NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Comprised of the Irwin S. Chanin School of Architecture, the Albert Nerken School of Engineering, and the School of Art, New York’s The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art is one of the most prestigious colleges in the city and the country — also one of the most selective, boasting the honor of having one of the lowest acceptance rates in the nation. But those that do get in are treated to a tuition-free education. In the design industry, its School of Art is quite celebrated, with many industrious and talented alumni, including the founding members of Push Pin Studios — Seymour Chwast, Reynold Ruffins, Edward Sorel, and Milton Glaser — as well as Herb Lubalin, Lou Dorfsman, Ellen Lupton, Abbott Miller, and Stephen Doyle who just had the task of designing the identity for the 150-year-old institution.
As the Cooper Union prepares to open a new, contemporary building across the street, and celebrates its 150th anniversary, the time is just right for a new logo. Attempting to convey the relationship of science and art, Doyle arrived at a three-dimensional representation of a square “C” and “U” that, through color layering, create a unique and engaging new mark. Last week Steven Heller presented the new logo, showing an animation of how the logo came to be, and is accompanied by some generous insight from Heller and Doyle.
I’m sure most people will complain that if you need a video to explain the logo it doesn’t work. Fine. But this logo works really well on its own. It’s vibrant and it’s distinctive, and the contrast between the bright, primary colors with the isometric rendering create an interesting tension between playful and serious.
Elements from the stationery suite.
A range of applications shown at the presentation stage. Actual items may be different.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Frank’s comment is:
FIRST !!
Sorry, couldn't resist...
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:22 AM
Gregg’s comment is:
I dig it. I actually like that the C and the U are subtle. The graphic stands on its own.
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:23 AM
Mike’s comment is:
My friend goes to Cooper (engineer), I wonder what he thinks about this.
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:24 AM
sukisouk’s comment is:
Pretty cool. Plus after seeing the video, i can almost read the letters in the it. I like how this sign takes the 3D-trend in logo design to a new and sophistivated level.
(•..•)
CCW’s comment is:
Better than Kraft... that for sure.
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:28 AM
Lost’s comment is:
i love the stationary, but the clothes are awful!
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:28 AM
Erik’s comment is:
I like it. I think the graphic balancing atop of the text helps bring focus to "CooperUnion". I think it works well for architecture also.
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:29 AM
Frank’s comment is:
A good logo indeed shouldn't need much explanation but then again nothing speaks against clever concepts that unveil in a more subtle way.So i can appreciate the overall concept of this one.The only worry i have and although i might sound like a broken record:
Does it work in b/w ?
I think not.But nice concept nevertheless.
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:30 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
I think it falls apart without color, but I seriously doubt The Cooper Union will have to cut costs and get things printed in anything less than 4c (besides that embroidered hat)
If this was a corporation I'd say the logo was awful and obscure, but as a well-established educational institution I think they can get as conceptual as they want without losing anything.
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:47 AM
Santorini’s comment is:
Wonderful!
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:50 AM
Alex’s comment is:
It's colorful, but what about black and white adaptations?
Other than that, I think it's great.
Blake’s comment is:
Really like the type/logo lock-up. It doesn't mind showing off some color.
On Feb.19.2009 at 09:21 AM
coda’s comment is:
Trippy! Nice mark.
On Feb.19.2009 at 09:27 AM
august’s comment is:
Smashing new mark!
On Feb.19.2009 at 09:40 AM
Bruce’s comment is:
I kind of not want to like it, but I do. Especially after the video. I think there's a part of me that wants to say "it's too busy," but really, it isn't. Add one more thing to it, and it would be. Nice mark. I like the embroidered hat. The repeating logo makes a nice, colorful pattern, but I don't think it should be used that way—makes it a design element rather than a single, distinctive mark.
On Feb.19.2009 at 09:44 AM
Plamen’s comment is:
Ah, suddenly there is more colour and shape in life!
Not sure though about the way symbol and typo are put together... could be better.
On Feb.19.2009 at 09:46 AM
Gregg’s comment is:
I completely understand and agree with a logo working in B&W but I am curious. How often are logos printed in B&W anymore, especially with things becoming more and more digital?
On Feb.19.2009 at 09:54 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
There sure is a lot of tension where the logo and the text meet. Gutsy. I think the mark is beautiful.
