NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Colleges, schools or any other educational institution devoted to design and art must, in one way or another, reflect its commitment to those areas — specifically, its identity must lead by example. Like MICA or Ringling College of Art and Design, just to name a couple we have reviewed here, MassArt is embracing the influence that a revitalized identity can have in the perception of an arts and design institution. This is specially important for a 135-year-old institution — the first and only independent public college of art in the United States, and the first art school to grant a degree — that has to compete with dozens of other schools that don’t carry the weight of more than a century.
Working with brand consultancy Minelli, Inc., MassArt engaged in an eighteen-month-long planning and assessment process that resulted in a strategic marketing plan that aimed to raise the institution’s profile, and one of the key elements to achieve this would be its identity. MassArt assembled a committee of faculty, staff, students, foundation directors, and trustees to oversee the project, who selected Moth Design — which features four MassArt alumni — out of seven design firms that responded to requests for proposal. With a new institution name, Massachusetts College of Art and Design (formally established in October of 2007), and a clear sense of renewal, MassArt established objectives for the new identity:
To present MassArt consistently and with confidence.
To represent a level of skill, quality, and creativity appropriate for a leading college of art and design.
To establish a visual signature that is distinct and recognizable as Massachusetts College of Art and Design.
To retain the significant brand equity in “MassArt” while firmly establishing the college’s new formal name.
To reflect the energy and spirit of the individuals that comprise MassArt’s diverse community.
The new identity is a creatively handsome solution. It uses a single graphic device to become memorable and unique without having to resort to visual pyrotechnics that would somehow, magically signal a fountain of creativity flowing from this corner of Massachusetts. Cropping the “S” at the same angle as the “A” is a rather enjoyable conceptual solution as it unites and blends the notion of Art with the place. Or as MassArt explains it:
The simple device of cropping the “S” in “Mass” on the same angle as the “A” in “Art” visually propels “Art” to the foreground. The “Art” advancing to the foreground of “Mass” represents an institution driving art and design to the forefront of public consciousness.
What’s great about this wordmark, is that it really doesn’t need to be too rationalized, it simply works as an identifier that stands apart from other educational institution logos. And the rest of the identity system is equally well thought out and considered, establishing a consistently varied system through flexibility in configuration and color — and those knocked out logos that look pretty great.
Alternate configurations.
Color palette.
Knock-out usage.
One-color usage.
Signage rendering.
Apart from the identity basics, Moth Design developed a system for collateral materials that revolves around the 23-degree angle established by the “A” — which is originally Gotham, for anyone keeping count — and exploits it to great effect. Using the angle to form fields of color, or as a holding device and paired with a “screen” pattern of interspersed, even lines set at a perpendicular angle of 67 degrees, glued together by Interstate and Sabon as the house fonts, the system provides flexibility while establishing consistency and giving the school a controlled, ever-so-slightly edgier look that manages to convey their commitment to growing the institution and moving it forward without losing sight of its heritage and long history.
Details of business card and letterhead.
Identity standards manual.
President’s Report brochure, and details.
This is a really great identity, that has been expertly crafted and conceived to be solid, recognizable and expandable — a task now headed by MassArt’s brand new and first-ever marketing office. The identity has been rolling out since December of 2007, with the introduction of the logo on the web site, stationery suite, interim signage and will continue for the rest of the year as they start using new print marketing materials and deploying a new web site being developed by Tank Design. It’s work like this that reminds me that identity design can still be simple, memorable and smart.
Thanks to Scott Murray, an MFA student at MassArt for the tip, and to Jeremy Thompson, Director of Marketing at MassArt, for sharing the information and all the wonderful samples.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
jim’s comment is:
beautifully executed.
On Mar.25.2008 at 02:56 PM
Fabian Neumann’s comment is:
The best logo/brand overhaul in a long time. Really nice and thought-out.
On Mar.25.2008 at 03:23 PM
Paul Riehle’s comment is:
When in doubt use Gotham. Very nice change.
On Mar.25.2008 at 03:37 PM
Willis’s comment is:
Very nice - it takes a slight cue from the new ICA Boston logo:
That one is actually the converse: letters italicized at a similar angle, within box-like constraints that obscure overlap.
Not bad company, all told.
On Mar.25.2008 at 03:40 PM
Neri’s comment is:
MY SCHOOL! WOOT!
I Love it!
Art AND Design, eh? I think that makes lots of sense. This college had a very dominating and strong design department and with the great professors I know it still is! :-) I learned from the best!
