Even if one accepts the general idea of the design the execution seems very poor. The letter spacing seems very odd to me; there should be a little less space between the O and the X.
Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
221–230 of 340 posts
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#222I 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…
Minimalism is also a tradition in logos. A logo needs to serve many purposes, one of which is being recognizable even under poor visibility. Many national flags are the height of minimal design, because one key goal for them was to be seen in battle so you knew where your side was. Modern technology has different reasons for a similar purpose. Resolution may be poor because of your screen or network rather than battl…
Flag design can be too minimalistic.
Indonesia is Poland distressed (and vice versa).
(See: https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-a-Union-Jack-Has-Been-Hung-U...> for general concept.)
There are near-identical flags as well, including Chad and Romania, Indonesia (again) and Morocco, New Zealand and Australia, Ireland and Cote d'Ivoire, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, Senegal and Mali, and clusters such as the Nordics (blue/red cross/field), Latin America (yellow, blue, red), and Slavic states (white, blue, and red).
https://www.britannica.com/list/flags-that-look-alike>
There's the challenge between readily identified and readily distinguished.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#223I 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…
It reminds me of an old Digitiser article, called ‘Modern Game Logos are Rubbish’. It was written in 2016 and discussed the burgeoning trend of using a distressed Impact font for game titles and logos, but more generally a shift away from ‘fun’ looking logos.
https://www.digitiser2000.com/main-page/modern-game-logos-ar...
From my simplistic outsider perspective, sometimes I think that designers read “perfection is not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away,” and take it so literally that logos and brands start to converge on a single style (simple coloured shapes, sans-serif font).
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There is no objective way to evaluate this. It’s always in relation to something else. If we take 1000 blue logos (with different gradients and letter arrangement) and compare them to this single black logo: the black logo will be _objectively_ more distinctive.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#225I 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…
[deleted]
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#226An 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…
[deleted]
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relevant to the common alive person. I'll be that person chosen at random; I don't understand the motto. How is it relevant to a school? Good riddance.
Maybe you aren't relevant to Oxford University Press — very seriously, no insult meant. You're not the audience, and whether you understand it is not their concern.
That is likely, but you're alluding you know who the audience is when you don't. I'm correct in assuming you don't work for Oxford. I obviously lied and said I didn't understand to entertain the conversation that I was confused by the use of a psalm. If I'm honest, I mostly just find it archaic, which is maybe appropriate for a school as old as Oxford.
Why do you personally think they removed it? Bad Design?
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not worse then the TFA. IMO the other side of the arguing is easier: instead of the merits of the new logo, we can agree that the old logo is just not compatible with something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to go.
What's TFA?
Explained here in more depth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#229As far as rebrand is concerned, this one is actually good. The new icon is clever. I think they could've kept the serif font. The new type isn't doing it for me. The Met museum logo is brilliant. I've been going to that museum for 30 years, so there was emotional attachment to the old one. I like them both.
While I don't think it's as big of a crime as this article makes it out to be (and I personally prefer the look of sans-serif fonts), I still don't see what's "clever" about the logo - it seems like a generic O with an unpleasant proportion of full vs striped portions. The striped portion can be take to look sort of like the pages of a book being flipped, but only if you know the context - otherwise the first thought…
"The striped portion can be take to look sort of like the pages of a book being flipped, but only if you know the context - otherwise the first thought would be tire marks or perhaps a keyboard."
I could be reading into the logo, but I think it's clever because the logo could be interpreted many different ways:
1. "O" for Oxford. 2. The striped portion is paper flipping, as you pointed out. 3. The round O evokes old mechanical paper press / publishing machine, machines, so it has connection to the word "Press" in the Oxford University Press. The stripes also create movement / motion.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#230I quite like it.
It has a progressive feeling that reminds me of the Open University, and harks back to the idealistic expansion of British higher education in the ‘60s.