141–150 of 340 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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…
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
Would that have been in the early 90s when it was a polytechnic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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…
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why does he also have no arms?