I definitely prefer the old logo. The new one feels like it was made in paint using system default fonts. It's not necessarily bad, just feels generic.
I get that Pentagram feels they have enough of a handle on good design that they know the right way to break some of the rules of design. But this feels like breaking the rules of design so much that it's actually breaking the rules, in a way that produces something unpleasant and ugly. I mean... a close cousin of Impact? Black and orange? A second, unnecessary copy of the word 'library' that's so large it's hard to…
New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress
61–70 of 75 posts
Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contrast this with their excellent identity refresh for American Express: https://www.pentagram.com/work/american-express-1 The difference is night and day. Imagine how fantastic that kind of modernizing light touch could have looked for this client, too.
I think this is pretty horrible, too, though.
The surreal thing is that, as important as continuity and timelessness can be for financial services firms, it's even more fundamental to the LOC's roles. If you've ever been to the Thomas Jefferson Building, to walk its halls the first time is to almost be overwhelmed by a sense of connection to millennia of human thought and achievement. There are libraries out there with modern-looking identities (as an example, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh--though I really hate the combined i/l mark).[0] I don't know of any that are as in-your-face as the LOC redesign. A lot of these kinds of "make it modern" updates are because companies are trying to better connect with consumers. The really crazy part about this is just how irrelevant that is to the Library of Congress' mission. The LOC isn't trying to reinvent itself before the internet kills it, as with so many other libraries across the country.
It's really hard to imagine someone actually visiting, well, any of the LOC buildings and coming away with the impression that Druk Condensed feels right. Pentagram has an impressive body of work, but their work for the Library of Congress comes across as the sort of pitch an intern might make prior to being fired before they might accidentally stumble in front of a client.
0. http://www.landesbergdesign.com/projects/carnegielibrary.sht...
Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress
#63I definitely prefer the old logo. The new one feels like it was made in paint using system default fonts. It's not necessarily bad, just feels generic.
Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress
#64Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress
#65I definitely prefer the old logo. The new one feels like it was made in paint using system default fonts. It's not necessarily bad, just feels generic.
Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress
#66Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress
#67Paula Scher, you can't win them all.
“If I don’t get it in the first crack, I get it in the second. And if I don’t get it in the second I almost never get it.”
"I’ve never been a refiner"
This is not identity design—this is ego.
Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress
#68I definitely prefer the old logo. The new one feels like it was made in paint using system default fonts. It's not necessarily bad, just feels generic.
I get that Pentagram feels they have enough of a handle on good design that they know the right way to break some of the rules of design. But this feels like breaking the rules of design so much that it's actually breaking the rules, in a way that produces something unpleasant and ugly. I mean... a close cousin of Impact? Black and orange? A second, unnecessary copy of the word 'library' that's so large it's hard to…
Re: New Logo and Identity for Library of Congress
#69This must be a joke, right? Using the word “library” twice in the new logo looks ridiculous. As do the variations where “library” is split in two.