On Feb.19.2009 at 09:59 AM
Filipe’s comment is:
I really like it :) I'd love to study in a college with that logo, im pretty sure the students will be proud to show it off to other people
On Feb.19.2009 at 10:04 AM
jarrod’s comment is:
awesome, i love it.
certainly doesn't need the video, but just becomes more interesting with it.
for the few times it may need to appear in black and white, of course it can work, in more than one way even.
bravo!
M.’s comment is:
It's thoughtful, creative, and interesting. I like the field built from the repetition of the logo - very intriguing. The only downside (imo) is that with those colors, the logo will not be timeless. It's too visually complex and tied to "trendy" color choices. A simplified color scheme would keep it from appearing dated in a few years. Perhaps as others have said, a b&w treatment could take care of that problem.
Also, I didn't know that the "Cooper" part of the name was more important than the "Union" part.
On Feb.19.2009 at 10:14 AM
Randy’s comment is:
I saw this a few days ago, and I gotta say, I like it. I can't see the letters in it, but I like it. Much better than their old one, seriously, golden triangle?
On Feb.19.2009 at 10:16 AM
PatrickDuffy’s comment is:
"i love the stationary, but the clothes are awful!"
Lost meant I THINK, the clothes are awful. I quite like the hat and t-shirt. Simple graphic tee, but works as a piece for me. Overall, I would say a timely update and nice rebrand.
On Feb.19.2009 at 10:25 AM
Frank’s comment is:
How often are logos printed in B&W anymore, especially with things becoming more and more digital?
If out of 100 occasions there are 3 where the logo needs to be printed in b/w, then in these 3 situations the logo must work in b/w, right ?
It's not a matter of "how often" - more of "some day" and "who knows" why logos should be able to work in one color versions; because you never know when that time will come where in that one moment this requirement will be an absolute must.
It's a matter of being on the safe side, really.
On Feb.19.2009 at 10:32 AM
Jose A. Contreras’s comment is:
I guess the outlined version shown on the hat would be the one for one color jobs?
I also agree that there's tension between the icon and text... I'm having a harder time getting over that.
Stylistically and conceptually, very nice work, though!
On Feb.19.2009 at 10:38 AM
dan’s comment is:
i dig it, but the pattern looks like barry mcgee.. http://www.theworldsbestever.com/2007/10/08/barry-mcgee-1.jpg
On Feb.19.2009 at 10:44 AM
C4RLO’s comment is:
I think the invisible subtlety of the C-U is perfect for an institution more focused on science and art than status and self-adulation.
I wonder if the presentation included the Astor Place spinning Cube sculpture across the street from Cooper Union? It would fit perfectly into the visual context of the neighborhood. Is there a full copy of the presentation?
As for the b/w issue - I imagine a wireframe version of this logo would suffice and still carry the geometric impact of the logo.
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:05 AM
Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:
Just right for their audience.
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:08 AM
Matt’s comment is:
I didn't see the C+U until it was mentioned, but now i can't not see it. pretty neat, seeing as i respond best to logos that make you think for a minute or two to find out everything about it. colorful, brings more life and energy to an already energetic city.
"better than kraft" —CCW But what does that say...
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:21 AM
damon’s comment is:
cool cool.
it has limitations obviously, but it's pretty nice looking.
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:24 AM
*cg’s comment is:
To Armin's point, the fact that you had to see a video to understand it, is pretty lame. After seeing it though it made a lot of sense. I personally like the mark, just wished the colors weren't so printeresque. Instead showed the uniqueness and particularity of the school instead.
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:37 AM
Sean’s comment is:
Does anyone else feel that the way the logo meets the text is really uncomfortable? It's hard to imagine that little text holding up that huge shape, and the angle hitting the horizontal is really awkward. Could they have run the text at the same angle or something else perhaps?
I agree with *cg about the colors, the cmyk (or very close) scheme is generic. I like the way the pattern works; you really get to see the dimensional trickery.
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:52 AM
claes’s comment is:
I like it, I don't think you need the video to get it, though it certainly makes the idea behind it much more clear. What I like most is actually how the lower tip of the logo is right at where the words Cooper and Union meet, leading the eyes there.
