NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
The Museum of London, established in 1976, chronicles the history of the city of London from prehistoric times and from the eighteenth century to today. Currently undergoing a £20.5 million renovation aimed to open in 2010 and, leading up to that moment, the museum has begun phasing a new identity that will brand the main museum, as well as two related institutions, the Museum of London Docklands and the Museum of London Archaeology. The new look has been designed by London-based Coley Porter Bell.
The striking new logo, designed by award winning agency Coley Porter Bell, takes the conceptual form of London’s thumbprint. Coloured layers map the shape of London over time, reflecting the ever-changing, diverse and dynamic make up of London and Londoners, past, present and future. The brand mark has been crafted to create visual impact, and link the Museum venues.
— Press release
Even though the shapes being so organic make the institutions look more like natural history museums, I really like the idea of using the growing geographic area of London as a way to represent the content and mission of the museum and I think the execution verges on good with the possibility of crossing over to clunky. The typography is simple and confident but the placement feels too forced and obstructing, but nothing too offensive. The sub-brands are also properly done, although the way they barely touch the blobs is neither here nor there. Overall, I think the complaints do not outweigh the overall concept, and from the look of the web site and even the favicon, it looks like this identity can be applied and extended in interesting ways.
Thanks to Michael Johnson for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
john’s comment is:
London as Pangaea. Cool.
On Oct.30.2008 at 10:14 AM
jRod’s comment is:
this is the first logo that i have seen on this site and just said WOW when i saw it. really really good work! give that designer a raise, they deserve it.
On Oct.30.2008 at 10:19 AM
designscene’s comment is:
Logo is an image. And I really don't understand why someone should try "this" hard to justify the design. At the end of the day, the viewer will not go and read about 'the making of the logo'.
The logo just remains to be a half-baked interpretation of the geographical location, London. And doesn't focus on the Museum itself.
Vicks throatdrops!
On Oct.30.2008 at 10:22 AM
Bart O'Dell’s comment is:
I have to admit. I love this!
Conceptually it is very different from the other museum brands in the world. It seems to jump off the screen at you.
Nice work.
On Oct.30.2008 at 10:25 AM
Giacomo Cesana’s comment is:
Strange logo, surely better than the old one.
It looks like Brazil logo.
Diego C.’s comment is:
It makes me rembember the Brazil Logo. The style and concepts looks like.
Its a great work! Why the museum logos must be old-style look? Inovate!
On Oct.30.2008 at 10:56 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
It's an upgrade of the previous identity. A little weird. But I like it. The Web site really brings it to life.
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:10 AM
rickyaustin’s comment is:
I do like that the city of London has been forward-thinking in recent identities.
London 2012 Olympics
Museum of London
I hope other historic cities take note. This is nice.
Like Armin mentioned, a few type things I'd shuffle, but overall nicely done.
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:11 AM
Scott’s comment is:
"The logo just remains to be a half-baked interpretation of the geographical location, London. And doesn't focus on the Museum itself."
designscene, you're kidding right? First off, the image of a topographic map isn't exactly hard to recognize, or at least shouldn't be for most people going to a museum.
Second, it's the Museum of London. How is showing a graphic representation of London not focusing on the Museum? Would you prefer a logo of the building, or a book? That's the only way I can imagine representing the Museum more directly.
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:11 AM
Oak’s comment is:
@designscene Gotta disagree. The museum's subject matter is "the museum itself." (Especially because this museum clearly has at least three other branches. Possibly, three completely different locations, i don't know).
You certainly can't focus on the building itself if you have multiple sites OR if the building isn't a notable landmark kind of location with a lot of inherent brand baked in. Given that, I think the decision to focus on the subject matter is the logical point of departure for the mark. I also think it's short sighted to think that the principle subject of the Museum is less appropriate then "the museum," (whatever that means).
What would MOMA be if you remove Modern Art from the brand and just focus on "the museum?"
What would the Museum of London be if you remove London from the brand and just focus on "the museum?"
For what it's worth, I have never seen this logo before five minutes ago and I immediately "got it" without reading any of the accompanying text. That makes for a pretty successful mark in my book.
I like it.
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:12 AM
Dusty’s comment is:
Looks like blobs of shit to me.
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:15 AM
darrel’s comment is:
Ooooh! This is nice. A great palate cleanser after the sticky bland taste of the Pepsi ordeal.
