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

121–130 of 340 posts

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

#121

Post by pannSun »

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://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...

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

#122

Post by robertlagrant »

prox wrote: post #24
taeric wrote: post #5

> 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 matte…

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…

> 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.

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

#124

Post by Paianni »

blowski wrote: post #61
kabdib wrote: post #49

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 sp…

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

Would that have been in the early 90s when it was a polytechnic?

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

#125

Post by petesergeant »

> 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

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

#126

Post by yamazakiwi »

zach_garwood wrote: post #57
dghlsakjg wrote: post #36

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.

It will look like a little butthole at the bottom of the spine of a book.

Perfect for grabbing attention

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

#127

Post by mikkergp »

tablespoon wrote: post #18
frakt0x90 wrote: post #4

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.

> 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 distinguish…

> 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.

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

#128

Post by systemicdanna »

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…

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?

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

#129

Post by rootusrootus »

torstenvl wrote: post #108
blowski wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is "pee ew" a slang interjection indicating that something stinks in British English like it is in American English?

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

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

#130

Post by yamazakiwi »

yamtaddle wrote: post #73

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.

It was and is in fact iconic
Post reply on HN