It's certainly a massive improvement over the old one, which looks like something out of a textbook.
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:55 AM
lucid’s comment is:
Only because the old one sucked more than the new one!
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:56 AM
kyl3’s comment is:
I like the mark, colorful and complex. looks good in embroidery on the hat.
Not sure about the type without spacing (THECOOPERUNION). Seems like a kinda played approach.
On Feb.19.2009 at 12:00 PM
Gabrielle Fulginiti’s comment is:
love love love the graphic and all it stands for..but honestly, digging more into this, if your going to do such a great job on the symbol, brag that you only invite 9% of your applicant pool to the school-- at least re-vamp your website as well! geeze!
On Feb.19.2009 at 12:01 PM
Michael’s comment is:
I really like it, especially after the video. Also, I disagree with the general consensus that it doesn't work in B&W. It wouldn't work if it were shaded in B&W as it is in colour, but I think the logo on the hat shows how it would be done in B&W. I might actually like the logo on the hat more than the colour one, just two simple connected cubes. Very nice.
On Feb.19.2009 at 12:05 PM
Whaleroot’s comment is:
Absolutely gorgeous! That pattern is to die for!
On Feb.19.2009 at 12:21 PM
jj’s comment is:
Reminds me of the VCU Brandcenter identity.
http://www.brandcenter.vcu.edu/
On Feb.19.2009 at 12:21 PM
Dale Campbell’s comment is:
Very nice.
I feel the sudden urge to take a nice deep breath and know that all is not lost in the wake of these recent branding nightmares we have all been contributing posts to.
That hat is bad-arse. I would rock that in a second.
Keep well,
Dale
Nisio’s comment is:
Nice symbol, I like the evolution of the mark from simple lines through to isometric shapes, the logic behind it is also very nice. Lovely solution.
Unfortunately the typography is very dated and lets the overall logo down a bit.
On Feb.19.2009 at 12:44 PM
Impossibly Stupid’s comment is:
It's a terrible logo. Don't let the supposed prestige of a design firm/school cloud your judgement. To the casual observer, without a video/article to explain it or time to study it, it's just a jumble of colors that communicates nothing.
Don't get me wrong; I see what they were going for. Even then, though, they get the color blends wrong. There is an area of red/yellow overlap that should have been more properly orange. Red/blue should be a lighter purple, not nearly black. Not that I'd really want to add more colors into the mess.
My eyes immediately run away from the confusion of the colors and settle on the white space. It reminds me of a key, yet for all their educated BS about the design of the thing, that is never mentioned. That is odd to me, because education as a "key to the future" is such a powerful message that it makes them look all kinds of silly for not highlighting it.
If they had simply noticed that, the B&W representation would have taken care of itself, too. Instead, by the looks of that hat, they went with a mess of wireframe that loses all their high-minded color and form nonsense. Embarrassing, really.
On Feb.19.2009 at 01:03 PM
Kelly’s comment is:
I agree that it's similar to the VCU Brandcenter identity. Maybe not a bad thing? I think both are fresh and attractive.
On Feb.19.2009 at 01:20 PM
koyo’s comment is:
Very Nice Applicated.
On Feb.19.2009 at 01:39 PM
eric’s comment is:
I love everything about that mark, very nicely done.
On Feb.19.2009 at 01:40 PM
grit’s comment is:
That's a tissue-paper box kite, no two ways around it.
On Feb.19.2009 at 01:42 PM
TheMaster’s comment is:
I think this is great. Very diverse, very up-to-date, and very fun. The students will have a system that they can really stand behind.
I love it.
For me, something summons up memories of Sagmeister's work for the "Casa da Musica" in Portugal. Thanks for the great work.
On Feb.19.2009 at 01:59 PM
Crow T Robot’s comment is:
I didn't get it then I dropped acid and it spoke to me... literally.
On Feb.19.2009 at 02:26 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Addressing:
"Does it work in b/w ?"
"I think not. But nice concept nevertheless."
"If out of 100 occasions there are 3 where the logo needs to be printed in b/w, then in these 3 situations the logo must work in b/w, right ?"
"It wouldn't work if it were shaded in B&W as it is in colour,"
"As for the b/w issue - I imagine a wireframe version of this logo would suffice and still carry the geometric impact of the logo."
