NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Formerly known as the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design, the Emily Carr University of Art and Design — it changed its name in April of 2008 — in Vancouver is a pretty prestigious design institution with a great range of programs, and its location in Granville Island is quite groovy. So it’s no surprise that their past logo was quirky and that the new one attempts to be artsy. The latter, perhaps to a fault. Designed in-house the new logo is a loopy scribble like many other loopy scribble logos before it, and while it makes for a nice visual, it is hardly distinctive or unique for the institution. I even wonder if this has become a cliché to represent design and/or creativity. A little animation video of the logo shows that this could have had alternative potential with the light-motion technique, perhaps capturing that as a static logo would have been more interesting.
Thanks to Sam Dal Monte for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Henry’s comment is:
As far as loopy scribble logos go, I think it's ok. Having said that, there are a lot of loopy scribble logos already (and a lot of them for institutions/companies that want to exude a sense of creativity).
On Mar.02.2009 at 07:25 AM
lost’s comment is:
not matter how cliche, it's still better then the old one.... i also notice the crappy website banner doesn't even have the whole logo in it
On Mar.02.2009 at 07:27 AM
ADAM HAASE’s comment is:
url/image.gif
On Mar.02.2009 at 07:38 AM
ADAM HAASE’s comment is:
Ok this isn't relevant to the design but how do u insert a picture correctly?
On Mar.02.2009 at 07:43 AM
Nisio’s comment is:
The typography is ok, but the colours and the scribble aren't that great. Two questions:
1. Why grey? I thought an art and design university would have gutsy colours and make a statement. Grey is just uninspired.
2. is it just me or does the scribble look more like a coiled up cable?
BTW the transition at the end of the video is terrible, as though it is an animatic of what was intended.
On Mar.02.2009 at 07:54 AM
koyo’s comment is:
Where it's say: url/image.gif - Paste the url of your image.
I don't like too much the font they choose or the alignment.. really don't know what is the optical problem that I look when I see the new logo.
On Mar.02.2009 at 07:56 AM
Mrs. M’s comment is:
To me, this doesn't look like a "scribble" loop, but rather a semi-loose coil of steel wire. I like it, but that's about it.
Don't care for the wordmark at all. The kerning is off in a few places (the r-t in "art" for instance) and the face itself makes me feel uneasy.
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:02 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
I'm sending it back for a revision. I really don't like anything about this. The type and mark are equally boring.
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:07 AM
kristen’s comment is:
The designer said, "The logo has two elements - the wordmark and the graphic, which is designed to be changeable to allow the logo to evolve."
Hm. I'm curious about exactly how they envision the logo (esp. the wordmark) "evolving" from here...
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:12 AM
decksnap’s comment is:
I think it's supposed to be a loopy scribble second, and a coil of wire first. It makes sense, to cover both the fine art and design departments, but is just a little boring.
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:18 AM
coda’s comment is:
Ooh ooh, I've got it! It's cable, from a car engine. Car...carr...get it? Wow, art + design is so powerful.
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:19 AM
Joe’s comment is:
To me the circle device is not giving a good message of the creativity that a university of art and design should offer.
It conveys a message that they just keep going round and round the same old things unable to break out and come up with anything original.
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:23 AM
fabrika’s comment is:
Lucent is still better. 
Brian K Gray’s comment is:
I love this logo. I love it so much that I did it back in 2002. http://www.360grouponline.com
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:36 AM
TFHackett’s comment is:
@ Nisio: I totally agree about the transition in the video; the motion is clockwise throughout, then when the logo appears, it is rotating counter-clockwise.
This logo looks like the designer dropped a coil of wire on the scanner and clicked the button. I also think the Facebook-logo-ish type (Prelo Book) is going to look dated sooner rather than later.
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:50 AM
Josh’s comment is:
Josh’s comment is:
Brian K Gray -
I see the logo you designed every time I look out my window. First thing that came to my mind too.
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:52 AM
Gio’s comment is:
In Italian (sorry), but look at here!
Clone, clone, clone!!!
On Mar.02.2009 at 09:00 AM
Andy’s comment is:
If there was anything at all wrong with the old one, I can't find it. Unique, quirky, arty, crafty, ownable, interesting, and so on. I really like the old logotype, but i suppose you have to change the logo if you're changing the name.
On Mar.02.2009 at 09:02 AM
Scott’s comment is:
Looks to me like coiled up wire used to hang art. Can I put an all-points-bulletin out for the immediate elimination of "clean" lowercase logos?
Sheesh, are we still in the dot.com days?!
