxford University is the worlds foremost
| academic institute; founded in 1096; the Press founded in 1586!
| The previous logo represented this ancient authority and acts as
| a vessel to a far-away land in this present day.
|
| This type of craftsmanship can not be created anew for they are
| not of this time, the juxtaposition of such symbolism paired with
| a modern institute would be nothing less of disingenuous.
| Therefore we must - for the good of history - preserve these
| works.
|
| 1:
| https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2022/06/i875/guard_post...
| 2: https://kentstainless1.b-cdn.net/wp-
| content/uploads/2020/09/...
| pvg wrote:
| _In recent years I 've noticed an acute shift to brutalism,
| minimalism and a loss of individuality in all facets of life._
|
| Is there really evidence of this? Those stylistic developments
| are 100+ old and have been part of everyday life for much of
| the last century. There's definitely been a much more recent
| uptick of commentary that's uncomfortably (and occasionally
| deliberately) close to some classic complaints about
| 'degenerate art'.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| Perceived loss of individuality is frequently just an outcome
| of a design epoch change. Most logos that we thought were
| unique and had lots of individuality came from an era when that
| particular graphic design style was en vogue. Then later the
| logos were updated to better follow new trends (a vary fair
| desire for a business). Yes, Art Nouveau logos were pretty but
| the vast majority of logos in that era were designed in that
| style (so not some amazing level of individuality). Same with
| the sci-fi logos in the 80s (which I still think were ugly).
| Same with any other trend. Not really a question of
| individuality.
|
| > Not everything needs to be redesigned, not everything needs a
| modern sans-serif font.
|
| If the new typeface reads better then why not use it? If the
| new logo fits a wider variety of placements or prompts a better
| response from this generation then why not use it?
| austinthetaco wrote:
| You seem to be discussing individuality in style choice,
| while totally ignoring capacity for individuality within the
| style that is en vogue. Brutalist/minimalist logos with
| modern san serif fonts don't leave much room to explore for
| individuality. Meanwhile art nouveau or 80s sci-fi for
| example had a LOT of overhead for flexing individuality.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| I agree with this argument to a degree. However, we are not
| comparing coats of arms, or Art Nouveau logos. We are
| clinging to this particular coat of arms, saying that it
| has much more individuality than the updated logo. Of
| course it does: the level of detail is different, it feels
| old and pompous. It has crowns. Three of them. It has Latin
| words. In all caps. Lots of character. Though probably
| looked completely generic when it was introduced in the
| 16-th century.
|
| We overestimate the individuality and even the capacity for
| individuality of old things. Yes, anyone could add
| different squiggles and different Latin words -- but I
| doubt this is what you mean by "capacity for individuality
| within the style".
|
| Modern logos are very minimalist, which I agree leaves less
| space for expressive individuality (basically by
| definition). But great modern logos are still possible, and
| they still often convey a deeper, more individual meaning.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| For a positive example of a modernist logo that is
| distinctive and characterful (that someone down thread
| was showing as another example of a generic logo, so
| YMMV), the Royal Astronomical Society has a quite
| beautiful one [0].
|
| [0] https://www.creativebloq.com/news/royal-astronomical-
| society...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Hard, hard disagree. This good article has been discussed
| before on HN: https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-
| change-their-...
|
| It's not just a "perceived" loss of individuality. The new
| logos discussed in that linked article, _especially_ the
| fashion ones, suck in my opinion because they 're boring and
| they all look the same. They at least used to have some good
| degree of variability.
| ghaff wrote:
| Design is of course a fashion business like most things.
|
| That said, a lot of traditional logos had a huge amount of
| fine detail that doesn't work well on mobile. While not the
| only factor, it's at least one motivator for a lot of the
| rebranding/logo redesigns that you're seeing.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| Hm, the first example - Revolut. The fact that the author
| thinks the original logo was recognizable or had any
| character is very questionable.
|
| Revolut was founded in 2015, the time when a huge number of
| startups (including my own) had blue logos with a light
| gradient. This is such a cliche logo that it's almost
| laughable to even take seriously. Do you not remember 2015
| and the wave of blue tech logos?
| Retric wrote:
| The point isn't that the old logo was good, they include
| a similar AirBnb one on that list, the point is pure
| black is even less distinctive.
|
| The new logo is objectively less distinctive as a shorter
| sentence can completely describe it.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| Less distinctive than what? The original logo was a trend
| with thousands of logos looking like generic versions of
| each other. Was Revolut's logo distinctive back then? No.
