Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would make for a great fundraising gala. The Mets at The Met
But where did they meet? Was it at the Met? "The Mets met at the Met". And what did they meet? Was it also the Met?
And who was on the first base?
Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
321–330 of 340 posts
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#322I 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)
People fear change and cling to nostalgia. That's part of it. Another thing is people identify themselves with brands, so when the brand changes, it's like a part of them changes, without their input or consent (!!). That you've never known the old logo frees you from these constraints. I try not to care about corporate logos too much, but I have to say I was little betrayed when my football team changed their typefa…
> People fear change and cling to nostalgia. That's part of it.
People devalue the past is another.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That history represents 400 years of colonialism. Latin represents classism and racism and denies the history of billions of marginalized peoples. Thus, it must change because the purpose of a university is not to retain cultures and histories when no one else cares, it's not to improve the mental capabilities of the students. It purpose instead is to pursue equity in 2 senses: no especially talented people of the wr…
> That history represents 400 years of colonialism. Latin represents classism and racism and denies the history of billions of marginalized peoples.
Do the marginalised peoples include the native Britons who were conquered by the Romans? Or is there a cut off point in your view of history? If the now native Britons, like me, want to retain links to the past, then should that be disallowed?
I like the Latin inscription, as it keeps a connection with the past. Good and bad, it is history I want to be connected to. I find the idea that it needs to be airbrushed bizarre, and the idea that Latin is solely a tool of "oppression" a complete misreading of history.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#324> “Try to be brutally honest with yourself: is the goal actual innovation? Or is really to appear innovative?” I have asked these questions of many senior executives now, assuring them I am not being glib This type of reaction eats itself. If you're a person who prioritizes "actual innovation," why are you spending so much time complaining about a fucking logo redesign? > explaining that these objectives are often in…
> If you're a person who prioritizes "actual innovation," why are you spending so much time complaining about a fucking logo redesign
Because that logo redesign does not produce any actual innovation.
> Heck, they even created custom fonts for their blog posts.
These companies have lots of money, lots of managers, lots of designers. Those people would have nothing to do if they don't rebrand, create new fonts etc. They can't just sit idle in office and take salary. If those fonts were not made, nothing would have changed right now, the company would not have any less progress in any way.
People also do these to have something big on their resume, to get promotion. This is what lots of humans do now, bullshit jobs even though there are much bigger problems to fix in the world.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually a logo/rebrand change keeps the name. So no real suprise. That said, SGI had an iconic logo of a cube formed from a single periodic pipe before. I was using SGIs daily at the time and I almost cried when they did the rebrand. The rebrand replaced it with a contemporary (at the time, mind you) typography logo that would look outdated if the compamy still existed. To their credit, the rebrand did include a type…
> That said, SGI had an iconic logo of a cube formed from a single periodic pipe before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Graphics#/media/File%3... Rebranded in 1999, according to Wikipedia. I would think the old logo looked really bad on the web at the time, with monitors being 640 × 480 at 256 colors, if you were lucky. It also would have been expensive to reproduce well on letterhead, and I wouldn’t dare thin…
As others said: a good logo is always also good in black and white.
The old SGI logo was cast in plastic as a 2.5D version on the workstations, color printed in color brochures and otherwise there was a much simplified black and white version.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually a logo/rebrand change keeps the name. So no real suprise. That said, SGI had an iconic logo of a cube formed from a single periodic pipe before. I was using SGIs daily at the time and I almost cried when they did the rebrand. The rebrand replaced it with a contemporary (at the time, mind you) typography logo that would look outdated if the compamy still existed. To their credit, the rebrand did include a type…
> That said, SGI had an iconic logo of a cube formed from a single periodic pipe before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Graphics#/media/File%3... Rebranded in 1999, according to Wikipedia. I would think the old logo looked really bad on the web at the time, with monitors being 640 × 480 at 256 colors, if you were lucky. It also would have been expensive to reproduce well on letterhead, and I wouldn’t dare thin…
Monitors used by people who cared about SGI or did anything with graphics design we're at least 800x600. And the screens my company had at the time were all 1024x768 already (including the screen of our single SGI Iris Indigo).
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#327Last night, I had a look at my shelves. Several hardbacks had the old logo. However, four volumes of poetry--Jonson, Byron, Bunting, and Tomlinson--have only the word OXFORD across the bottom of the spine. Several paperbacks have a capital O with stylized crowns on the four sides, pointing out. One, from a "Galaxy" series has a black disks with a white band circling it, off-center and tilted. And books from the Oxford World Classics series just have OXFORD running down the spine.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
That RAS logo is beautiful, stylish, intricate, and quite recognizable - especially with its clever use of telescopes as rays and of the empty spaces to remind one of celestial bodies. I have no idea why you think it's comparable to the simplistic unintelligible symbolism of the new OUP one.
It looks like a bunch of screwdrivers arranged in a circle with a random black spot for no reason. Terrible logo. As bad, if not worse, than OUPs. Beaten with metal poles is correct.
Even if you don't recognize the telescope shape, it at least clealry looks like a sun, which has obvious ties with astronomy, and the black spot is easy to understand then as the moon.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like a bunch of screwdrivers arranged in a circle with a random black spot for no reason. Terrible logo. As bad, if not worse, than OUPs. Beaten with metal poles is correct.
Even if you don't recognize the telescope shape, it at least clealry looks like a sun, which has obvious ties with astronomy, and the black spot is easy to understand then as the moon.
It does not look like the sun. For one the center is dark. Literally the opposite of what the sun signifies. Never seen sunrays resembling screwdrivers and half going one way and half the other either. And that is the moon? Even after knowing it was astronomial society I wouldnt have guessed it was the moon. I have never ever thought of the moon as a black spot.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#330Earlier 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.
"The Met" is also the opera. "The Mets" is a sports team. It's pretty confusing.
Similar frustration with Vegas: The have Caesar's Palace, which is a long walk from Caesar's Forum. And on top of that, Caesar's Palace also has a food court/shopping center inside it that they call ... The Forum. Facepalm.