PS: 360group, flash that takes 10 seconds to load on broadband is so 2002 :)
On Mar.02.2009 at 09:06 AM
Joseph Szala’s comment is:
It's definitely a picture of wire. You can see this upon close up. Unfortunately it's a very poor logo in that regard. It doesn't degrade well at all. It's not memorable. It's not creative.
Next.
On Mar.02.2009 at 09:08 AM
Abi Huynh’s comment is:
It's just not a very powerful wordmark, being a regular weight typeface and all lowercase. The choice of an all lowercase setting is very odd because it is counter to the 'credibility' image the school promoted when Emily Carr went to University status. There could be an argument made that the logo seems "friendlier" without the caps, but this would be a weak one ... there are other ways to achieve a softer/friendlier image. The use of a regular/book weight at the size they are using it is very perplexing as well, I think put alongside other logos/marks the 'emily carr' logo (official colors: light grey and bright green) would likely recede. ... and why light grey on a white background? (?!)
The negative tracking on lowercase, regular/book weight characters make for poor spacing, and a friend pointed out to me that (aside from how unattractive negative tracked lowercase letters become) the "university of art and design" part would become difficult to read at small sizes, but when you have the smaller text at a readable size the "emily carr" seems very very large because of the amount of counter space in the letters.
In an even more subjective space is the circle gesture, but at first glance it felt generic and bland, and the sizing made for even more white space in the logo. The video/animation application they have on the site is pretty good, but the print applications I've seen really fall short. The gesture is also strange, for a school trying to promote an image of innovation and experimentation in many new fields ("digital/new media" etc) the logo is literally going around in circles. The fact that the material used to create the circle gesture is variable could end up being a redeeming aspect ... but why choose some coiled metal wire to be the "default" circle that is printed on all the print collateral?
... it just seems like many of the above decisions seem to contribute to lowering the 'impact' of the identity and also making it less memorable. I think a wordmark/mark is much better suited for an art (university) with may different programs and practices. After seeing the new ECUAD logo I remain unconvinced that a symbol/graphic is necessary or appropriate.
On Mar.02.2009 at 09:15 AM
sra’s comment is:
I would judge them, but considering George Brown's newish logo, this is like solid gold.
Also, if I lived in Vancouver right now, I'd be significantly warmer.
While I'm not fond of the colour, I think the old one had more character about it.
On Mar.02.2009 at 09:16 AM
Jonathan’s comment is:
I'll agree with Mrs.M, it does looks like steel-wire, which could maybe become interesting, but the rest is just plain boring.
Not feeling the type at all, if you were trying to look clean, then clean it up. This just looks like default type.
On Mar.02.2009 at 09:28 AM
Diane Lee’s comment is:
While the old logo may be quirky, it sure is more successful in terms of honoring Emily Carr. Emily Carr was an incredibly interesting artist (of whom all Canadians should know and be proud). The new logo is sterile, and does not adequately represent the heritage of the school. It's lost its craftiness that made it unique.
On Mar.02.2009 at 09:33 AM
edu’s comment is:
no original...
Joseph Cotten’s comment is:
Oh so disappointing, after seeing the animation! It could have been so much better if it kept the animated, energetic look instead of going for a bundle of picture-hanging wire!
On Mar.02.2009 at 10:06 AM
Ricky Irvine’s comment is:
The old logo is more recognizable. The animation helps bring the new one to life only a little, though the transition isn't believable. I wonder if they considered changing "institute" to "university" in the old logo. It reminds me of some of Paula Scher's whimsical stuff for The Public Theater.
On Mar.02.2009 at 10:16 AM
TheMaster’s comment is:
The animation does nothing.
I almost knew it was going to be a swirling, sprint-like flare. As for this logo, it can be clumped with the swirly circle trend.
I think they should have just updated the old logo, it had potential to be a great Frank Lloyd Wright kinda thing.
Too bad another creative institution has chosen to be uninspiring. I think that Cooper Union did it better, at least their made me think and wonder.
Oh, and the grey grey on grey. Yeah, that sucks.
On Mar.02.2009 at 10:18 AM
Ben Thoma’s comment is:
This is another example of how everyone needs to get off the "original" bandwagon. Everyone wants to claim a series of almost-co-centric circles as their own? Please.
Anyone who has looked at coiled rope, watched a child make their first shapes, or envisioned a hub-cap coming off it's wheel could claim they "thought" of this first. It doesn't matter.
What's important about this mark is that there is a big disconnect between the perception and intent. I read the mark as attempting to be photo-realistic, and similar to a loose coil of metal wire. The animation uses a fad-like technique to justify a dis-jointed graphic. It feels a bit like design by committee where the word mark got all the attention and the mark was lacking direction.