| Then years later many logos followed a new trend and
| became another flavor of "not distinctive". I am not
| saying that old or new logo is better: they are all
| pretty generic. Always have been. We only recognize them
| as having character when we look at past iterations
| because we are so used to the current ones. Saying that,
| in my view the old logo was really ugly. The new one is
| just really generic.
| Retric wrote:
| Both logos include the same word in a uniform font which
| cancels out in the comparison.
|
| However, there are objectively millions of ways to setup
| a blue color gradient around white letters that all look
| the same. There is exactly one way to have a pure black
| font.
|
| Therefore the second logo is _objectively_ less
| distinctive.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| There is no objective way to evaluate this. It's always
| in relation to something else. If we take 1000 blue logos
| (with different gradients and letter arrangement) and
| compare them to this single black logo: the black logo
| will be _objectively_ more distinctive.
| Retric wrote:
| There is nothing objective in picking some _specific_
| subset of logos for comparison vs all possible logos
|
| You created a _subjective_ measurement.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| Variation does not equal distinction. You can have
| millions of gradients around white letters which will not
| be perceived by anyone as distinctive. On the other hand
| you can have black letters arranged in a million ways
| that will look distinctive. It's all a subjective
| selection.
|
| There is an infinite number of ways to design a black
| logo. There is an infinite number of ways to design a
| blue logo. So which infinity has more distinctive logos?
| Retric wrote:
| Not all infinites of the same size, but that's irrelevant
| as there are only a finite number of perceivably distinct
| logos.
|
| Anyway, as you can map all black to a single color of
| blue, but there are many different possible unique colors
| of blue. Therefore the number of black logos is smaller
| than the number of blue logos. The fact you can then
| expand that number but choosing a unique gradient further
| increases the number of distinct options.
| jfengel wrote:
| Minimalism is also a tradition in logos. A logo needs to serve
| many purposes, one of which is being recognizable even under
| poor visibility. Many national flags are the height of minimal
| design, because one key goal for them was to be seen in battle
| so you knew where your side was.
|
| Modern technology has different reasons for a similar purpose.
| Resolution may be poor because of your screen or network rather
| than battle smoke, but the idea is similar.
|
| The OUP logo isn't a battle flag, and could afford more detail
| than this logo. But OUP is a living entity. Its history is
| important, but so are its ongoing contributions. They don't
| want people looking at their books and thinking, "This logo is
| very old-fashioned; maybe the book is also out of date."
|
| Were it me, I'd have at least hinted at its prior logo. To me,
| the problem with the new one isn't its minimalism, but its lack
| of personality. You don't need a lot to have personality; the
| Twitter logo is very much theirs. Even the Facebook "f" logo,
| dull as it is, at least has a letter linking to them. (A circle
| isn't an O; it might even have worked better if it were an O
| with the same theme.)
| systemvoltage wrote:
| While your points are technically valid, there is a balance
| that needs to be struct without losing its core value and
| purpose. I think this is the cliche explanation for making
| logos that do not serve their core purpose: To differentiate
| and iconify an identity.
|
| I am kind of in GP's camp, design culture has gone to shit in
| last 20 years. It's not even Brutalism/Minimalism in the true
| sense of the word, those movements were post-modern starting
| from 1950's triggered by the zeitgeist of Bauhause in 1930's.
| What you're seeing today is deep lack of understanding and
| following each other like a mad mob. It is to nullify
| identity, doing exactly what it is not intended to.
|
| Hell, even macOS and Windows look similar today. They're
| converging on a singular global monoculture.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Flag design _can_ be too minimalistic.
|
| Indonesia is Poland distressed (and vice versa).
|
| (See: <https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-a-Union-Jack-Has-Been-
| Hung-U...> for general concept.)
|
| There are near-identical flags as well, including Chad and
| Romania, Indonesia (again) and Morocco, New Zealand and
| Australia, Ireland and Cote d'Ivoire, Luxembourg and the
| Netherlands, Senegal and Mali, and clusters such as the
| Nordics (blue/red cross/field), Latin America (yellow, blue,
| red), and Slavic states (white, blue, and red).
|
| <https://www.britannica.com/list/flags-that-look-alike>
|
| There's the challenge between _readily identified_ and
| _readily distinguished_.