"It's colorful, but what about black and white adaptations?"
I have a simple, 30 second recommendation. Instead of pondering, doubting, fretting that it won't work in black and white - do the following:
- drag the GIF to your desktop
- drop it in iPhoto
- click edit
- click effects
- click b/w
Voila, a beautifully rendered gray scale logo that looks almost as good as the original.
On Feb.19.2009 at 03:04 PM
BWJ’s comment is:
The VCU Brandcenter logo is a yellow triangle...
Similarities? They are both geometric. wow.
--
I like the outlined version on the hat more than the full color. I think all the colors are a bit much.
Maria’s comment is:
I like it a lot, and I didn't even bother to watch the video. I could see how this could work many different ways. B & W in grayscale sounds fine, plus the outline version on the hat is actually cool (wireframe, molecule, math).
I dunno about the reddish "Cooper" versus the rest of the gray letters, though. Not horrible, not great. As someone mentioned above, is there a reason for the emphasis, or is it just to separate the words?
The 3-D C and U are just bonus to me. Now that I see them, I really like this. Overall it's modern, clean, interesting.
numismus’s comment is:
As a logo, it's cool and wel-made. As a logo for Cooper Union, I'm not a fan.
It is too gimmicky for CU. Too much fuss. I would accept it for a school like Parsons or SVA. But not for Cooper. Something classy about the institution has been lost, and Cooper Union is all about timelessness and a high reputation where the faculty & alumni speak for themselves.
This logo has cheapened Cooper's image. And then the gimmicky pattern-ing.. Oy.
But then again they're having a new building done by Thom Mayne's firm. I guess the gimmickiness won't be lonely.
On Feb.19.2009 at 04:35 PM
Wünderwoman’s comment is:
FINALLY!
GREAT WORK!!!!
I love it. Fresh...thought provoking and symbollic of the institution. Ah...there is still good work going on in the world!
Myles’s comment is:
Pretty killer, I dig it a lot. Very versatile and memorable. The patterns are great and the animations bring it all home. There is a crapload of tension between the mark and the type which makes me alittle uncomfortable, but overall nice stuff.
On Feb.19.2009 at 04:49 PM
DG3’s comment is:
Not too shabby.
On Feb.19.2009 at 05:01 PM
BJN’s comment is:
It's a box kite, but a nice mark nonetheless. Can't see the letter forms but that's not a problem.
On Feb.19.2009 at 05:09 PM
Von K’s comment is:
I really like it--good work.
Impossibly Stupid: no, your opinion is wrong.
On Feb.19.2009 at 05:13 PM
Neil’s comment is:
Even after watching the video, I find it difficult to see the CU. However, I don't think it even matters. I love the new logo and think it works well regardless of being able to see the CU. The typography (or rather the positioning of it) needs work, though.
I have to say that their previous logo is actually pretty nice too!
On Feb.19.2009 at 05:35 PM
Emily Charette’s comment is:
fresh!
On Feb.19.2009 at 05:36 PM
Barclay D.’s comment is:
love it. love the pattern esp.
On Feb.19.2009 at 05:36 PM
Stephen Doyle’s comment is:
Here it is in black and white.
Trippy?
Casey’s comment is:
As a future Cooper student, I love it! Especially in B&W. Thanks Stephen!
On Feb.19.2009 at 06:08 PM
Mike’s comment is:
So my friend from Cooper said that they were "PISSED about it." I'm pretty sure he meant the engineering students, anyway. He said the C and the U are hard to see (as someone else here said) and that the Fibonacci sequence is just more "engineering like." I like the rebrand myself but I can see what he means if you look at it from a science-and-math point of view.
On Feb.19.2009 at 06:13 PM
Amanda’s comment is:
Really loving this one.
On Feb.19.2009 at 06:51 PM
Jon Parker’s comment is:
I like the black and white one much more than the colored one. But admittedly I have this old-school aversion to multicolored logos.
Definitely stronger and more distinctive than the old logo.
On Feb.19.2009 at 07:47 PM
Robin’s comment is:
Jealous... Wish my school's logo had as many colors as this one. (Not being ironic there, I promise.) Also, LOVE that stationery pattern.
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:04 PM
erik spiekermann’s comment is:
Finally a piece of work that is not made by and for morons.