Good job guys. Can't wait to pass by and see the new signage!
awww, I feel like a proud parent. ;-)
On Mar.25.2008 at 03:46 PM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
I like the MassArt mark, though the full name underneath really muddies the singular impact.
I think it would look a lot better if it was separated from the main logotype. They need to make a call, are we MassArt or the Massachusetts College of Art and Design?
The application examples are very ordinary and expected.
On Mar.25.2008 at 03:57 PM
Emily’s comment is:
I live in Boston and have seen the new Mass Art identity around. One interesting visual comparison that I immediately made is to the identity of the new Institute of Contemporary Art here in Boston, which just reopened last year in a new location.
Both identities employ sliced letterforms, although the techniques are different. Are they too similar in a city that has a relatively small art/design world?
On Mar.25.2008 at 04:02 PM
Armin’s comment is:
> They need to make a call, are we MassArt or the Massachusetts College of Art and Design?
Mr. Posen, it's not uncommon at all for an organization (of any kind) to use "two" names in their logo. One satisfies the way people colloquially refer to an organization while the other meets legal requirements. In some cases, I think you can get away with this. MICA did a similar thing, where they use a giant MICA, but the logo still uses the long-form name.
On Mar.25.2008 at 04:26 PM
marc english’s comment is:
massart, class of '86 reporting for duty.
when i got the president's report in the mail i noticed the new i.d. and also thought of the ICA logo. coincidence. and the massart logo makes sense, whereas the ICA logo (which i find amusing, interesting) is more about an idea, not about the forms at hand.
this is the 4th i.d. i've seen massart do since my days there. the last version, done by jennifer morla (who once told me she never graduated from massart) always bugged me as feeling lightweight in every way possible.
in response to mr posen's question, gonna guess that the school will be called massart from now till doomsday (when ALL the state funding is pulled and it becomes completely private), as massart'n'design doesn't have quite that ring to it, and it will always be about massachusetts, not mass-market or mass-appeal. not that mass-appeal art or design is so bad afterall - consider the alternative.
and yeah, design rules.
class of '86 signing off (and happy to know a former student of mine was on the re-design team).
On Mar.25.2008 at 04:39 PM
Kevin M. Scarbrough’s comment is:
The only thing that would make this identity stronger would be custom shape paper clips.
On Mar.25.2008 at 04:53 PM
yotam h.’s comment is:
Thumbs up.
On Mar.25.2008 at 05:23 PM
Clifton Alexander’s comment is:
Kansas City Art Institute (KCAI) grad chiming in, School of Design, 1999. Nicely done MassArt! I really like how it translates into print. KCAI underwent a new identity several years ago and they have done an amazing job at translating a VERY long logo into print applications. They use a map of the campus to create image boxes and lines of all shapes. It's beautiful. Anyway, I definitely think that Art School isn't the most appealing thing to a parent, so these schools really need to do a good job at promoting themselves. I am liking what all of the schools are doing lately, creating a very fresh image for art colleges.
On Mar.25.2008 at 07:33 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
I actually see more of an antagonistic relationship between the two words, with the angle slicing the poor little S into pieces. Being that "ART" remains whole while "MASS" gets fragmented, I read this mark as the effect that art has on Massachusetts, rather than a symbiotic merger of the two. Which, at least to me, is an even stronger foundation for an art school identity.
It's a small point, but in hiring successful alums from their program to head their rebrand, MassArt shows a tremendous amount of confidence and pride in their school. Excellent work all around.
On Mar.25.2008 at 09:36 PM
Char’s comment is:
I go to Parsons, and this looks awfully close to our logo... same color, the emphasis on NEW isn't helping much either.
I like it, I won't deny it... but it's very Parsons.
Mr Posen’s comment is:
I understand this Armin, and your MICA reference is a great example of how how you can successfully balance two names (or one name, two pronunciations). In Mica's case the full name is diminished so much it's barely visible.
I think you either make both names equal (like MoMa's website) or extremely different (like Mika). Trying to find the middle ground with this type of problem rarely works.
On Mar.25.2008 at 11:17 PM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
Char, the 'New' is a copy line, not part of the logo.
How does MassArt look like Parsons, apart from using a sentence case san serif, and a color highlight?
On Mar.25.2008 at 11:21 PM
Paul C’s comment is:
My goodness everything about this is so wonderful. The simplicity and clarity makes my heart sing.
Reminds me in some ways, at least the color palette, of that lovely Rembrandt redesign of last year that i can't stop loving!!
All Smiles here!