I'd like to see how versatile the identity is over a number of executions, because right now it doesn't feel like it can be applied in surprising and inevitable ways. Cooper Union does the versatility thing very well.
On Mar.02.2009 at 10:18 AM
M.’s comment is:
It looks like an overhead picture of a busted slinky. But hey, good for them.
On Mar.02.2009 at 10:21 AM
Cam’s comment is:
Bad. Looks like a coil of wire.
On Mar.02.2009 at 10:27 AM
Panasit’s comment is:
I like them both. But the second one has an obvious flaw which many comment has all ready touched upon (it's not original).
The "before" logo would look good without the word "institutes".
On Mar.02.2009 at 10:36 AM
twoeightnine’s comment is:
It's definitely a coil of wire. You can see the end of the wire on the left, it's the dark part. But here's my thought on why this might work. The designer says it "is designed to be changeable to allow the logo to evolve."
This is an art school that we're talking about. Every class that you take you start with the basic elements, the "coil of wire" straight from the store. If this logo is meant to actual evolve and become something for each major or class it works. A wire frame for sculpture class, the spiral of a notebook for papermaking. It's a little funky and outside of the box but that's what art schools are for.
So if that's what is meant to happen, it works. If not, I'd like my consultant fee.
On Mar.02.2009 at 10:42 AM
Augusto Borges’s comment is:
From Portugal:
dave at mindspike’s comment is:
grey is boring and sloppy as is, but this logo could be an open door for brand extension opportunities. the coils could change colors.
On Mar.02.2009 at 11:12 AM
Filipe’s comment is:
i think they should keep the old one...
On Mar.02.2009 at 11:20 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Looks like the Social Design logo a bit...
The typography is a little boring, in my opinion...
Keep well,
Dale
lyndi’s comment is:
not liking ANYTHING about it. the type is boring, kerning is off and it looks off balance. the circles are definitely overdone...sad that a design school came up with this, i would expect more. esp. that you have a whole school of creatives at your hands.
On Mar.02.2009 at 11:23 AM
Stereo Radiation’s comment is:
Here's all the updating it needed.
On Mar.02.2009 at 11:34 AM
Lauren ’s comment is:
The spacing between metal lasso and text (vs text line one and two) rubs me the wrong way. I want to nudge them together.
Very funny Brian K Gray!
And the GBU logo is also quite funny, in the wrong kind of way though ;)
On Mar.02.2009 at 11:52 AM
Kwok-kuen Cheung’s comment is:
Immediately remind me of this:
http://elementshongkong.com/eng/elements/elements.htm
It turns out this loopy design is fairly common.
On Mar.02.2009 at 12:03 PM
Pat Broderick’s comment is:
When you buy guitar strings they come out of the pouch coiled up like this.
On Mar.02.2009 at 12:04 PM
Amanda’s comment is:
As someone from Vancouver I feel that this rebranding really misses the mark. Emily Carr is one of Canada's most famous and respected artists, and the school itself is situated in one of the most vibrant areas of the city. This new logo ignores all these potential sources of inspiration. It could be the logo for any school anywhere. It would've been nice to see something more creative from a prestigious art/design school.
On Mar.02.2009 at 12:16 PM
LB’s comment is:
Agency Fusion, famous for their Make My Logo Bigger Cream, has a similar logo. Swirly gray circle and all.
On Mar.02.2009 at 12:28 PM
oak’s comment is:
Remember when Dogbert tried to sell a coffee ring stain as a logo? I think of that particular strip when I look at this mark...
On Mar.02.2009 at 12:39 PM
m’s comment is:
crap. cliche. horrible type.
On Mar.02.2009 at 12:43 PM
Adam’s comment is:
I would have to agree for a university of art and design this is a bit cliche and dull.
On Mar.02.2009 at 12:54 PM
adam’s comment is:
in regards to the animation, i dislike the disconnect between the scribbles at the beginning and the end.
in the beginning, the scribbles start off as sort of "light rays" spinning fast, then all of a sudden, for no apparent reason (aside from trying to connect the animation to the end result logo), they switch to the wire circle spinning in place.
i agree with armin that there was something interesting in the "light ray" portion of the animation that could have been translated to a logo.
On Mar.02.2009 at 01:16 PM
Paul Riehle’s comment is:
the type feels so disconnected from the mark, seems like it was a complete after thought and they took very little time in exploration
On Mar.02.2009 at 01:31 PM
jRod’s comment is:
personally, i think that the old identity is much more memorable than the new one. why not add color to the new version, like make the text orange or something like that? its just too bland at this point...
On Mar.02.2009 at 01:41 PM
s. park’s comment is:
delish!