| murphyslab wrote:
| My undergrad university went with too much minimalism. It
| replaced an stylized crest (anachronistic for a university
| founded in 1965) with a "red brick". Note that The Concrete
| University has no bricks to which this might be a
| reference:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fraser_University
| [deleted]
| EGreg wrote:
| Well, you can thank Jony Ive for taking over the UI as well as
| the hardware, and rebranding the entire iOS experience in his
| minimalistic image.
|
| Looks like a bunch of people went to do the same thing in OUP.
| They probably launched a campaign labeling the thing on the
| left "skeumorphism" or its equivalent.
|
| I remember when Apple's interfaces were iconic and user
| friendly. Then in iOS 7 I couldn't figure out where the chrome
| ended and the webpage/document began anymore. The search bar in
| Google Chrome on iOS was literally a blank white space. I had
| to tap there to discover search.
|
| Apple... known the world over as a UX leader for its UX
| guidelines since 1980s ... became a follower ... of Microsoft's
| new mobile interface. Which was later totally discontinued by
| Microsoft. Well, at least Wozniak liked it.
|
| https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=234
| pannSun wrote:
| Is it really 'neglect', when ornamentation is deliberately
| attacked and avoided [1,2]? When _this_ [3] is what modern
| architecture thinks a church should look like? They 'll give
| excuses that it's due to cost cutting, then build things like
| [4] when funding isn't an issue.
|
| Not that we should be surprised by lies - all war is waged by
| deception.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime
|
| [2] https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/ornament-is-
| crime...
|
| [3]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Memorial_Church...
| - _The initial design included the demolition of the spire of
| the old church but following pressure from the public, it was
| decided to incorporate it into the new design._
|
| [4] https://www.format.com/magazine/galleries/design/best-
| contem...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4 look
| breathtaking. They inspire a sense of awe and wonder in me -
| they don't look real or plausible in some way, but yet there
| they are, in the large. Having lots of ornamentation would
| very much detract from the un-real-ness of the surfaces.
|
| The church from 3 really does look atrocious though - though
| even there, the interior where you are surrounded by stained
| glass seems like it would be quite impressive to experience
| directly.
|
| Note that I also think other styles of monumental buildings
| are breathtaking. I was recently in Florence and could barely
| take my eyes off of the Santa Maria del Fiore cathedral (with
| its 19th century Gothic Revival facade), and similarly when I
| saw the Duomo in Milan or the San Pietro cathedral in Rome.
| But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different
| styles. Another stunning building was the Pantheon in Rome -
| which is extremely minimalistic when compared to medieval
| cathedrals, but still outstanding in its design (knowing
| you're walking into a >2000 year old building also adds to
| the feeling).
|
| I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with
| brutalism and invent something new after it, and there will
| also be beautfiul examples of that new thing, and horrible
| examples as well.
| pannSun wrote:
| > Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4
| look breathtaking. [..] But part of the beauty of
| architecture is seeing different styles.
|
| And if there was a multitude of styles being built, I would
| be inclined to agree to disagree, subjective opinions will
| differ, and leave it at that. But they are not - 90%, if
| not more, of new buildings, especially large ones, all
| strive for that minimalist, steel & glass, unpleasant
| sterile aesthetic. It is not 30% modernist monstrosities,
| 30% art deco skycrapers, 30% art noveau, 10% classical
| revival.
|
| > I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with
| brutalism
|
| Ironically I am quite fond of _some_ brutalist buildings.
| They _can be_ quite pleasant. But if any of those count as
| brutalist, they are far too 'cold' for my taste. Again,
| that would not be a problem if it wasn't all of
| architecture striving for that same 'cold' aesthetic.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Well, there were a good few hundred years of classicism,
| and then a good few hundred years of gothic architecture,
| and then another hundred or so of baroque and so on. It's
| not that uncommon for whole periods to be dominated by a
| single architectural style.
|
| I am with you in bemoaning the fact that there are so few
| art deco and art nouveau buildings, though - those styles
| passed by far too quickly.
| krona wrote:
| What's more depressing is the examples you point out could be
| located in literally any large city in the entire world, such
| is the utter banality and dislocation of the modernist
| aesthetic.
|
| Having them covered with graffiti would actually be an
| improvement in this respect.
| boppo1 wrote:
| Demoralisation
| ljm wrote:
| It reminds me of an old Digitiser article, called 'Modern Game
| Logos are Rubbish'. It was written in 2016 and discussed the
| burgeoning trend of using a distressed Impact font for game
| titles and logos, but more generally a shift away from 'fun'
| looking logos.
|
| https://www.digitiser2000.com/main-page/modern-game-logos-ar...