Kraft, Pepsi et al had me wondering whether all intelligent life had left graphic design.
BTW: i didn't see the CU at first, but i didn't care. There is a subtitle, after all, and a beautiful mark is a beautiful mark. Or does the Mercedes star look like an M?
On Feb.19.2009 at 08:43 PM
Impossibly Stupid’s comment is:
@Von K
I didn't offer an opinion, I offered an analysis. That is, where the depth of far too many of these comments are an empty "I really like it", I actually broke down the design work and explicitly said what was fundamentally wrong with it. Unless you can counter with what is so good about it from a design perspective (no fallacious appeals to authority allowed), it is you who is holding an opinion that is wrong.
David Ramos’s comment is:
This logo's all about drafting. That, and joyous colors.
Responding to Impossibly Stupid:
To the casual observer, without a video/article to explain it or time to study it, it's just a jumble of colors that communicates nothing.
I doubt that the Cooper Union is aiming much of its communication at people who are too incurious to bother looking at the logo. This is a school, not a soft drink. If you actually look for a moment, the colors quickly resolve themsleves into two cubes. It's open to interpretation, but the visual language refers to the school's programs: the cubes are drawn in an isometric projection, something that should be intimately familliar to engineers and architects, and a way of drawing that is more intellectual, more analytical than perspective. The play of overlapping colors talks to the design side - these aren't just trendy colors, they're close to CMY primaries, and they're rooted in design history.
If anything, the colors are too old-fashioned. This looks like something that I'd expect out of the US in 1960. It's a lot like Bradbury Thompson meets John Massey, especially the Container Corporation of America logo.
I wasn't even aware of the C and the U at first. It's not as if the letters need to be evident. The whole name's right there on the bottom. The rotating C and U provide some further justification for the colored shapes, and no more.
It reminds me of a key, yet for all their educated BS about the design of the thing, that is never mentioned. That is odd to me, because education as a "key to the future" is such a powerful message that it makes them look all kinds of silly for not highlighting it.
You'll have to forgive me, but I really don't see a key anywhere. Eye of the beholder and all that, you know. That said, it's not as if the idea of "education as a key" is particular to Cooper Union's curriculum or, for that matter, more than a worn-down platitude. I'd rather keep the vivacious open-to-interpretation shapes, thank you.
they went with a mess of wireframe that loses all their high-minded color and form nonsense."
Ya know, a school teaching engineering, architecture, and design might have some interest in expressing its identity through color and form. And that sort of school just might teach enough imagination and draftsmanship to allow translation into a wireframe or, as we've seen posted lower down, a series of hatched lines.
On Feb.19.2009 at 10:49 PM
David Ramos’s comment is:
What I really love about this logo, though, is that *I* can change it. I look one way and I see the boxes; I look another way and the boxes flip. If I try harder, I can see a box folding open. I can change the right here, right now, sitting at my desk.
Your logo lets me build stuff. How cool is that?!
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:00 PM
Stephen Doyle’s comment is:
Hey David: Bingo! The boxes flip! Welcome to The Cooper Union!
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:16 PM
b.r.o.o.d.y.’s comment is:
Cool, classic design. I'm not crazy about the colors though; they seem overly saturated (maybe in a slightly *too* classic fashion), including the red in the wordmark. Because of the color, I actually believe the wireframe version on the cap is more attractive than the original. And now that I think of it, I don't want to see how'd they'd handle the wordmark when restricted to one color.
But all in all, this design is a hit. It looks like it will grow into a strong, lasting identity. Massive improvement from the original, let alone the "redesigns" (or rather brand butcherings) we've had to endure this week. It's good to finally see the work of someone who knows what they're doing.
On Feb.19.2009 at 11:20 PM
dMullins’s comment is:
If this wasn't for the CU, it would be getting ripped apart as too conceptual and illegible.
Funny how that works.
On Feb.20.2009 at 12:09 AM
sreiny’s comment is:
If this wasn't for the CU, it would be getting ripped apart as too conceptual and illegible.
I think one of the reasons it does work is because it is the Cooper Union. No, you couldn't pull this off for every institution or business. But you can get away with conceptual and abstract like this there.
And after reading David's comment, I can't stop switching the boxes around in my head. Amazing.
