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

181–190 of 340 posts

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

#181

Post by prox »

taeric wrote: post #51
prox wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 bann…

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 :)

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

#182

Post by systemicdanna »

jamessb wrote: post #171
systemicdanna wrote: post #114

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…

> 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/

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.

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

#183

Post by tablespoon »

tomtheelder wrote: post #177
tablespoon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

> 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.

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

#185

Post by austinthetaco »

systemicdanna wrote: post #128
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…

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.

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

#186

Post by systemicdanna »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #148
systemicdanna wrote: post #114

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…

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...

That's were we started: all logos were coats of arms. And then all logos were something else. These are design trends.

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

#187

Post by blackhaz »

etempleton wrote: post #174

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 s…

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.

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

#188

Post by pastor_bob »

FredPret wrote: post #55
elliottkember wrote: post #19

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.

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.

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.

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

#189

Post by prox »

robertlagrant wrote: post #122
prox wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, beca…

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.

Post reply on HN