|
| From my simplistic outsider perspective, sometimes I think that
| designers read "perfection is not when there is nothing left to
| add, but when there is nothing left to take away," and take it
| so literally that logos and brands start to converge on a
| single style (simple coloured shapes, sans-serif font).
| booleandilemma wrote:
| I hope it doesn't take us too much longer to swing back to the
| trend of having detailed, interesting logos again.
|
| There's more to logos than making sure they look good as a
| favicon.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| Yes, any time now... Right after we swing back to composing
| pompous classical music and eating fowl dishes out of gold
| encrusted bowls.
| duxup wrote:
| Some local sports teams have tried sort of minimalist new logos
| and jerseys.
|
| They end up looking like generic jerseys you get from some small
| town screen printer for your rec league. After every other team
| already made their choice....
|
| I don't understand the desire to drain all the character out of
| things.
|
| My cynical side says these are just resume fodder for executives/
| comities.
| protonbob wrote:
| Nice looks like they took God (Dominus) out for literally no
| reason and replaced it with a generic swirl. Even from a
| historical perspective this makes no sense.
| tokai wrote:
| Another ring logo. Its hilarious how many low effort logos, with
| a ring, graphic designers fool people into accepting.
| systemicdanna wrote:
| It's amazing how people without any understanding of design
| processes judge outcomes as "low effort".
|
| Familiarize yourself with these processes (e.g. check out
| IDEO). Talk to professional designers. Try to design a logo.
|
| It's frankly ridiculous to expect a revolutionary logo every
| time these discussions happen. This is not a "lines of code"
| metric. If designers work on a logo for 6 months the
| deliverable is not "the biggest logo you have ever seen". It
| can be a squiggle.
| mrweasel wrote:
| That's the main problem in my mind... another ring. The article
| even mentions that the look is rather similar to at least three
| others. The most obvious being the Obama campaign logo.
|
| I can sort of see why they'd want to move away from the old
| logo, it hard to reproduce in various sizes, honestly not that
| unique either, it looks like any other very old logo and you'd
| have to know that it's Oxford University Press to recognize the
| logo.
|
| The new one share the last problem: You need to know that it's
| the OUP ring logo and not one of the other 100 logos that looks
| just like it.
|
| What I find to be an issue with many modern logos is that I
| don't see how they are expected to age. It seems more likely
| that they'll tossed aside completely in 10 to 20 years, for yet
| another redesign.
| vehemenz wrote:
| To be fair, "Oxford" begins with "O", and, as far as
| contemporary/flat ring logos go, this is one of the better
| examples I've seen. It is an attractive logo, even if the ethos
| of the previous logo is lost.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Personally, I find it deeply unattractive, especially because
| of the way the solid part breaks at the top to leave room for
| the bizarre striped part of the O (whereas in the lower part,
| it looks much better, giving both some sense of perspective
| and a beautiful continuous shape).
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| It reminds me of the Burrs from my Rancilio Rocky Coffee
| Grinder:
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=rancilio+rocky+grinder+burrs.
| ..
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Also a ring == a circle, and organizations are looking to
| circular-philosophy holistic changes as a broad change since
| roughly the start of the century.
|
| Circles are _the_ graphical element/symbol of holistic energy
| with few others coming close.
|
| Generally when I see a move to a circular logo in a new
| design brief it's a sign that the organization perceives that
| it must quickly heal from damage/protect itself from danger
| and put some aspects of the past behind. It is usually
| attempting to build capacity for a new direction as well. IMO
| this is usually not a fully conscious decision by the team.
|
| "This is the world we live in"
| tablespoon wrote:
| That honestly all sounds like mumbo jumbo.
| bmacho wrote:
| Not worse then the TFA. IMO the other side of the arguing
| is easier: instead of the merits of the new logo, we can
| agree that the old logo is just not compatible with
| something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to go.
| pbohun wrote:
| What's TFA?
| bmacho wrote:
| The featured/fine/fantastic article. See for usages https
| ://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..
| . (I believe it lost its original meaning, and now it
| refers to the article in a neutral style)
| vehemenz wrote:
| Explained here in more depth:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
| tablespoon wrote:
| > we can agree that the old logo is just not compatible
| with something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to
| go.
|
| No we can't agree on that. What you say is nonsense.
| bmacho wrote:
| Yes, it is nonsense indeed.
|
| What about: if they want to signal modernness and
| inclusiveness (regardless whether they actually want to
| be modern and inclusive) they had to get rid of the logo?