On Mar.02.2009 at 01:57 PM
mm’s comment is:
This trend makes me wonder if computers have destroyed our ability to draw, and now this is as close as we can get to a circle when we sit down to sketch ideas.
On Mar.02.2009 at 02:21 PM
Serviceburo’s comment is:
I immediatel zone out as soon as I look at the thing. Coming in-house from a prestigious school, the bar has to be set a bit higher than what we see here. If it were a case of some executive saying "I want the logo to look just like this other logo", I could understand this result, but there is no real excuse for this. Unless the designers had a serious desire to make an ironic logo, all that I get from this thing is laziness, not creativity.
I'm going to put my vote in for Stereo Radiation's update - chopping those connected uprights gives the logo a really classy (and classic) look.
On Mar.02.2009 at 02:26 PM
Frank’s comment is:
So this is an university for art & design and that's what they have come up with ?!
Wow.So what do they teach about logo design then ? I bet something about uniqueness, bringing across the core values and/or nature of the business etc etc. The irony is, they have ignored some of the most basic rules of logo design with their own logo here but the logo tell its story nevertheless - it talks about missing the mark completely.
And the graphic is supposed to be "changeable to evolve" ?! Please, i can't say it often enough - a logo is a logo is a logo.Meaning, no matter how you look at it, it serves a defined PURPOSE, one of them being IDENTIFIABLE.If you change the graphic, you've lost your identifier.
This logo tries to be artsy for the sake of "being artsy" and fails to work as a logo at all.
Geez, i wish people would stop mistaking design for art.
Shouldn't they teach the difference at exactly that very institute ?
On Mar.02.2009 at 02:56 PM
Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:
WTF?
On Mar.02.2009 at 03:35 PM
DonKelly’s comment is:
Boring and predictable. Why are most design school and designers logo soooo boring? This is the best they could garner from such a prestigious design school? I'm not a big name, or work for any high paid agency and I'm pretty sure I could come up with something better.
Someone, somewhere PLEASE start a new trend.. I'm tired of CLEAN and boring. pepsi, apple, etc etc...sheesh.
damon’s comment is:
god, it's such a good school, but I think ther inspiration should have come from the schools namesake, Emily Carr. Who is without question one of the most interesting artists from canada in the last century.
such beautiful paintings could easily have lent themselves to a stylized modern take on her work, which would have been both reflective of their fine art history, their namesake, and their contemporary design school as well.
On Mar.02.2009 at 04:54 PM
Tushar’s comment is:
Scribble logos makes me think of Minale & Tattersfield's brilliant mark. Also called The Scribble.
On Mar.02.2009 at 04:56 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
I would like to invite everyone who has demonstrated so effectively that the new logo looks like something else to submit one of their logo designs to this blog.
Simple rule - the submitted logo cannot look anything like any other logo that has ever been designed.
You know who you are: start posting.
On Mar.02.2009 at 05:04 PM
Chuck Spidell’s comment is:
An even better scribble here in Portland.
On Mar.02.2009 at 05:09 PM
Oisín’s comment is:
another, on the other side in Paris
Loren’s comment is:
adam’s comment is:
unless it is an exact copy of the logo in review, there is no need to post for caomparison unless the two companies (clients) are in the same industry. that is really all that matters then.
On Mar.02.2009 at 07:05 PM
Tom’s comment is:
I'm really not going for that type. Really unoriginal as well. I give thee a prestigious yawn.
On Mar.02.2009 at 07:54 PM
Matheus’s comment is:
it's from the movie "The Ring"
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:02 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
Clearly this logo, and all others included in the comments, were designed by the Cylons.
Jeff Werner’s comment is:
A fellow student found this on istockphoto:
moeed’s comment is:
@Jeff
Good find.
Shame on the so called designer Cari Bird, and the institute.
On Mar.02.2009 at 08:57 PM
Able Parris’s comment is:
I'm pretty sure that's a photo of some armature wire. Here are some more "logos."
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
I would like to invite everyone who has demonstrated so effectively that the new logo looks like something else to submit one of their logo designs to this blog.
Simple rule - the submitted logo cannot look anything like any other logo that has ever been designed.
You know who you are: start posting.
On Mar.02.2009 at 11:28 PM
Panasit’s comment is:
I'm new to the site, I'll admit. But no matter how you feel about the logo (and the site's owner may disagree with me), it's extremely mean spirit to post a picture of your redesign to say that "hey, this my version, don't think it's better?"
I see on this site a lot. First Sprite, now this one. I don't mind the comparison with other all ready existing logo though. Those are great and very informative.
