Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

joukovsky.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 340 posts

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#211

Post by pannSun »

tsimionescu wrote: post #196
pannSun wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://theculturet…

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…

> 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.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#213

Post by systemicdanna »

Retric wrote: post #199
systemicdanna wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#214

Post by tsimionescu »

vehemenz wrote: post #9
tokai wrote: post #3

Another ring logo. Its hilarious how many low effort logos, with a ring, graphic designers fool people into accepting.

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.

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).

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#215

Post by tsimionescu »

pannSun wrote: post #211
tsimionescu wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

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.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#217

Post by krona »

pannSun wrote: post #121
tfsh wrote: post #91

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 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 an…

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://theculturet…

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.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#218

Post by mrweasel »

tokai wrote: post #3

Another ring logo. Its hilarious how many low effort logos, with a ring, graphic designers fool people into accepting.

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.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#219

Post by tsimionescu »

systemicdanna wrote: post #209
austinthetaco wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 gen…

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...

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#220

Post by Retric »

systemicdanna wrote: post #213
Retric wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Post reply on HN