| beardyw wrote:
| I think it may be intended to be a Mobius strip. Still agree
| with you.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Even if one accepts the general idea of the design the execution
| seems very poor. The letter spacing seems very odd to me; there
| should be a little less space between the O and the X.
| lost_tourist wrote:
| That's awful for a university, it would have been fine for a
| standard corporate logo, but do you want your university press to
| look corporate?
| uxcolumbo wrote:
| Why the redesign?
|
| What problem does this new logo solve?
|
| Isn't there anything better designers or PMs can spend their time
| and money on?
|
| The old logo projects quality, heritage and looking at the symbol
| it resembles more of a library.
|
| The new logo - doesn't fit the image of Oxford and looks like any
| other 'modern' Dribbble logo.
|
| This is another case of redesigning for the sake of redesigning
| or to stroke someone's ego.
|
| EDIT: the old logo belonged to a family of logos. Check the
| Oxford Uni logo. The new logo doesn't fit that theme anymore.
| xwdv wrote:
| Logos are always about ego, that's the point. I don't know why
| people expect anything else.
|
| If you're truly egoless, you don't need a logo.
| taeric wrote:
| Why not?
|
| What "problem" did the old logo solve?
|
| False dichotomy?
|
| Does it? The old logo looked like any number of older logos.
| Lace around book with latin in it. Not bad, certainly. But
| "projecting quality?"
|
| I don't actually know what the image of Oxford would be. I
| suppose you could echo back to my "any number of older logos?"
|
| I oddly agree with this. But... I also don't see it as a
| problem?
| andsoitis wrote:
| A big advantage of the new logo is that it can also serve as a
| recognizable (in time) letter mark, without needing to write out
| "Oxford University Press".
|
| Whereas with the previous logo that's not possible.
| tigeroil wrote:
| initself wrote:
| The removal of a hallmark symbol of tradition is anathema.
| [deleted]
| pessimizer wrote:
| Icons should be smashed whenever they're noticed. The worship
| of images is blasphemous.
| Minor49er wrote:
| There is no difference between recognition and worship?
| petesergeant wrote:
| What exactly has been lost here? Neither the city nor the
| university is wanting for pedigree
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| I don't know. I think you could make the argument that the only
| thing missing from the old logo was a pineapple.
|
| I mean it's not the most egregious examples of pictographic
| stuffiness but it definitely has that pre graphic design kitchen
| sink vibe.
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| > using a flat, ugly logo to signal "changing times," let alone
| inclusivity? That iconic beauty and excellence was the province
| of rich white dudes--and can only be expanded by lowering our
| standards.
|
| Should have been the thesis statement.
| nullc wrote:
| It's a toilet?
| stinkytaco wrote:
| It feels underwhelming to me, but _unfathomably_ bad? This writer
| seems to fathom it quite extensively.
| throw7 wrote:
| Ah. A $2 million dollar virtue signal. Well, I hope they like
| their new anal sphincter logo.
| frakt0x90 wrote:
| Who cares? It says Oxford University Press which is the important
| part. The little image above it is just fluff and literally
| doesn't matter. I certainly wouldn't call it 'unfathomably bad'
| considering it's not a child's drawing or a some obscene gesture.
| irrational wrote:
| I care. I own a number of Oxford press books. The old logo says
| to me "serious, distinguished, trustworthy, academic, has been
| around long enough to be taken seriously, etc."
|
| The new logo is not one I could take seriously.
| sbuk wrote:
| If you're buying books based on the logo, you're doing it
| _very_ wrong.
| hackeraccount wrote:
| It's probably good for a few seconds of confusion on the part
| of people who see the logo and don't recognize it because it
| looks like a zillion other logos and has no continuity with the
| old logo.
|
| So no big deal.
|
| Although. There is Steve Jobs line. Where's he's trying to get
| engineers on the original Mac to eek out just a slight faster
| boot. We're going to sell 100 million of these things, can you
| make it boot 25 seconds faster? If you do that will save
| cumulatively 90 years worth of time. That's a human life. Can
| you save a human life!
|
| I mean it's dumb and maybe funny but a minor annoyance over a
| long enough time and enough people could be worth complaining
| about.
| heurisko wrote:
| It's lost history. The Latin text on the old logo connects the
| present with the past. There would have been thousands of
| instances where people would have thought "what does that mean"
| and have a browse through history.
|
| Airbrushed and homogenised in favour of a tire.
| kahirsch wrote:
| What does "DOMI NUSILLU MINA TIOMEA" mean?