On Feb.20.2009 at 12:48 PM
David’s comment is:
Real Beaute! Love the B&W version!
On Feb.20.2009 at 01:02 PM
David’s comment is:
I like the Cooper Square relationship as well.
On Feb.20.2009 at 01:06 PM
Von K’s comment is:
@ Impossibly Stupid,
I don't think you did offer an analysis. I think you offered your opinions.
Let's take a look:
1. "It's a terrible logo. Don't let the supposed prestige of a design firm/school cloud your judgement. To the casual observer, without a video/article to explain it or time to study it, it's just a jumble of colors that communicates nothing."
You express two opinions here. The first is that the logo is terrible. The second is that this logo communicates nothing. I could easily argue that this logo is great and that it communicates more than one thing. Also, I had no problem "getting it" with no video or article. Maybe your experience was unique in that respect.
2. "Don't get me wrong; I see what they were going for. Even then, though, they get the color blends wrong. There is an area of red/yellow overlap that should have been more properly orange. Red/blue should be a lighter purple, not nearly black. Not that I'd really want to add more colors into the mess."
Why can't they use whatever colors they want? Also, maybe your monitor isn't the same as theirs. Don't tell me you've never had the "colors look different on different monitors" talk with a client.
3. "My eyes immediately run away from the confusion of the colors and settle on the white space. It reminds me of a key, yet for all their educated BS about the design of the thing, that is never mentioned. That is odd to me, because education as a "key to the future" is such a powerful message that it makes them look all kinds of silly for not highlighting it."
Just because you saw a key doesn't mean anyone else did. I didn't see a key. You're presuming too much about what your eyes see vs. what others see. It's not silly at all. Or maybe they did see it and felt that "education = key to the future" is a hackneyed phrase, not a powerful message.
4. "If they had simply noticed that, the B&W representation would have taken care of itself, too. Instead, by the looks of that hat, they went with a mess of wireframe that loses all their high-minded color and form nonsense. Embarrassing, really."
I agree that the wireframe on the hat isn't as strong as the color logo, and I think a better 1-color version could be done. That said, why is analysis "high minded nonsense" when CU does it and refreshingly in-depth when you do it? To be honest, I didn't get any kind of analysis from your post at all, just vociferous snark masquerading as analysis. That's much worse than a superficial "I like/hate it" comment, in my opinion.
On Feb.20.2009 at 02:49 PM
Impossibly Stupid’s comment is:
@Von K
1. Not an opinion, rather a distillation of my analysis. From an initial branding perspective, it is terrible because a person presented with it just experiences a visual overload. It is much less memorable for that.
2. They can't use whatever colors they want for that design. Did you even read the article? They pseudo-intellectualized 3 particular colors as "primary, transparent color", yet failed to follow through with that idea for anything other than green. That is a simple observation.
3. Are you really telling me that observing the white space is something beyond the alumni? Whether or not they made it a focal point is moot; I was just noting that it seemed too obvious a thing to ignore. You actually support my point by considering it hackneyed; it is so common that it should have possibly even been avoided if that was not their intention.
4. The difference you fail to see is that it is trivial to make up a story that justifies bad design decision. Just look through this site's archives and you'll see designs that are terrible missteps that companies try to pass off as deeply meaningful (e.g., the Pepsi smile nonsense). My analysis was unbiased and simply pointed out some obvious things that should not have been missed. I liked the concept they were going for, but pointing out how their execution failed, snarky or not, is far more useful than a toady's thumbs up.
On Feb.20.2009 at 03:30 PM
Impossibly Stupid’s comment is:
@David Ramos
Again, I got where they were trying to go with the colors. They just failed to get there. The blending is incomplete and misguided. That is, the C an U letter forms are supposed to represent their institution, but in the logo they are rendered thin and transparent. Is that really the message they want to be sending? I certainly know that I'd reject any logo that came across my desk with that potential interpretation.
The fact that they made color so central does make B&W a problem. Whether or not they go with wireframe or hatching or anything else, the original insubstantial form shows through. It's just not as distinctive as it should have been for this particular institution. Most people here seem to be giving them a pass based on who they are, whereas I'm simply holding them to a higher standard that they should expect if they demand to be considered prestigious. It's shoddy work, plain and simple.
