Another example of "everything looks the same".
Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
191–200 of 340 posts
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#192An 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. Some amalgamation of Latin words and a coat of arms. The issue is not that it’s unpopular. That’s the actual University of Oxford coat of arms. The thing is 600 years old. Should it be changed because every institution which wants to look somewhat respectable is copying Oxford?
I love old books (first pressings, especially signed). There is a lot of character to them. Holding a century old book is a very satisfying experience, you get to own something very authentic, a piece of a bygone era.
However, I don't see a problem with people, artists, businesses, places updating their individual branding. To me it's a sign of a refreshed outlook, a new way to both see oneself and to present oneself to others. Clinging to the past because it's (a priori) old is not the right motivation.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#193"That iconic beauty and excellence was the province of rich white dudes—and can only be expanded by lowering our standards."
That's egalitarianism for you.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#194did no one point out that the new logo is looking down a rifled gun barrel - hardly a visual metaphor for education. Maybe they were trying to connect with the globally revered UK institution of James Bond?
Yeah, after I saw that I couldn't unsee how it looks like a partially masked illustration of rifling. Money well spent.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually liked the Windows rebrand with Windows 8. It’s simpler, cleaner, still recognizable, works as mono or dual tone, and actually looks like the namesake of the product. Most previous versions were complicated messes. Windows 7 was I think the best version of the four color version.
The transition from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 is the greatest leap in the Windows product line for me (including design). I remember seeing the '95 start-up screen and its new UI for the first time - I was quite amazed by how much better it looked (I was at an impressionable age back then).
Agreed, but I’m just talking about the logo. The Windows 95 logo was pretty bad as far as logos are concerned.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#196I 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…
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 glass seems like it would be quite impressive to experience directly.
Note that I also think other styles of monumental buildings are breathtaking. I was recently in Florence and could barely take my eyes off of the Santa Maria del Fiore cathedral (with its 19th century Gothic Revival facade), and similarly when I saw the Duomo in Milan or the San Pietro cathedral in Rome. But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different styles. Another stunning building was the Pantheon in Rome - which is extremely minimalistic when compared to medieval cathedrals, but still outstanding in its design (knowing you're walking into a >2000 year old building also adds to the feeling).
I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with brutalism and invent something new after it, and there will also be beautfiul examples of that new thing, and horrible examples as well.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#197I found the Met's rebrand interesting to consider. I am on the younger side/moved to New York recently. Without knowing the history of the Met logo I have always found the (new) logo fairly iconic- the stickers visitors wear, and the various paraphernalia with the logo look good to me. I find it clean and sharp. I think I actually prefer it to the old logo (which I do not remember seeing before today)
I like the old logo more. It looks less commercial, more old-fashioned, and less sleek, which I think is a good thing for a museum.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#198Earlier 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
Yeah, so a couple years back the "Technische Universität Berlin" rebranded to "Berlin Universität der Technologie" or Berlin University of Technology. Because they thought that would be more similar to e.g. MIT and the like. Of course the abbreviation then would be BUT... Thankfully it did not stick and they are back to Technical University of Berlin.
> Because they thought that would be more similar to e.g. MIT
Why would a superficial similarly to "MIT" be any be useful?
Any potential student should be able to look past that.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard, hard disagree. This good article has been discussed before on HN: https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-... It's not just a "perceived" loss of individuality. The new logos discussed in that linked article, especially the fashion ones, suck in my opinion because they're boring and they all look the same. They at least used to have some good degree of variability.
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.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#200An 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…
Raytheon is another example.
I think the open book metaphor gets lost in the aggressive roundness of the O. When I first looked at it, I thought why would they make it look like a turbo fan…? Now in the case of Raytheon, a turbofan makes complete sense.
Hindered by this bias, it took me a bit to arrive at the open book representation, and was only able to do that because it’s OUP.