But to redesign the whole thing and say 'hey, this is my version' I mean, the designers of the logo are designers just like us. And put yourself in their shoes, wouldn't you feel insulted?
It's not rude or anything, it just makes the person who redesign looks bad.
On Mar.03.2009 at 12:36 AM
XK9’s comment is:
Feh.
On Mar.03.2009 at 01:12 AM
XK9’s comment is:
Feh.
On Mar.03.2009 at 01:12 AM
XK9’s comment is:
Feh.
On Mar.03.2009 at 01:12 AM
WDC’s comment is:
Their own logo videos shows how badly it came out in the reverse backgrounds.....
On Mar.03.2009 at 03:43 AM
David Tirado’s comment is:
That's no scribble. It's a coiled up cable!
It isn´t that hard to see.
You should give a little more thought to your opinions.
Judge Dredd’s comment is:
Of course it's a rolled wire photo from iStock!
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/industry/5910426-rolled-metal-wire.php?id=5910426
4. Standard License Prohibitions
(a) Prohibited Uses. You may not do anything with the Content that is not expressly permitted in the preceding section or permitted by an Extended License. For greater certainty, the following are “Prohibited Uses” and you may not: (...)
use any of the Content as part of a trade-mark, design-mark, trade-name, business name, service mark, or logo;
http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php
Apart from the legal stuff, it's a shame the designers didn't make a flipin' effort to maintain the prestige of the place.
The verdict: hands off the Internet!
On Mar.03.2009 at 05:00 AM
Judge Dredd’s comment is:
Oh wait! It's not exactly the same picture! Forget what I said apart from the last line :)
On Mar.03.2009 at 05:05 AM
Tim’s comment is:
The new logo is a huge step back from the old one (to be honest, I think it's very disappointing, and the wire spool from Istockphoto that Jeff posted - hi by the way - made me feel a bit embarassed) - but I wonder: what exactly did the whole decision process look like? It's not like Cari Bird dropped a logo at the doorsteps and the school had no choice but to take it.
Having worked on a similar project as a part of a student group I know how school politics (department/personal rivalries and infighting) can lead to watering down/compromising original ideas to appease all parties involved (especially since schools are - arguably - democratic institutions). I wouldn't be surprised if all department's heads were in some way or another involved, no matter if they actually know anything about design or not. It needs a strong committment of the school administration to trust and support the designer and his/her decisions - it's possible that this wasn't the case at ECUAD (looking at the logo I think it's what likely happened).
In the end the school gets the logo it deserves, I hope the fallout from the whole matter will lead to some discussions how the school went ahead with the whole thing.
Frank’s comment is:
@Jerry Kuyper: You miss the point.
It's not about the similarities as such (can always happen with logos) or who was "first" but the fact that if you use a generic image as your logo, you can hardly claim distinctiveness, uniqueness or ownership.As is illustrated perfectly by the numerous posts here showing similar logos with similar imagery.
Using an (unaltered) generic image as the sole base is quite the opposite of what logo design is all about.And of course it multiplies the chances of similarities to other logos out there.
But i think you actually know that already..
On Mar.03.2009 at 05:48 AM
Lily Lin’s comment is:
I'm not all that surprised with this new design. After 3 name changes in the last 5 years, it's no wonder they're having a difficult time voicing anything. It TRULY is unfortunate that this is all that a supposedly prestigious art/design school can come up with. But then again, maybe it's a good reflection on how accurate that reputation actually is.
On Mar.03.2009 at 06:24 AM
Gavan’s comment is:
You are blind if you think that that iStock Photo is the image used in the creation of this trade mark.
Perhaps you should have taken ten more seconds to look a little more closely before reciting the iStockphoto legal mumbo jumbo.
Open your eyes. It helps in the design process.
On Mar.03.2009 at 07:14 AM
dMullins’s comment is:
I don't feel it's as especially flawed as everyone seems to be convinced it is.
I think the coiled sculpture wire is quite clever, but the overall presentation looks more like a design round -- an unfinished one.
WIth a little more refinement, I think this could hit the mark they're aiming at to help clear up their brand's blurriness.
On Mar.03.2009 at 08:45 AM
dMullins’s comment is:
Also, the iStock photo/vector is not even close to the same.
On Mar.03.2009 at 08:54 AM
JeffB’s comment is:
While I like the idea of the wire, the lower case "emily carr" wordmark and it's odd size relationship with the rest of the pieces make me feel like it's a personal logo for a student's portfolio rather than a renowned institute.
On Mar.03.2009 at 10:23 AM
Kevin Zwirble’s comment is:
The problem I have with this logo is that it's not "creative" at all. Look at logos done in the past for MassART or MICA. It is cliche and doesn't represent the school at all.