I think this is great. I got the 'city limits' concept right away, but the bonus is that one doesn't need to see that to appreciate the logo's beauty.
Plus, now I'm really curious as to the history of that isolated 'island' of London in the south there...
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:25 AM
Colormist’s comment is:
I like it. I like the concept behind it. And maybe because it's a museum, people will actually learn about this historic nature of the logo. One can hope.
Also like the Brasil logo.
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:28 AM
Lindsilou’s comment is:
Nice, although I would have to agree that the two related institutions' logos remind me of Vicks brands.
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:35 AM
damon’s comment is:
kinda cool, I feel like the type should have lived entirely in the darkest centre area.
and I don't much like the grey/blue around the outside, but overall it's an improvement for sure.
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:43 AM
Matheus’s comment is:
Another logotype made probably by a drunk Irish, a dog and a brunt twig.
This logotype is just random Illustrator shapes overlayered into different colors and transparencies.
And English designers gotta forget photoshop while making brands, god, this is a fucking disease
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:59 AM
Martin Jordan’s comment is:
Looks a bit like the non-LSD version of Peter Saville’s 2002 logo for the London Design Museum:
sra’s comment is:
this is the first logo that i have seen on this site and just said WOW when i saw it.
Same here. I love this, the retro feel of the shape/colours is so appealing.
It reminds me of original Star Trek, and that is always a good thing.
On Oct.30.2008 at 12:02 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
The concept is wonderful, but sometimes you have to come to the conclusion that in the end a beautiful, memorable and appropriate identity is more important than the path it took to get there. As someone said above, nobody is going to read about the making of this logo, and as such it will look like amoebas to anybody who doesn't have a time-lapse map of the London city limits sitting in front of them.
On Oct.30.2008 at 12:03 PM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
It would have worked better if the logotype was separated from the symbol, or integrated better.
As it stands, they look like two directions, layered on top of one another.
On a more positive note, the colors are refreshing and a little unexpected.
On Oct.30.2008 at 12:20 PM
Scott’s comment is:
How many transparent blob logos can we have, and what are they actually communicating?
Joseph’s comment is:
As opposed to the Bandai Namco and Brazil logos, the Museum of London logo is very powerful because it's a blob for a reason... where the others seem to be blobs for blob's sake. I think the logo is incredible. It's visually appealing and tells a story that makes me want to pass it on to other people.
On Oct.30.2008 at 12:44 PM
jRod’s comment is:
oh great... here we go. first it was swooshes, then it was globes, now we are attacking "blobs" and "random shapes."
What's next? Words? "I hate the way designers use words with their logos..."
gimmie a break. see a good logo for what it is... a good logo.
On Oct.30.2008 at 12:53 PM
Spencer Cross’s comment is:
As someone said above, nobody is going to read about the making of this logo, and as such it will look like amoebas to anybody who doesn't have a time-lapse map of the London city limits sitting in front of them.I disagree entirely. I looked at it and thought "I wonder if that's a map of how London grew over time?" Seriously. Too often designers, and even more often, clients, don't give consumers enough credit. On Oct.30.2008 at 01:24 PM
mm’s comment is:
The website uses the wordmark independently of the blobs, using the color blobs as a decorative theme. With that kind of flexibility, I think it works.
On Oct.30.2008 at 01:37 PM
Hibryd’s comment is:
Ditto. When I fist saw the logo I saw shifting, growing shapes, and figured it had something to do with the borders of London. (I also did a little fist pump when I read the description and saw I had guessed correctly.) And I'm just an amateur Anglophile Yank. I think anyone who's familiar with London on a map (like, say, actual English people) will get it immediately.
I'm not sure how they're going to embroider this on a cap, but I want one if they do!
On Oct.30.2008 at 01:39 PM
pk’s comment is:
I love the concept. I really don't like the aesthetic choices made in relation to the subject matter. composition seems really forced and inelegant. type furthers it's inelegance.
that said I am torn: I find it sort of smart, but also sort of lacking style. i wish it was more of either. I don't know if that says more about my criteria, or the actual work.
On Oct.30.2008 at 01:42 PM
BJN’s comment is:
The website header avoids the busy look of the actual logo. It could be a good look for a Clorox product, but the cartoon colors and ameoba shapes don't appeal to me and they hold no association for me with London.
On Oct.30.2008 at 01:44 PM
DAVID’s comment is:
I thought London was a city inside of England, not an island itself? Thats why I don't get it. How am i supposed to know thats a typographic map of London. I don't live there. Looks pretty hilly to me.
