71–75 of 75 posts
My gut reaction is that this new logo is strictly worse than the old one. This is my first time seeing either of the logos. Can someone with a graphic arts background explain why the LoC is so attracted to this new design (after only 8 years with the previous one)?
interesting tidbit from the comments there; this design firm, Pentagram, also did the recent redesign for EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/07/effs-new-logo-member-s... Looks very similar, and while I strongly dislike the Library of Congress redesign, it almost works for EFF.
It is the same logo. Big heavy sans-serif font with the full name of the org stuck in the middle. The only difference is EFF's big EFF letters are stretched and the full title is condensed, while LIBRARY LIBRARY's big LIBRARY is condensed and the full title is normal-width.
I don't think the library of congress should have an aggressive, in-your-face logo. It's a library. It's mission statement is about maintaining history. There's no reason to try to appeal to hip coffee shop urbanites. The old logo was both more clever (resembling the American flag and a book at the same time), and still pretty darned modern. Designing a new, tone-deaf logo is a waste of everyone's time and resources.
My gut reaction is that this new logo is strictly worse than the old one. This is my first time seeing either of the logos. Can someone with a graphic arts background explain why the LoC is so attracted to this new design (after only 8 years with the previous one)?
They traded what was "just a logo" for an entire design system. This is the branding equivalent of Google’s “Material Design.” Also for what it’s worth Pentagram — and Paula Scher — are very prestigious, considered top-of-their-field. But I agree they phoned this in. Unnecessary and uninspired.