On Mar.03.2009 at 10:59 AM
Tom’s comment is:
@dMullins
"Also, the iStock photo/vector is not even close to the same."
Oh come on now. "Not even close to the same"? Really? Two rolled up thin metal wires, shot from above/scanned in - the differences are minute. you can overlay the two images and they blend perfectly. "Not even close to the same" is really a stretch here, no offense ;)
To me it doesn't matter if the image was actually taken from an image bank (I doubt it), but the fact that the logo looks like a stockimage from iStockphoto. If there is a definition of "generic", it's this.
On Mar.03.2009 at 11:16 AM
Robert’s comment is:
Hey, I just made a new logo…
It's very original.
On Mar.03.2009 at 01:58 PM
TBE’s comment is:
Wow.
I understand that anyone can hop on here and say what they like and voice whatever opinion they feel. However this is embarrassing. Of the posts here there are maybe three that offer any useful criticism at all.
Judge Dredd you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. To make assumptions as you did about the legality of this work is completely out of line. I would suggest you owe an apology.
M, any time you want to say something intelligent I'm sure everyone here would be eager to hear it.
In my opinion its ok to put constructive criticism forward in any form, and to offer opinion on things is just fine in any forum that allows it. This thread however is starting to resemble a witch hunt. We all have challenges in our design work, we all have clientele that push us one way or the other, we all have deadlines and budgets to work within. In other words we are peers, not adversaries.
To be as critical as some members are being here without actually offering any intelligent input to solutions is a useless exercise.
Embarrassing, really!!
Completely unprofessional.
On Mar.03.2009 at 02:43 PM
vectorbug’s comment is:
"we all have clientele that push us one way or the other, we all have deadlines and budgets to work within. In other words we are peers, not adversaries."
That is being generous to those who posts on the internet. Not everyone who offers criticism on design is actually a person employed as a designer.
What I find interesting about the logo is that they picked this one over others, meaning they had to turn down other designs that they thought weren't as strong as this for their brand. I'd like to see what those were.
On Mar.03.2009 at 05:47 PM
Nisio’s comment is:
in reply to Jerry Kuyper’s post:
I think you missed the point, the new emily carr logo looks like a lot of other logos, not just one or two. I understand that there is no such thing as original, but there is such a thing as uninspired, which is very relevant when ideally the students of this institution are the next generation of designers and will be pushing the boundaries of visual media. The new logo is hardly leadership by example.
Brad McCall’s comment is:
I agree with some of the other comments. Both solutions (before and after) seem like "been there, done that". Seems like they're missing the opportunity. And the font choice on the new logo feels weak.
On Mar.03.2009 at 07:28 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Scribbled ArtCenter logo----Wannabes!
On Mar.03.2009 at 08:35 PM
srad’s comment is:
i gotta add my vote to the "I like the old one better" camp
On Mar.04.2009 at 02:28 AM
Onno’s comment is:
Scribbling logo's since march 2008
On Mar.04.2009 at 03:46 AM
marnie’s comment is:
Well, I do give them full points for, at least, not having a logo design contest among the design students. Right?
The logo doesn't speak to me at all, though. I, too, see a coiled up wire, which works on several levels, all the art ones mentioned, but also ECIAD (ECUAD?) is, as Armin mentions, situated on Granville Island, which has an interesting mix of public market, artisan market, community centre, theatre, hotel, restaurants, but also some heavy industry, including a concrete supplier. But it doesn't have a lot of impact, and I am tired of the friendly lowercase. Emily Carr was an imposing woman and her art was anything but fey and minuscule.
On Mar.04.2009 at 10:19 AM
Char’s comment is:
marnie: Well, I do give them full points for, at least, not having a logo design contest among the design students. Right?
Ummmm, extremely condescending. I think design institution should allow their students, specially from renown institutions, to have a chance to design their school's logo. I know that it can be done correctly with the help of faculty members and the school's administration.
This is the kind of problems we see right now in design school, professors underestimating the passion, talent and motivation of their own students. I assure 100% a student would have come out with something better than this lazy job of a logo.
Obviously, I do not like this logo. However, I do agree with Marnie on the fact that "Emily Carr was an imposing woman and her art was anything but fey and minuscule." The fact that the "designer" used an istockphoto is despicable. The old logo screams early 90s to me.
Good luck to them with this new logo.
On Mar.04.2009 at 11:08 AM
dig sandy’s comment is:
I'm not a designer, so never heard of this institution, and so when I saw the redesign, my brain thought it was a business card for Emily Carr: "What's the name of the university she represents, 'University of Art+Design' . . that's a bland name for a univers . . oh, wait . . she IS the university!"