-P
On Mar.26.2008 at 04:35 AM
KC’s comment is:
I say Bravo. Simple, memorable, and versatile.
On Mar.26.2008 at 08:50 AM
Tanja Stieglmeier’s comment is:
this college still puts a smile on my face! the best thing that has happened to me so far!!
love the new branding!
proud MASS ART alumni
On Mar.26.2008 at 10:47 AM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
gorgeous. intelligent. refined.
On Mar.26.2008 at 02:07 PM
adam’s comment is:
adam likey.
and i also like much of moth's other work. it blends fun & handwork (hand drawn) with clean modern layouts and type. they seem to do a really good job with type.
On Mar.26.2008 at 03:09 PM
Vanessa Dina’s comment is:
beautiful, authoritative, and smart! great job.
On Mar.26.2008 at 03:13 PM
Vanessa Dina’s comment is:
beautiful, authoritative, and smart! great job.
On Mar.26.2008 at 03:14 PM
Vanessa Dina’s comment is:
beautiful, authoritative, and smart! great job.
On Mar.26.2008 at 03:14 PM
Vanessa Dina’s comment is:
beautiful, authoritative, and smart! great job.
On Mar.26.2008 at 03:14 PM
Vanessa Dina’s comment is:
beautiful, authoritative, and smart! great job.
On Mar.26.2008 at 03:14 PM
Vanessa Dina’s comment is:
beautiful, authoritative, and smart! great job.
On Mar.26.2008 at 03:14 PM
markatos’s comment is:
Wow. I can't believe I am the only voice of dissent here. I think this would be an outstanding identity for a hedge fund, bank, or vocational/community college.
But for an art school, this is lifeless. Not that every art school ID needs to scream ART SCHOOL, but what we have here in my opinion leads to yawning.
On Mar.26.2008 at 04:12 PM
Calvin Ross Carl’s comment is:
I go to Parsons, and this looks awfully close to our logo... same color, the emphasis on NEW isn't helping much either.
Parsons is a school that drastically needs a new identity. Their whole look is schizophrenic. I personally don't see the connection, between the two, besides both using sans serif typefaces. I attended PNCA which is having a similar schizophrenia problem. PNCA has been stuck trying to rebrand for about a year or two now.
Anyway, this is not an amazing logo, but it is a great overall identity. There seems to be even more focus on the equity in MassArt. This is their smartest choice, because no one ever says Massachusetts College of Art & Design.
On Mar.26.2008 at 04:23 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
@ Markatos:
I agree that it doesn't "scream art school," but identities that DO scream art school (note the BEFORE image) look dated a year after they're launched. Why not go with something a little more classic, and let the applications be what does the screaming?
On Mar.26.2008 at 06:55 PM
Eric’s comment is:
Are you kidding me?
That logo could be for any genre of company in the world. It could just as easily be for a bookstore to a gas station and everything in between.
Nothing about it says creativity.
It doesn't comment on culture nor on society.
I agree fully with Markatos' remarks.
An art school should reflect culture and show that art has a role in society. It should be innovative and so cutting edge that I have never seen anything like it before. Is it a conservative art school? Is there such a thing? Are the people who run an art school not open minded enough to accept something which makes you think?
This is logo/identity design in its most basic form. A logo that gets slapped on various printed materials. There has been no thought of application, unless you are talking about a generic angled line.
The NAI logo by bruce mau is a good example of something innovative. My school put web cams up around the school and printed material has three fotos printed from that exact moment of the day from various areas of the school.
I understand a bank needing to be conservative, but an art school, or a museum should be as innovative as possible, as outside the box as possible, and should really make you think you yourself suck as a designer.
When I first read "brand consultancy" and "18 months," I knew it was going to be a total waste of design opportunity.
On Mar.26.2008 at 07:56 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
An Honest Attempt.
This would be a Great Identity if it were
1968 instead of 2008.
Not a Milestone by any Stretch of the Imagination.
Designers were doing this kind of thing
40 yrs. ago.
From other examples this aesthetic continues to be used today.
Nothing wrong with using a cliche. The beauty of using cliches is showing an old thing in a new way and a new thing in an old way.
This Identity does neither.
Benchmark for Identity Excellence.
Is this Identity:
Original, No
Memorable, No
Unique, No
Imaginative, No
Visually Impactful, No
Livable, Yes
Usable, Yes
Proprietary, Yes
Three (3) out of Eight (8) Identity Objectives isn't Good. In fact it's below average.