On Feb.20.2009 at 03:46 PM
Von K’s comment is:
Impossibly Stupid,
In the interest of not mucking this site up with a geeky argument, this will be my last reply to you.
I do think some of the things you're saying make sense, but most of them really are opinion-based, no matter how angrily you say otherwise.
Anyway, here we go:
1. A distillation of opinionated analysis is still an opinion. Just because you experienced "visual overload" doesn't mean most or even anyone else will. This is unique to you. Stating it as though you had done some sort of test and found that people in general have this reaction is disingenuous. It is a flawed, opinionated analysis.
2. You caught me. I didn't read the whole thing. It sounds like you're right about the colors not working how primary colors behave when overlayed like this. That said, the logo still worked for me. I tend to not read the press release stuff because, as you say, it's usually full of BS. IMO, a logo works or it doesn't.
3. I don't think observing the white space is beyond the alums. It's not beyond me, either. I don't see a key in there. Can you show me the key? I'm actually not supporting your point by saying that phrase is hackneyed. Hackneyed phrases aren't ownable and usually don't do any good in differentiating a brand. "Education is the key to the future" could work for any number of institutions.
4. I understand what you're saying, but it's not trivial to make up BS to defend decisions. It's how things get sold. Whether those decisions themselves are bad or not is a different conversation completely. Your analysis was not unbiased. It was informed completely by your experience of the logo and press release. It is, I believe, impossible to make an unbiased analysis of design. Our own experiences differ and that's a part of it. That's what makes these press releases seem so hilarious when they try to use science to dissect the reasons things do or don't work.
One final point--just because I chose to write a simple comment stating that I enjoyed the work doesn't make me a "toady." Even if it did, what possible good ever came of name-calling?
On Feb.20.2009 at 04:06 PM
Chuck Spidell’s comment is:
The new logo looks like box kite. Nice to see the different usages though - sells it a bit more.
Stephen Doyle's line-based version is cool lookin' but won't scale well at small sizes. Those lines will disappear. So I'm curious how this logo will work in solid black and white. From the looks of it, grayscale will have to be the compromise.
On Feb.21.2009 at 04:44 AM
Impossibly Stupid’s comment is:
@Von K
I am in no way angry, so I think you're engaging in transference. The reality remains that I continue to point to specific shortcomings of the design that are objective and obvious given even the slightest analysis, and I have not engaged in any opinion on their subjective choices. Not once do I criticize the color they used or whether or not using letterforms was a good idea. Instead, I say given those choices they made, here is exactly why this is a bad logo.
1. It is true I did not do a study to determine that the logo was too busy. I simply looked at that repeated logo tiled in the picture next to the guy in the t-shirt, and then asked myself "if I present that to people, what would they say it was". Odds are pretty good that they'd say it was an abstract desktop background for their computer or some other kind of really awful wall paper pattern. Regardless, and you can dispute it all you like, it is not something visually distinctive that any organization should expect to use for identification.
2. Works or doesn't is, again, just an empty matter of opinion. That is why I offered an analysis that judges the effort in the context of its own intent. If you can apply some critical thinking as to why you came to the conclusion that it works, you'll actually have something of value. Until then, I stand by my analysis that shows this to be a failure.
3. I have to question your visual creativity if you can't see a key or a kite or something in that white diamond over a white triangle. I went with key because of that often-used association with education, which is why I said you support my point.
4. You are flat out wrong. There is no science being used to justify the bad color blending, and there is no bias on my part for point it out. It is a simple observation of reality, and high-minded justifications of such mistakes is how bad designs "get sold" instead of getting corrected. It doesn't benefit anybody to defend poorly executed branding efforts
"Toady" isn't name calling. It is a word with a specific meaning that describes the behavior of too many people in this discussion. Look at all the other branding disasters that we've seen on this site and see how quickly people spotted the errors. In this case, though, we get a lead up of how "prestigious" this institution is, and despite obvious flaws in the execution we see waves of accolades. It'd be laughable if it weren't so sad.
On Feb.21.2009 at 11:19 AM
jsae’s comment is:
love it love it.
On Feb.21.2009 at 09:25 PM
Frank’s comment is:
@Jerry Kuyper:
"Voila, a beautifully rendered gray scale logo that looks almost as good as the original."