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| That history represents 400 years of colonialism. Latin
| represents classism and racism and denies the history of
| billions of marginalized peoples.
|
| Thus, it must change because the purpose of a university is
| not to retain cultures and histories when no one else cares,
| it's not to improve the mental capabilities of the students.
|
| It purpose instead is to pursue equity in 2 senses: no
| especially talented people of the wrong* parents are allowed
| to gain inordinate skills and the foundation makes gobs of
| money.
|
| (*) Determination of wrongness changes over time, and the
| adage "2 wrongs don't make a right" is considered tomfoolery.
| jurip wrote:
| Presumably the people at OUP do care, because they actually
| paid for it. That's the author's point: if you are trying to
| signal something with a rebrand, how about putting the money
| into the actual thing instead of going through a pointless
| rebranding exercise and losing your identity in the process?
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Who cares? It says Oxford University Press which is the
| important part. The little image above it is just fluff and
| literally doesn't matter. I certainly wouldn't call it
| 'unfathomably bad' considering it's not a child's drawing or a
| some obscene gesture.
|
| It's modernist, minimalist crap, indistinguishable from all the
| other modernist, minimalist crap. Everyone might as well
| rebrand as solid-color circle distinguished by a numerically
| unique RGB value.
|
| Their old logo was much better, since it harkens back to a
| literal coat of arms, which isn't something you see every day.
| mikkergp wrote:
| > Their old logo was much better, since it harkens back to a
| literal coat of arms, which isn't something you see every
| day.
|
| Maybe here not there, but A quick google search suggests a
| university with a coat of arms logo is very common.
| pvg wrote:
| _which isn 't something you see every day._
|
| Undoubtedly influenced by Oxford and Cambridge but it's a
| design style adopted by so many universities it's practically
| generic for 'some sort of university thing logo'. I don't
| have strong feelings about the new logo either way but the
| idea the old one is some distinctive masterpiece seems
| misplaced.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| To me the old logo had some meaning, the new, is just one
| more tryng to fit in an app icon.
| louthy wrote:
| > It's modernist, minimalist crap, indistinguishable from all
| the other modernist, minimalist crap
|
| Which is, like, just your opinion, man.
| tarboreus wrote:
| Pretty good opinion, though.
| tomtheelder wrote:
| > a literal coat of arms, which isn't something you see every
| day
|
| Except that a coat of arms has got to be THE most common logo
| for anything university related. I don't like the new one at
| all, but if you'd showed me the old one and asked me what it
| was for I'd have had no idea. Not memorable or recognizable
| at all, even if it is their coat of arms.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Except that a coat of arms has got to be THE most common
| logo for anything university related.
|
| And the generic geometric object with some subtle styling
| has got to be THE most common logo for anything period.
| layer8 wrote:
| If it doesn't matter, why change it, or why have a logo at all?
| seydor wrote:
| So they went the facebook/Burberry style. But what is that
| distracting cycle above the carefully crafted sans serif all
| caps?
| taeric wrote:
| > That iconic beauty and excellence was the province of rich
| white dudes--and can only be expanded by lowering our standards.
| And what a load of horseshit that is.
|
| This feels like a stretch. And almost breaks what little interest
| I have here. :(
|
| Also, why do folks always impart way more significance to
| logo/label than makes sense? I can get the desire to want to
| change. That is natural. The idea that all changes matter is
| silly, though. Especially to the degree this one will be talked
| about. Probably less vitriol and energy is put into the literal
| buildings of the institute.
| prox wrote:
| If you are a dev, than you probably miss the extend of in which
| branding can have an effect. Sure, from some practical
| viewpoint nothing changes. But consider a logo part of a
| language, a culture, a visual statement. In design, _it's what
| we do_
|
| In this case Oxford Press changed an iconic statement with a
| stupid generic say-nothing that could be a tire or a bagel
| company.
|
| Think of it like a banner of an army. You don't want stand
| behind a banner that says "I am with stupid"
|
| It's hard to convey to non design folk, but design does have an
| impact, even if it doesn't bring world peace, it's culturally
| significant.
| taeric wrote:
| I mean, I get it. In that you can tell me and I can feel a
| little swayed by your argument.
|
| What I don't get, is the odd idea that there is a universal
| iconography that every should agree with. For one, I don't
| find this rebranding that much worse than the old one. I
| actually assumed both icons on the first tweet were the new
| thing, as I easily think both are kind of bleh.