On Oct.30.2008 at 02:01 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
This is awesome. Obviously a huge leap forward and versatile in it's sub-branding and various executions. I can't wait to see the signage and other materials in the museum itself.
@DAVID, I knew exactly what it was at first glance. And I think you meant "topographical" - which has to do with relative positions, as opposed to exact locations (geographical).
On Oct.30.2008 at 02:08 PM
Rodrigo Müller’s comment is:
love the kinda retro palette there. it reminds me of a lot of logos with organic forms, but what to say? it stands out in the crowd of museums
On Oct.30.2008 at 02:11 PM
irina’s comment is:
it's most important to think of logo in terms of immediate feeling communicated. over-analyzing typeface, shape and relation to existing logos is something only experts do, not general public. brand is communicated through feeling, and the feeling here is one of discovery, excitement, energy and motion. very relevant to a museum. it works.
On Oct.30.2008 at 02:36 PM
Scot’s comment is:
what is the typeface on the new logo, anyone?
On Oct.30.2008 at 02:37 PM
Emily Charette’s comment is:
that said I am torn: I find it sort of smart, but also sort of lacking style
I have to disagree, I think it has tons of style; that Londonderry, sophisticated-but-playful style that could only belong to itself. I love how it eschews the traditional/antique London for one that feels thoroughly modern and still manages to be uniquely London-y. And, the typeface is fantastic -- bold, not overly mannered, but recognizably charachtered. Just like a Londoner. Nice, nice work.
On Oct.30.2008 at 02:38 PM
jman’s comment is:
i'm with irina. the first thing that we, as designers, can hope for is that the art that we create is seen and felt--not missed, but demanding of attention. it should elicit an emotional response or reaction that engages people enough to want to find out more. certainly, the relevancy and story must be there to support the design decisions when the demand comes. but in terms of its first task, it's a direct hit!
On Oct.30.2008 at 02:53 PM
Dallas’s comment is:
I think it's amazing how many people are praising the emperor for his fine clothes.
I had a hard time understanding what the blobs represented, and I had no idea it represented city limits, especially with the island beneath the ND in London. And this is coming from someone who has lived in London.
I don't doubt all of you who claimed to understand the growing city limits, but I don't think the regular base will be able to understand it. We're looking at it through designers' eyes, so if we don't instantly get it, we'll keep thinking of something that would work. People that don't process information in a similar way will think of it as blobs.
On Oct.30.2008 at 03:03 PM
steve’s comment is:
i dig it.
it seems somewhat geological and layered on first glance. the formal justification of the overlayed shapes isn't 100% apparent initially but, i feel like that more ethereal rationale of the expanding city adds to richness of the logo.
On Oct.30.2008 at 03:30 PM
Eli’s comment is:
Hate to pile on here, but this is pretty much un-snarkable to me. I love that it means something, but achieves that meaning without any compromise to the aesthetics. The sub-brands are great, and open up the ability to create new ones without it seeming like an afterthought. Very nice work.
On Oct.30.2008 at 03:42 PM
darrel’s comment is:
". People that don't process information in a similar way will think of it as blobs. "
Which leads you to the next question: Can it still work as a logo even if the conceptual part isn't readily identifiable?
Personally, I think this logo still works just fine.
Plus, one has to put it into some context. The logo wasn't designed for someone living in Montana. It's likely designed for a local audience where an overt meaning may not be needed.
On Oct.30.2008 at 03:43 PM
Ryan’s comment is:
I think that most people will at least understand an idea of layers and layering, which is half right. They layered the increasing perimeters of the cities boundaries, it ends up speaking directly to its purpose, the city of London. I prefer the Docklands and Archaeology versions, the colors in the original one don't really appeal to me, the light blue doesn't seem to mesh with the other colors. At first it reminded me of the London olympic logo, which I despise. They've done a really great gob at incorporating it into the website.
On Oct.30.2008 at 03:43 PM
Ryan’s comment is:
I meant job, I should really proof-read things. But I always tell people I'm a designer, words aren't my thing. Besides to me they're just shapes.
On Oct.30.2008 at 03:46 PM
Mlopez’s comment is:
Interesting concept they tagged on to various colored blobs. Certainly looks a lot more fun thanks to the change of a sans-serif.