I like the previous design, with the qualifier and noun as equals, but I'm a copywriter, not a designer. So just WHY is her name above and WAY BEYOND in size in the re-do? Do folks that go there/went there just say "oh, I go/went to Emily Carr"? If so, then I guess it's alright.
I agree, the scribble looks like a roll of picture wire I just bought the other day . . but perhaps that's okay since it's an art school?
On Mar.04.2009 at 12:03 PM
Amanda’s comment is:
dig sandy, yes people that go/went to Emily Carr do say "I go/went to Emily Carr". The artist herself has been deceased since the 40's so it's not really a source of confusion.
I think you raise a really valid point though, because this is an art school that attracts a lot of international students who might be confused by the type hierarchy if they aren't familiar with the school or the artist.
On Mar.04.2009 at 01:26 PM
Andrew E. Clark’s comment is:
And yet another grey text and circle logo:
http://www.agencyfusion.com/index.html
On Mar.04.2009 at 02:13 PM
Niko’s comment is:
I like it! ....It's crisp, clean and speaks to many aspects of art. Not stuffy or boring like so many learning instituions these days.
Maybe the others who have commented before me should really sit back and appriciate both the efforts and the reasoning for the designers choices and why ECU would have decided to go this direction.
Like they say "you can't please everyone"
On Mar.04.2009 at 04:10 PM
Niko’s comment is:
Also, I think it should be noted those "experts" that want to claim this to be an istockphoto image should look closer. Not the same image. It takes only a second to realize that.
On Mar.04.2009 at 04:30 PM
Matt2’s comment is:
A little too close to comfort for me:
/grumpy
On Mar.04.2009 at 06:56 PM
TBE’s comment is:
Matt2. Are you implying that the Emily Carr mark is a lift of your companies logo? If thats the case I'd be careful. I would consider the "loopy scribble" in your logo less original than the photo-representation used in the Emily Carr one, and certainly more worthy of the "scribble" moniker than the wires.
Niko. I agree, I am starting to like this mark more than when I first saw it. I'm curious to see more of it applied and how that will work. Are there any examples of uses out there?
Char. I'm pretty sure its been established here that is not an iStockphoto product.
On Mar.04.2009 at 07:30 PM
Matt2’s comment is:
@TBE: Not saying they lifted it; I'm in Victoria while they're in Vancouver. Just saying it's annoyingly similar. And yes, I recognize that the circular scribble has been done (and done and done and done...) – but the overall construction is quite similar. Since they're much larger than my little company, my concern is that it will look like I lifted theirs. As I say, just annoying.
Meh.
On Mar.04.2009 at 07:44 PM
Frank’s comment is:
Well that stuff happens when lazyness is the new "visionary".
On Mar.04.2009 at 10:57 PM
Judge Dredd’s comment is:
I am really sorry I didn't do the exact overlay of the logo and the iStock photo in Photoshop. As I said straight after my first post I realised they were NOT the same, they just looked very similar. SORRY! Accept my apologies for too quick assumptions.
On Mar.05.2009 at 08:33 AM
S’s comment is:
This is weak. The type is weak and has no personality. For a school that has such rich tradition and history, this logo fails to represent. The type seems like it was the first choice, and the circle is unnecessary. The previous logo was much more fitting for a unique and spunky school. I am so glad I graduated before I had this mark to represent me.
I personally think they should have had an internal competition for the logo. There are some fantastic student designers that have probably had more education and understand the school more than this "in-house designer".
On Mar.05.2009 at 12:58 PM
S’s comment is:
Oh, and it's an art and DESIGN school. I represent the latter. And I am slightly appalled that this is what they chose. Lame.
On Mar.05.2009 at 01:01 PM
choppy’s comment is:
semi transparent’s comment is:
People should be aware that the Faculty of Design had no input in the development of this identity. It was developed by and in-house designer in consultation with administration. There neither students or faculty from the department of Design had an opportunity to even view it before its big release.
On Mar.05.2009 at 02:51 PM
Carl’s comment is:
Mark’s comment is:
reminds me a lot of the Lucent brush stoke circle.
Now what was the reasoning behind the scribble?
On Mar.05.2009 at 04:54 PM
Roxanne T’s comment is:
This has been a truly fascinating read.
You might find it interesting to note that Emily Carr's North building, located at 1399 Johnston Street, is the site of a former wire factory...
Roxanne T’s comment is:
@semi transparent - perhaps you might be unaware, but Emily Carr's (Interim) Dean of Design was a consultant throughout the design process.