If this Identity is Quantitatively Tested
three (3) years from now we may see
higher marks for Memorablity via Marketing, Advertising and Communication.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
On Mar.26.2008 at 09:32 PM
mog’s comment is:
DesignMaven, I'm not Trying to be a Jerk, but in English we don't Capitalize random Words. Reading Posts like This is incredibly Tedious.
Oh, and an honest question, too, regarding your "Benchmark for Identity Excellence": What, exactly, is the difference between being "Original" and "Unique?" Or "Unique" and "Imaginative?" Or "Livable" and "Usable," for that matter?
We can nitpick until the cows come home (three different placements for the full name of the school?), but when looking at the old logo for the school, I think we can all agree (ha) that this new logo is a successful rebrand. Right? In my opinion, it's a huge improvement.
On Mar.26.2008 at 10:03 PM
lodenmuse’s comment is:
Whenever I see ICA, I get hungry.
hehehe
Mark’s comment is:
I find myself sort of disappointed by this one, something seems missing from it.
It's okay, just not that great that's all.
On Mar.26.2008 at 10:13 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
MOG:
You appreciate the Identity that's fine with me.
Don't consume yourself whether I appreciate the Identity or not.
I judge Identities by a totally different standard. I Boast one of the largest respositories for Corporate Identity. I've Designed, studied, compared and contrast Identities for over 20 yrs.
My opinion in reference to the Identity is No More Valid than yours or anyone else.
Nevertheless, its my opinion!!!!!!!!!
Beauty, appropriateness or the lack thereof is in the eye of the BEHOLDER.
Obviously, you've never worked in Identity.
I've been writing about the Benchmarks of Identity on Speak Up and Brand New for over 5 yrs.
Original: Self Explanatory, if you need an explanation.
Not derived or copied from something else. Also meaning New and Fresh.
In Identity colloquialism. Have we seen it before.
Unique, is the Identity Unusual, or Unparalled.
Imaginative, Inventive and/or Creative.
Livability in Corporate Identity deals with Longevity Issues.
Usability, in Corporate Identity deals with the ability to Successfully Reproduce the Identity across all media.
Can the Identity be blown up to the size of the Weather Balloon for Storage Tank and Reduced to the size of Dime for Advertisement without losing Readability.
Fact of the Matter, this is an OLD TIRED CLICHE that's been done to DEATH.
If I may Paraphrase my Business Partner Bob 2 Sharp, The Executioner Wolf.
Is there an apparent concept? Not to me.
Is it distinctive and memorable? Not to me.
Can I look at it and say ‘I wish I did that’? You already know my answer to that one.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
Rob’s comment is:
Whether it's fresh or not, I think it works. And thank goodness it isn't another beveled, 3-D look that won't last two years. What I think is that this logo in its simplicity, has staying power and that, it would seem, is a worthy thing.
On Mar.27.2008 at 10:54 AM
m.e’s comment is:
I have to agree with Maven on this. I am sadly underwhelmed by the update. It seems to lack the elegance I was hoping for. Instead it comes across as a cliched idea that uses the hip font of the day (no disrespect to gotham, which i love very much).
On Mar.27.2008 at 12:09 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
For any nondescript corporation, it works great. But for an art school it's a mite underwhelming.
On Mar.27.2008 at 01:11 PM
C-Lo’s comment is:
I can read it now. And it looks great. It's an art school logo with a hint of the corporate. The tie ins are nice also, if the don't take up a lot of retail space. Kudos kudos
On Mar.27.2008 at 04:55 PM
Hedonista’s comment is:
Wow, it really reminds me of Serralves Foundation's logo, in Oporto. The type only slightly variates and the color scheme is very similar (color in one word/black in the other)... Obviously, the application differs very much (to very pleasing results, in my opinion).
On Mar.27.2008 at 05:23 PM
Nathan’s comment is:
DesignMaven:
For someone who claims their opinion is no more valid than anyone else, you sure go on a bit with reasons why your opinion is more valid. Personally I found your post quite condescending.
I think this is a good step up from what they had previously. It's comes across much stronger and confident, and it's application works really well - I really like the print material.
Jerimiah Wright’s comment is:
"DesignMaven, I found your post quite condescending".
"I really like the print material".
Saith the man that judges a book by its cover without knowing the content.
On Mar.28.2008 at 02:08 AM
Nathan’s comment is:
Jerimiah:
I'm sorry, when presented with images of the covers (and stationary, I wasn't just referring to the report), am I not allowed to comment on them until I somehow obtain a copy of the real thing to leaf through?
