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

231–240 of 340 posts

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

#231

Post by pvg »

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…

In recent years I've noticed an acute shift to brutalism, minimalism and a loss of individuality in all facets of life.

Is there really evidence of this? Those stylistic developments are 100+ old and have been part of everyday life for much of the last century. There's definitely been a much more recent uptick of commentary that's uncomfortably (and occasionally deliberately) close to some classic complaints about 'degenerate art'.

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

#232

Post by 13415 »

mauvehaus wrote: post #47

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?

Academic logos are often awful. Take Roskilde University's logo, for instance:

https://euclidnetwork.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/roskilde...

I used to call it "brain sponge" when I was a PhD student there. (I liked that university a lot, don't get me wrong, just talking about the logo).

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

#233

Post by systemvoltage »

jfengel wrote: post #208
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…

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…

While your points are technically valid, there is a balance that needs to be struct without losing its core value and purpose. I think this is the cliche explanation for making logos that do not serve their core purpose: To differentiate and iconify an identity.

I am kind of in GP's camp, design culture has gone to shit in last 20 years. It's not even Brutalism/Minimalism in the true sense of the word, those movements were post-modern starting from 1950's triggered by the zeitgeist of Bauhause in 1930's. What you're seeing today is deep lack of understanding and following each other like a mad mob. It is to nullify identity, doing exactly what it is not intended to.

Hell, even macOS and Windows look similar today. They're converging on a singular global monoculture.

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

#234

Post by layer8 »

chrstphrknwtn wrote: post #201
blackhaz wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Royal Astronomical Society seems like a pretty good example of the opposite. The old logo was, well old, very forgettable and not particularly well constructed in the first place. The new logo presents the society as a modern scientific institution, and the logo itself is executed well. And the animation actually works, a rare example where logo animation is not gratuitous.

The new logo looks like an anime-typical eye with reflecting highlight.

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

#235

Post by sega_sai »

civilized wrote: post #43
sega_sai wrote: post #29

I don't like it as it seems to remind me of the James Bond intro. But it seems most (or at least a large fraction) of people don't really like rebrands. So it probably doesn't really matter (unless unreasonable amount of money was spent on rebranding).

Even then it still doesn't matter. Anyone who spends an unreasonable amount of money on rebranding probably has a far more unreasonable amount of money remaining afterwards.

In this case I kinda care if too much money was spent on rebranding, because OUP publishes science books and journals, so I don't really want pay extra of page charges for that...

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

#236

Post by [deleted] »

deltarholamda wrote: post #206
blackhaz wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ahem, we don't "beat" our designers with metal poles anymore due to climate change. We only use artisanal free-range wooden spatulas to deliver "corrective encouragement" in a carbon-free manner.

[deleted]

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

#237

Post by layer8 »

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.

If it doesn’t matter, why change it, or why have a logo at all?

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

#238

Post by pclmulqdq »

elliottkember wrote: post #19
elijaht wrote: post #14

I 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 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.

"The Met" is also the opera. "The Mets" is a sports team.

It's pretty confusing.

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

#239

Post by kahirsch »

heurisko wrote: post #118
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.

It's lost history. The Latin text on the old logo connects the present with the past. There would have been thousands of instances where people would have thought "what does that mean" and have a browse through history. Airbrushed and homogenised in favour of a tire.

What does "DOMI NUSILLU MINA TIOMEA" mean?
Post reply on HN