|
| Finally, though, some nitpicks. Military banners are
| incredibly silly looking. Flags? The same. Usually with much
| simpler aesthetics that rely more on overall color than they
| do any iconography.
|
| And saying it "could be a tire or a bagel company" is also
| idiotically offensive. What is wrong with tire and bagel
| companies? This betrays a sense of class belief that is
| hilarious when juxtaposed with many of the criticisms given.
| (Specifically, the old class having the better icon.)
| prox wrote:
| I get while you think it's offensive, but that's not
| intentional. It's more that if you hold your hand on the
| words and you see only the circle logo you get different
| ideas of what this brand might be.
|
| Pretty sure a lot of people would answer "tyre company" or
| "gear manufacturer" or something. So it does not
| communicate well.
|
| About the banner nitpick, banners needed to be seen from
| afar, during chaotic scenes, so were often quite easy to
| distinguish from afar :)
| taeric wrote:
| I challenge this assertion. For one, I bet most folks
| have no clue what standard tire branding looks like.
| Indeed, https://www.carlogos.org/tire-brands/ shows that
| most of them do /not/ have circles on them.
|
| For bagels, I think you have a slightly better argument,
| but even then,
| https://99designs.com/inspiration/logos/bagel doesn't
| really look like what is on display here.
|
| My nitpick on the banners was more that the iconography
| of them was not at all key in folks building an identity
| with them. I should have expanded and said it wasn't the
| banner that builds the identity. Rather, it is more
| likely the shared identity that builds the love of the
| banner.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > If you are a dev, than you probably miss the extend of in
| which branding can have an effect
|
| I think the inverse is true: being in visual design means
| branding matters to you. Just as audio engineers wince at
| imperfections that no one else even hears.
|
| And even that is probably more measurable than this; the
| people that came up with the new one are also "in design".
| Now you might say to that that it's different, because they
| were getting paid. But everyone in design is getting paid for
| design, so it's unsurprising they'd want to all talk about
| how important design is. But if you can only convince other
| designers, then that's a bit telling.
|
| I mean, I like good product design as much as the next
| person. But it's extremely easy to overstate its importance.
| prox wrote:
| I really can't comment on the designers idea, but it really
| depends on the agency and the workflow.
|
| Sometimes you have these crazy stages in the design process
| where the client choses the design by committee, and you
| get the blandest dullest compromise of them all. This looks
| a bit like that. This logo certainly feels like that.
|
| There are a lot of schools in design, but it doesn't mean
| there are no criteria. It really depends on who made this,
| how it was made and so on.
|
| I feel design really fits into our and any culture. Think
| of iconic designs like coca cola, or nike, or apple. Also
| _everything_ you own is probably designed at some point.
| Yeah maybe it's not "world peace" significant, but
| culturally it is, it's a social phenomenon.
| KMag wrote:
| > Also, why do folks always impart way more significance to
| logo/label than makes sense?
|
| I'm not sure we can imply importance from the volume of
| communication; perhaps the opposite. After colors and names,
| logos/icons are probably the third easiest thing to bikeshed.
| taeric wrote:
| Fair. I just also view it as one of the easiest things to
| just accept and move on from. Especially since it would be
| relatively easy to just change again later.
|
| In fact, I would fully support any organization I'm in having
| a change most every year. I do appreciate the connection to
| the past and something old that many get from it. That said,
| it is easy to metaphorically make that connection by
| acknowledging what came before. The control and autonomy that
| you give to the next generations feels way more important.
| blululu wrote:
| This is a bit hyperbolic.
|
| It's really not that bad of a rebrand. Brands are important.
| People care about them. They need to be updated with the times.
| Perhaps the author would care to show some alternative
| modernizations to illustrate a better way to do it.
| oytis wrote:
| The implicit assumption here is that modernisation was required
| or inevitable which isn't obvious.
| Maursault wrote:
| The author says nothing about why the new logo is bad and the
| old one good. Frankly, objectively speaking, the new logo is
| much better from a design perspective whether the author likes
| it or not. A logo needs to be original, readily identifiable,
| and easily reproducible on any substrate. The old logo does not
| meet any of these standards, while the new logo does. The same
| can be said for the old Met logo. The newer Met logo is
| unmistakable and more easily reproduced anywhere. Author is
| obviously not a graphic designer or at least not one that was
| educated in design principles.
| boppo1 wrote:
| >Frankly, objectively speaking, the new logo is much better
| from a design perspective whether the author likes it or not.