On Mar.28.2008 at 03:40 AM
Gabron’s comment is:
I would like to point out that this rendering of MASSART looks like MASFART from a distance. Not a juvenile toilet joke, but the actual optical effect. I'm quite surprised that so many designers think this logo serves the organization well. But I'm glad you do.
On Mar.28.2008 at 08:49 AM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
The width of that slice between the "S" and the "A" kind of bothers me. It's either too little or too much, I just can't decide which. I think it's too much, it would look better the distance between the letters but then it would probably fill in. I too will join the few that say that they aren't overwhelmed by this. Though I think the course and university materials are very well thought out it seems like the identity and the stationery system were last minute items. It also kind of reminds me of when I cut part of my finger off with an X-Acto.
On Mar.28.2008 at 05:00 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Whenever I see ICA, I get hungry.
hehehe
lodenmuse that's exactly what I thought!
:)
On Mar.28.2008 at 06:10 PM
Sanjay Basavaraju’s comment is:
Maybe I see where this logo comes from.
When an art and design institute positions itself more as a design school rather than just an art school, we can expect such an output. It is a dilemma that every art and design institute faces.
I think it is a clever strategy. The direct reference to art is in the name. The visual language, from a conventional viewpoint, is placing Massart as a design school.
Emphasis on strategy is fine. Logo has to have a voice of its own. But when a logo tries to defend its existence with notes from 'making of the logo', it fails. It also fails if the brilliance in a logo is based on an insight such as 23 degree slice. :)
On Mar.28.2008 at 08:59 PM
HotAirMaven’s comment is:
Haha! I see "fart" now. I feel so blessed.
On Mar.31.2008 at 02:07 AM
Darrel’s comment is:
"That logo could be for any genre of company in the world"
Most logos could be used for any genre of company in the world.
A logo does not define the company...it just represents it. In the end, it's the company that needs to define itself.
I also doubt the 'the logo' is the sole branding element for the school.
Finally, let's keep in mind that this is a public school. So, that probably is a factor as well.
On Mar.31.2008 at 09:47 AM
mog’s comment is:
DM:
"Beauty, appropriateness or the lack thereof is in the eye of the BEHOLDER.
Obviously, you've never worked in Identity."
I mean no offense, but how you can say two entirely different things in the span of two sentences is beyond me. If our opinions are equally valid, then there's no room to be condescending. But that's off-topic, because I never questioned your opinion (although I appreciate you questioning my employment!).
"Original: Self Explanatory, if you need an explanation.
Not derived or copied from something else. Also meaning New and Fresh.
In Identity colloquialism. Have we seen it before.
Unique, is the Identity Unusual, or Unparalled."
I still don't see a difference. "Not derived or copied from something else" is pretty much the definition of "unique." "Unique" and "original" are both being used as synonyms for "different" (and "imaginative" isn't too far off). I'm still not sure how they could be separate criteria on some list of Eight Commandments for Good Logo Design, but I've obviously never worked in Identity. :|
Gabron:
Good call on the MASFART. I think in nearly all situations the use of different colors will render this point moot, thankfully :)
On Apr.01.2008 at 06:28 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
MOG:
It's obvious you don't understand. Your argument would've been more valid 24 hrs after my post than one week after my posting.
You didn't know the difference between livable and usable.
Are you not reading your own text?!
These are elementary Design Objectives.
There are two distinctively different practices of Corporate Identity, Formalism and Functionalism.
Do you know the differences?
If you do, please expound!!!!!!!!!
If you don't there's no further need of having this conversation.
The list is a list of Criteria and Design Objectives that was established by renowned Identity Designers and 1 st Tier Identity Consultancies practitioners of Functionalism
as a Benchmark.
There is also a list of Corporate Objectives that is generated internally by the client. Unless you're working on the project you will not know the Corporate Objectives.
I am addressing Design Objectives for all Corporate Identity work. The list can be longer or shorter depending on the Designer or Consultancy.
Again, if you had any experiece working with Functionalist in Identity Practice you wouldn't have to ask Rhetorical Questions.
This is Identity Design 101.
Read Maestro's Tony Spaeth's Review for NetApp.
http://www.identityworks.com/reviews/2008/NetApp.htm
Landor won the rebranding assignment. Hitz reports that the logo design criteria were:
1. visually distinctive
2. memorable and easy to get
3. foundation of a visual system (not just a stand-alone symbol)
4. can absorb meaning and feeling over time
... and adds that The Arc de Triomphe inspired the "blue gateway" solution.