On Mar.06.2009 at 02:08 AM
Eric Karjaluoto’s comment is:
I recently posted on this topic as well. Take a boo: http://www.ideasonideas.com/2009/03/oh-my-alma-mater/
On Mar.06.2009 at 11:04 AM
Chase’s comment is:
Brand New really has become, for the most part (but still yet thankfully not all), a bunch of buzzing hornets.
Is it the bad economy, lack of your own billable hours, that makes everyone so keen to rip and rip and rip and yawn...rip...? Or is that just how it works here?
Yes, the logo is a flat cliché (and a Logolounge design 'trend' of several years past). But ALL posts around here seem to be bitchy, "that sucks, I coulda done better," — which is sometimes designer's back-stabbing equivalent of what a horrible nightmare client might say to US: "my nephew knows photoshop, and he coulda made that in like five minutes..."
On Mar.07.2009 at 09:08 PM
s’s comment is:
Chase: yes, but it is bad. It does not reflect the school and shows a lack of design skill. I think that in this case, it's justified.
And Roxanne T : I doubt the history of the building is relevant - it should reflect more the woman the school is named after, don't you think? Or maybe elements of the disciplines offered?
On Mar.09.2009 at 12:02 PM
Kye Mitchell’s comment is:
ME RIKEY RICEY GIRLS
On Mar.09.2009 at 11:36 PM
Andrey Fedorov’s comment is:
The animation reminds me of Sprint's commercials:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW_9SYaWAQg
On Mar.10.2009 at 05:01 PM
claude’s comment is:
I found this:
Julio Ferro’s comment is:
Check Logolounge's search engine and you'll find a lot of this scribbles.
On Mar.13.2009 at 09:18 PM
elyxandra’s comment is:
@Roxanne T Thanks for that bit of insight on the wire factory. I remember seeing a large fenced in area which contained a lot of coiled wires when I visited in the summer, and wondered about it.
I can understand the thought process that resulted in the scribble/circle/wire, but feel it was an unfortunate choice.
It would be interesting to take a look at the identities for various Art + Design institutions, especially ones that have recently been awarded University Status. I was a student at OCAD when they made the switch and I'm not surprised that something like this came out of a similar situation.
On Mar.16.2009 at 11:53 AM
Sam Dal Monte’s comment is:
I'm an Emily Carr 2nd year design student, and I'm embarrassed to be represented by this logo.
From what I've been hearing around the design areas, the design students hate it, the design teachers hate it, and the art students range from hate, to ambivalence, to confusion as to why the design students are so angry.
Having seen high-resolution digital files of the logo, I know that it's actually a photo of wire, not a vector – hopefully we'll never need to scale it up.
Eric Karjaluoto's blog post and Abi Huynh's (an Emily Carr alumnus) comment sum up most of what I, and most of the design students I've heard from, dislike about the logo, both in how it's designed and how it represents our university.
I should also point out that "Roxanne T" is an Emily Carr PR person.
On Mar.16.2009 at 12:23 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
I would like to invite everyone who has demonstrated so effectively that the new logo looks like something else to submit one of their logo designs to this blog.
Simple rule - the submitted logo cannot look anything like any other logo that has ever been designed.
You know who you are: start posting.
______
Hmmm, still no postings of original designs, maybe it is harder than you thought
On Mar.19.2009 at 06:22 PM
Roxanne T’s comment is:
@Jerry Kuyper
Let me preface this post by stating that I work at Emily Carr University of Art + Design, as I understand that this now 'de rigueur' for anyone posting to this site, (I draw the line at posting my home address though, hate mail can be sent to me via the Uni, or by all means, stop by and visit in person, I'm in 214B.)
Thank you Jerry. That is all.
On Mar.20.2009 at 02:12 PM
Frog’s comment is:
Wow this theme is really popular, good finds folk, and well scuppered @Jeff, brilliant find
On Mar.20.2009 at 03:01 PM
pablo prato’s comment is:
watching the WOLDA.org I found this... similar?
Dan’s comment is:
Roxanne T: perhaps the (Interim) Dean of Design has been out of the game a little too long. Either that, or never had any decent brand or identity work during their years in the business.
I really don't need to add to dissenting voices, but I will anyway. This is a shocking and needless redesign, and for a 'creative' institution, sends a bad message of lowered standards.
The people who say "it looks like this..., etc" are not quite making the right point. Yes, it looks like a lot of things, but why? It's because it's a weak execution built on a two minute idea which was weak and shallow in the first place. There's LOADS of things that look the same, because the same tiny amount of thought went into those identities too.
As Gordon Ramsay would say... "not good enough!"
You should be embarrassed.
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