On Oct.30.2008 at 04:26 PM
jim’s comment is:
Good concept, but don't the words "Museum of London" communicate the changing shape of the city over time with more depth and emotion than coloured shapes could ever hope for?
On Oct.30.2008 at 04:28 PM
matt’s comment is:
First: Much better than before, but before was nothing more than a box and some type set in it. Now the museum has some personality and flavor, hell, it might even be fun to go there now.
Second: I would never know that the blobs represent the topographic map of london and how it has grown. Like others have said, maybe londoners would recognize this as they are more familiar with it, but we should all recognize it the same whether we live there or have seen it before.
Third: Abstract logos are cool. They make you think for a second or two to figure them out. If you say it all at once, then what is left to think about?
On Oct.30.2008 at 05:01 PM
Andrea’s comment is:
Looks like a face. The lone little piece at the bottom is the mouth, open, like it's expressing something.
The eyes are covered by the type.
Of course, I also see faces in car grills, so don't listen to me :)
On Oct.30.2008 at 05:10 PM
altoption’s comment is:
Like it immediately from a gut level. And the fact that I don't necessarily get it at first pulls me in and engages me. Nice work.
On Oct.30.2008 at 05:53 PM
Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:
Weird.
On Oct.30.2008 at 07:10 PM
T-Bone’s comment is:
"Looks like a face. The lone little piece at the bottom is the mouth, open, like it's expressing something.
The eyes are covered by the type."
ha, that's all i can see now! And Matt's comment about abstract logos is spot-on, once you 'get it' you feel like you're in the know.
On Oct.30.2008 at 08:44 PM
Matt’s comment is:
its puking
On Oct.30.2008 at 09:04 PM
Matt Riddle’s comment is:
Do people really think people are going to look at this logo and see an 'ever changing London'?
Of course, anything would be better than the original logo. :X
On Oct.30.2008 at 09:43 PM
Ray’s comment is:
Very interesting concept. I does feel like more of a science museum because of the nature of the shapes, seems a bit like a science museum.
I do have a gripe with the logotype. I feel they could have gone with something a bit more sophisticated, it seems a bit too 'sporty' for me, maybe something less condensed, with some air around it? I don't mind the placement, it just seems too heavy-handed.
On Oct.30.2008 at 11:53 PM
Amanda’s comment is:
I think this is pretty hideous. Blobular as Disty mentioned. Not very practical in terms of reproduction either. Nightmare.
On Oct.31.2008 at 12:32 AM
Hommel’s comment is:
Joseph said: ...it’s a blob for a reason...
Spot on, Joseph. The logo communicates. It’s not just nice colours and shapes that looks good or cool or what ever. It communicates. It’s not just art, it means something.
And I especially like that it meta-communicates. If you don’t get the mapping of London over time at first, it’s a good and relevant story to add later in the communication.
I’m not thrilled about the choice of typeface, but that’s just my personal opinion and that doesn’t change that the logo tells the story - and it works. Liking isn’t always an indication of wether it works or not.
Taiam Ebert’s comment is:
http://www.logolounge.com/article_images/artpics/art_2003_trans.jpg" />
It look's like the Brasil logo, but before the Brasil logo there was the Neil Henson Fashion Bytes logo, made by Cato Purnell. That was way before the Brasil logo was made. You'll find a better look at the Logo Lounge nº 1, at page 158.
About the London Museum, nice colors, an much better!!!
On Oct.31.2008 at 08:54 AM
AL’s comment is:
I like
On Oct.31.2008 at 10:44 AM
Pale Face’s comment is:
I like the effort that went into creating a different kind of identity for a museum. But I think the actual application is lacking.
There is just something about the type that really bugs me, it almost makes me feel claustrophobic. I think the type would be more appealing if the kerning was let out a bit and the "M" and "N" on the right hand side did not touch the very edge of the ridge of the dark color, but hang off more like the "M" and "O" on the left hand side.
Looks like multiple bright colors is the new craze coming out of London this year.
On Oct.31.2008 at 11:57 AM
Ryan’s comment is:
The way that the typography is placed in the center give the logo tension and movement.
On Oct.31.2008 at 12:36 PM
Andrew Harrington’s comment is:
I appreciate the concept, though I don't necessarily think it will be universally understood by the average museumgoer, but at the end of the day, I think the logo for a museum should be both attractive and practical. This one's neither. There are too many colors, it's a compositional mess with the type sitting in the middle like that and it's simply not easily adaptable across multiple media.