With your limited perspicacity and knowledge of Identity Practice, I'm certain in your minds eye Visually Distinctive is the same as Memorable.
Will I have to wait another week for your reply?
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
DrinkMoloko’s comment is:
Love it. It's really, really beautiful.
On Apr.02.2008 at 02:42 PM
NE Patriot’s comment is:
I'm wondering how many more identities MassArt will go through before they completely dilute their identity into oblivion. I graduated in '99, when the "Partridge Family School of Design" logo was adopted in favour of the better (IMHO) shield logo. Great to see a lack of advancement.
The shield, while a bit on the lifeless side, at least conveyed art-- negative space and three ways of making a mark on a page. I'd have loved to see that one get a facelift, instead of these insipid text-only logos that can be spawned from almost any garden variety word processor. Is MCA only about typography, or is there art being made in those buildings?
Andrew’s comment is:
Sorry to be a wet blanket but there are so many problems with this new identity, it would be weak not to offer some opposing commentary... seems like the intense desire to spin the new signature as a good move has overwhelmed critical eyes.
First "Art and Design". Really? It really is necessary to divide such creative communities? I once heard an interesting lecture by the leadership of the Museum of Arts and Design (MAD) regarding their omission of craft and addition of design. Oddly enough, after a long lecture suggesting there really is not a significant difference between art, design and craft the leadership could not offer a clear rationale for the embracing of one term and deletion of another. MassArt is an amazing institution. But they will fail to rise up to the critical success of other institutions by seeming to embrace skills training and moving their eyes from the prize in their public posture. Art was adequate and clear. Art and design is a sort of clarification, but not one that makes sense in relation to the great work that happens there across so many disciplines that challenge our understanding of these terms. Art was more all encompassing. Design, I would challenge is not about focus for MassArt, its (potentially) about limitation.
Then there is the mediocre signature / identity. For an amazing institution with innovative and vital public programs, why would a more institutional, mundane, unmemorable signature be meaningful. From the design studio famous for Type and Pipe signatures (see PEM), copy cat brand strategies (see Minellie identity next to Muzak identity or see Salem identity next to PEM identity or see their AIB next to Courier Museum or see their Flybridge identity next to MassArt identity), and fundamentally mediocre image work; its seems that MassArt was an opportunity for Minelli to take their portfolio and MassArt's needs to an exciting and previously unseen place. MassArt needs and deserves better. Minelli also needs and deserves better than they deliver. Both organizations comprise smart people with a passion for what they do. But it has not come through in this very ordinary signature.
This is a blog and it should be shorter than I have already written, but I would challenge any endorsement of this new identity to consider what is really at stake.
MassArt is an important cultural asset not just to Boston or Massachusetts, but to our broader national priorities and on a larger global scale. It is proof that there is still some hope for public support of art at a very deep level. We need to support MassArt in every way we can. However, we must not go blindly forward endorsing every move simply because they did it. This new identity was not a wise move, however, I have every bit of faith that MassArt will transcend this mediocre image and elevate it to mean more than it appears to mean simply by looking at the simple minded, uninspired, banal typographic signature and awkward dance of "art and design."
I really love MassArt and I love the potential of design to help organizations on many levels. And that is why I object to the raves. They make no sense to me. I wish for MassArt and Minelli to now take the actual execution of this blight to a place where it can all become the inspired tool necessary to move people to support MassArt. There is still hope because, if you have worked on brand programs you know that while very important, the signature is a departure point for a much more complex integration and execution of a brand program. Perhaps this will be taken to inspired places. The "President's Report" design does not make me super hopeful as it too is very ordinary at best. But there are lots of future opportunities to get it right.
Lets hope they do!
On Apr.03.2008 at 12:53 PM
Niki’s comment is:
I heart DesignMaven.
On Apr.03.2008 at 04:40 PM
Wünderwoman’s comment is:
BRILLIANT.
On Apr.04.2008 at 04:06 AM
karl’s comment is:
I go to MassArt and I am kind of bored by the new logo. I don't think you can please everyone, though, and most people seem pretty happy with it.
I called the MasFart thing two seconds after I saw the new logo, too.
I think it overall doesn't even hint at the idea of art school, and could just as well be a company that makes nuclear warheads or sprockets or whatever.
On Apr.16.2008 at 06:07 PM
Jana Keppens’s comment is:
It's ugly....
On Aug.20.2008 at 04:49 PM
DVK’s comment is:
in a glimpse, i thought it was a mass transport.
On Feb.25.2009 at 11:15 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