Uhm, all the comments you quoted including mine were aimed at the issue of a *b/w* version, not a grayscale one.I don't see a problem with gray scale either but the issue here really is/was how a solid one color version would look like.
Anyway, the outline version and the one Stephen Doyle has posted are probably sufficient.
On Feb.22.2009 at 02:07 PM
Matheus’s comment is:
b&w seems good, but the color one is just too much color.
On Feb.22.2009 at 06:15 PM
Michelle’s comment is:
It's pretty, yes. That's a given. It gives the institution a modern look (and comparing it to the old logo, this one is better).
By itself however, it just doesn't work for me. I don't know how this logo could hold up with time. To each its own, I suppose.
On Feb.23.2009 at 01:37 PM
dadallas’s comment is:
Looks similar to this, #3:
http://www.vectorvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/logotrend2_vectorvault.gif
Thats a logo for the Urban Architecture Group
On Feb.23.2009 at 04:45 PM
Jazz’s comment is:
From russian blog
http://eg-design.livejournal.com/7496.html
Ted’s comment is:
Really love this. The crypticness of that symbol elegantly represents how arrogant and badass CU is. Plus that type is sexxxxy.
On Feb.24.2009 at 09:13 AM
SeeingI’s comment is:
I would not call the "C U" subtle, I'd call it totally obscure. Maybe I'm thick, but without the video, I'd never have seen letter forms in that logo. To me, it's just an abstract color cube that is more reminiscent of the big rotating cube in Cooper Square than anything else.
However, that said, it's an attractive logo and looks great on t-shirts. Speaking of attractive, that model wearing the t-shirt is pretty tasty. Just sayin'.
On Feb.24.2009 at 10:43 AM
Aaron’s comment is:
The video is neat, but I think it works just fine without...then again, I've seen the video. haha.
That said, I do think the new logo is great...both in color and black and white. Very clever and fascinatingly complex.
On Feb.25.2009 at 01:29 AM
fakar’s comment is:
WOW a real home run!
On Feb.25.2009 at 12:25 PM
Abe’s comment is:
smashing. it works all around. i dig it.
On Feb.25.2009 at 12:37 PM
loudzoo’s comment is:
At first I thought I wouldn't like it, but it certainly grew on me and as you see it extend itself in video and print and more, it really is a great mark.
I love the fact that at first I really had no idea what it was but I kid of did...if you know what I mean. It just works.
It is simple and complex all in one. Very thoughtful.
On Feb.25.2009 at 01:54 PM
new yorker’s comment is:
finally someone mentioned it...great adaptation of the cooper square sculpture. classic cube in primary colors sums it all up engineering and design. cool
On Feb.25.2009 at 02:26 PM
Char’s comment is:
Gorgeous!
On Feb.26.2009 at 07:32 PM
Panasit’s comment is:
I was so-so about it until I saw the motion graphic animating it a while back.
Oh and I love the black and white version.
On Mar.02.2009 at 11:08 AM
lyndi’s comment is:
LOVE IT
the basic shapes look complex and that someone actually thought about placement. smart. cool. and very appropriate for the target.
will enjoy seeing this brand grow
No’s comment is:
Personally speaking I absolutely adore their new logo and type treatment.
It feels fresh and new, it looks great as a pattern, and it feels absolutely appropriate for a forward-looking art/design school.
I agree that the logo looks silly on the hat and the placement/sizing on the hoodie was obviously phoned in, but other than that it's delightful.
On Mar.02.2009 at 07:02 PM
Impossible is nothing ’s comment is:
Why is no one correcting the whole "blend color" observation? Ofcourse red + yellow isn't going to be orange, it's still going to be red. ffs amateur experts.
On Mar.04.2009 at 01:41 AM
Cooper Student’s comment is:
I'm just gonna throw it out there that the majority of the students seem to hate the new logo, or "the box kite" as we call it.
The general consensus (and I admit I've only really spoken to my fellow engineering majors) is that we REALLY liked the golden spiral, and that it was a much, MUCH better logo than our current one.
anon1’s comment is:
I don't like it at all. The original logo was tasteful and said everything anyone would need to know about CU.
This new monstrosity is like a bad in-joke to a 3rd grade secret society. As the chil'ren say: FAIL.
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