The old logo, while simple (it's just type set in a box, I think someone said), was attractive, it was a little bit interesting in its composition and it was flexible, looking great on signage, letterhead, clothing, et al. I think they should have established the red box as a signature Museum of London and updated the old mark if they had to do anything.
This strikes me as a noble attempt with good concept and preparation, but one that ultimately falls short in the execution of the idea.
On Oct.31.2008 at 12:37 PM
Joe Moran’s comment is:
From 1958. Happy Halloween!!!
VR/
On Oct.31.2008 at 02:51 PM
ivan’s comment is:
overdone...and I don't get it
On Oct.31.2008 at 03:42 PM
Hibryd’s comment is:
Hate to pile on here, but this is pretty much un-snarkable to me
That will never, never stop anyone here.
On Oct.31.2008 at 07:23 PM
decksnap’s comment is:
Yeah this immediately reads as a science museum. Something under a microscope. Way to be confusing.
On Oct.31.2008 at 07:56 PM
Fabian’s comment is:
Great visionary logo.A new exciting and refreshing design that captures a changing landscape beautifully.
On Nov.01.2008 at 06:36 PM
Amanda’s comment is:
right there with you, andrew.
On Nov.02.2008 at 03:32 AM
atomo’s comment is:
Love it! Great concept, interesting execution. Between this and the 2012 logo (despite it not being a great logo per se, I still like someone had the balls to do it) I really like the direction London has been collectively going. Im excited to see what comes next!
On Nov.02.2008 at 08:54 PM
Hypermind’s comment is:
I don't think anyone can please any designers/typographers these days. It's a wonderful logo and a massive improvement on the previous version. People need to give constructive criticism and not just whine about it for the sake of it. If you don't like it, then fine. Don't go shouting about it.
On Nov.03.2008 at 04:06 AM
qk’s comment is:
Another one…
*cg’s comment is:
Not having read a lot of the responses this is what I think.
great upgrade to this logo. The topographical aspect of the colors definitely is a great tie in.
good job.
On Nov.04.2008 at 05:32 PM
T Minus Five’s comment is:
Looks like a good logo for Depends Undergarments. Please excuse me... I just wet my pants
On Nov.05.2008 at 02:34 AM
Randy Hill’s comment is:
I don't like it. Reminds me of another indecipherable shape mass - the Brit logo for the Olympics.
On Nov.05.2008 at 12:38 PM
Reality Check’s comment is:
It's a great logo, and it was better than the old logo. End of discussion.
Now stop nitpicking - after all, it's not like you buggers can do any better.
On Nov.06.2008 at 02:30 AM
joe’s comment is:
When I saw it my immediate first impression was that the "shapes" represented a stylized painter's palette, particularly with the single "hole" at the center bottom. I admit to being unaware of the museum's mission, so it seemed logical to me. Viewing for the first time from my iPhone, I will say the thing plain works at a very small scale. Overall a big improvement. I agree there are other marks using similar freeform as pointed out, but likely a whole lot less than those using a simple rectangle.
Regardless of intent, it feels "museumy," and probably provides more creative extensions beyond print. If that is done well, it certainly has more stopping power than the previous mark.
On Nov.06.2008 at 05:07 AM
Wünderwoman’s comment is:
Nice work!
On Nov.07.2008 at 05:30 PM
richard’s comment is:
Different is good. Bad design is always bad. Of course, we'll be able tell better in about nine months when it matures.
On Nov.12.2008 at 05:40 PM
Jason’s comment is:
Although I am not sold on this logo, I do believe it's better than the Art Gallery of Ontario's (AGO) logo designed by Bruce Mau.
On Nov.12.2008 at 10:36 PM
Von K’s comment is:
This is a great concept. Count me among the people who got it right away. Even tourists visiting London should get it because they will likely have been looking at maps of the city to find their way.
I do see the issues about the number of colors and type size/placement, but it seems to me it'd be simple to make a 1-color version of this.
One more thing--this logo is not a topographical map in any way. Topographical maps show elevation, not change over time.
On Nov.13.2008 at 10:45 AM
renan molin’s comment is:
I'd like to state here my concern regarding the concept of this logo and that of the poster i created about barack obama's campaign. the concepts are extremely similar and, considering that my poster has been widely shown on many webpages way before this brand's release, one can wonder about this similarity. sorry for any english mistakes i might have commited, i'm from brazil.
best,
renan molin
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