|
| Disagree fam, I think you drank too much of the kool-aid. A
| logo ought to above all communicate about the brand and now
| I'm gonna mix up OUP with Apeture Science.
|
| My point is not that you're wrong, but rather that design is
| firmly in the land of opinion and your staunch 'objectivity'
| is bankrupt. I hope you didn't pay anyone to acquire that
| opinion.
| Maursault wrote:
| > Disagree fam, I think you drank too much of the kool-aid.
|
| Your comment begins with a fallacious statement, which is
| an ad hominem.
|
| > A logo ought to above all communicate about the brand
|
| It's a 3D scroll stylized as an "O," which obviously stands
| for "Oxford." Help any?
|
| > and now I'm gonna mix up OUP with Apeture [ _sic_ ]
| Science.
|
| The Aperture Science logo is a stylized flat _aperture._
| The OUP logo is a 3D _scroll_. Hope that helps.
|
| > My point is not that you're wrong,
|
| That's wise, because I am not.
|
| > but rather that design is firmly in the land of opinion
|
| On the contrary, graphic design is an academic discipline
| based on fundamental principles that ultimately are rooted
| in mathematics. Without any background or education, what
| you've done is _assume_ you know things about design which
| _you do not._ Please consider Wittgenstein 's advice:
| "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
|
| > and your staunch 'objectivity' is bankrupt.
|
| You've closed your comment with a fallacious statement,
| which is a straw man.
| TheFreim wrote:
| > They need to be updated with the times.
|
| Why?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| I assume this logo is going on the spines of books.
|
| This means that you are taking a recognizable easy to spot image
| that says: 'this book is vetted and serious, trust it like you
| trust us', and replacing it with a logo that is less recognizable
| (and by my prediction won't be around in 100 years). For anyone
| who browses shelves this will, in fact, reduce utility.
|
| It's a small thing, but it is worth considering.
| some_random wrote:
| For what it's worth, my only Oxford University Press published
| book just has "Oxford" written on the spine, no logo.
| zach_garwood wrote:
| It will look like a little butthole at the bottom of the spine
| of a book.
| yamazakiwi wrote:
| Perfect for grabbing attention
| DontchaKnowit wrote:
| I find it so fascinating using that people actually care about
| shit like this. Like when I saw the logo I had literally 0
| thoughts about it. Whatever. It's a logo. Who cares. But then
| here's a guy who feels compelled to write a whole article about
| it and a thread full of people discussing it. Blows my mind.
|
| Not to demean anyone like it's cool that this matters to people I
| just cannot even remotely understand it.
| harlequinn77 wrote:
| But thats the point right?
|
| Why pay PS100k for something that doesn't matter?
| modriano wrote:
| I remember thinking this way when I was in undergrad. I wrote
| off branding, advertising, and marketing in general, naively
| thinking I understood those things because I didn't buy most
| products I saw in ads. I wasn't self-aware enough to recognize
| that, when in bookstores, I would gravitate to books with the
| "MIT Press" name or modernist logo, or the O'Reilly branding,
| or Harvard's Veritas shield. I'm sure there are books I only
| thumbed through because of some visual signal (besides the
| title) that made me feel "that university has probably been
| around for a while, so they've probably figured out how to
| deliver what the title promises".
|
| Extremely generic logos don't offer distinction, and it's a bad
| idea for a strong brand to not clearly signal that brand in
| their products and marketing, especially in fields where there
| are many competitors (ie elite higher education).
| AlbertCory wrote:
| It's probably a sign of the times that I looked at the new one
| and thought, "OK, in the context of _modern logos_ , it's not
| that bad."
|
| However, comparisons to ANY other logo are meaningless. The Met
| has been around for 150 years. They need to keep getting
| donations from younger generations, and they want people to come
| and visit.
|
| OUP is not going anywhere. It's 500+ years old. It sells
| scholarly books and its financial picture is probably as secure
| as it's ever been. It didn't need a rebrand.
| whyleyc wrote:
| To avoid the hostile pop-over on the linked page:
| https://archive.ph/MhJGP
| onetimeusename wrote:
| It looks like the old logo came from the University of Oxford's
| coat of arms[1] which has an ancient origin. The previous logo
| looks like it essentially tried to reproduce the coat of arms.
|
| I don't know why it's assumed that having a minimalist logo means
| you are more capable of moving into the digital era if you read
| the press release about it. That is strange reasoning.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_the_University...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-10 23:02 UTC)