NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
In January of 2010, Aalto University — the resulting institution of the merger of the Helsinki School of Economics, the University of Art and Design Helsinki and the Helsinki University of Technology — in Helsinki, Finland will begin its first day of school. For those interested, a handy PDF explains everything in detail about this new institution. While everything about this school indicates a forward-looking vision, they decided to hold a backwards-acting contest to determine its visual identity. Open to students, staff and alumni of Aalto University, the contest was open from March to April and a few weeks ago the winner was announced.
Logos of the Helsinki School of Economics, the University of Art and Design Helsinki and the Helsinki University of Technology.
The winner, Rasmus Snabb, a graphic designer and a former student of the University of Art and Design Helsinki named his entry Kutsu, “Invitation” in English, and in his web site explains the concept:
What defines the image of an educational institution? Discussion, evaluation, change. A school is constantly re-evaluating, discussing and adjusting the way it organizes itself and its activities. The image of a school is thus undefinable — it is in constant change. This is why the logo should not provide a static predefined image, but a blank canvas, which will in time be attached with meaning — an identity created and experienced by the students, researchers and employees.
Alternatives of the logo, and use in other languages.
And further on the actual execution:
The logo doesn’t have a static visual form, it can be endlessly rearranged and changed. The typeface Helvetica has been chosen because it is the most “meaningless” typeface. The primary colours are used because in this combination they have no symbolic value but merely represent “all colours.”
While I will never encourage contests to define identity design, I have to admit this is a pretty well thought out result that also happens to look pretty good. I think something other than Helvetica — something with enough neutrality but a little more warmth and personality — would have been much more appropriate, specially since Helvetica has become a cliche for neutrality. Nonetheless, I really like the visual strategy of this logo and how it can change yet still maintain a very consistent texture and recognizable identity. Above all, the concept is just plain good and you don’t need to have it explained to be understood, it’s quite evident that this logo (or, well, these logos) represent a different kind of university that is willing to look at things differently.
Thanks to Jyri Niemi for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Jesse Kidwell’s comment is:
I could decipher it quite easily after reading this post, but upon first glance (as I imagine others may, too), I had a difficult time reading exactly what the University was called. Particularly because it's a rather difficult word to part, being that it has two As: "Aalto".
On Jun.01.2009 at 10:58 AM
ick’s comment is:
I hate it. It's confusing and looks like someone who doesn't know how to type was trying to type the name while blindfolded.
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:33 AM
lodenmuse’s comment is:
This unfortunately comes across as:
Aalto F?!&"ng University
Though, sometimes that is how students refer to their own school.
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:38 AM
Andrew’s comment is:
The designer has succeeded in creating the least memorable logotype I can imagine. Primary colors plus black, Helvetica, random word assembly and arrangement of "flair".
It looks like total mush to me. I get the concept, but I think it's a serious failure as an identifying mark.
One funny part is the dissonance between the clean execution and total absence of appropriateness. Helvetica ftw.
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:43 AM
erik’s comment is:
As much as design contests are generally a bad thing, involving the student body when it comes to the school logo--especially at a design school--is a pretty good idea.
My girlfriend goes to MICA and when they unveiled their new expensive logo, a lot of the students were upset and felt they could have done better for less.
I also found this logo pretty illegible. I kept trying to interpret symbols as letters, ! = i, etc.
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:44 AM
Kevin’s comment is:
I agree that this is a pretty interesting and clever idea as I'm a big fan of *ucking around with letters, punctuation and legibility. Its daring for an academic institution, but unfortunately I think the execution really kills it (in a bad way).
The way the punctuation has been randomly integrated, separating the letters (rather than perhaps replacing them, which would keep a consistent wordform, a strength in my opinion) makes the name close to indecipherable. Since they don't appear at the normal hyphenation/break points of the words, the logo (wordmark really) only works on a visual level, with no phonetic mnemonics.
Furthermore, the primary colours make it feel more like a kindergarten than a university, and Helvetica, really??
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:44 AM
David’s comment is:
I'm not a huge fan of this logo, but I could shift my opinion once I see the full application of the identity. This definitely seems like a logo that needs to be seen in real scenarios to fully be appreciated. So basically: I like the concept, but I am not crazy about the execution. The descriptions says "constant change" but I see more of "instability."
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:47 AM
Taylor’s comment is:
I hate this also. The elements of a memorable logo are there- strong font, bold color scheme. Unfortunately, I agree with lodenmuse in that it comes across as Aalto F#@?!ing University.
Regadless of how cutting-edge the school is, I'm not sure that education is the correct realm for such an out-of-the-box idea.
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:57 AM
Jem’s comment is:
It doesn't matter that it may be hard to read at first glance, it will become a symbol for everything the university represents (after all Coca-Cola, IBM, Stussy are not the most legible logotypes!)
It's fun and slightly subversive, attractive qualities to a student.
On Jun.01.2009 at 12:00 PM
Armin’s comment is:
You have to consider that this is a university in Helsinki, where the concerns about f%*&ing this or f&@?ing that may not be an issue, and where two vowels in a row are common.
On Jun.01.2009 at 12:04 PM
Felix S.’s comment is:
Another example of good concept gone wrong in design execution...
If the designer wanted to explore design medium as empty canvas, he needs to learn from the master of "emptiness" himself, Kenya Hara. He's the current Art Director for MUJI.
There's not enough consistency and distinctness that would allow the logo to be recognizable as a brand. Easily forgettable...
On Jun.01.2009 at 12:06 PM
Manny’s comment is:
"Regardless of how cutting-edge the school is, I'm not sure that education is the correct realm for such an out-of-the-box idea"
Are we living in Victorian England??
Don't worry there are still plenty of University identities with kerned out Trajan, centered under a coat of arms.
On Jun.01.2009 at 12:16 PM
arnoldP’s comment is:
They are trying too hard to be edgy, it's confusing, unnecessary, messy and just plain ugly.
On Jun.01.2009 at 12:22 PM
Chad Kaufman’s comment is:
This is all very confusing without an explanation and very hard to decipher in the current grouping. I think it might help if it was stacked in two rows:
Aa"lto
U!niversit?y
Instead of:
Aa"lto
U!nive
rsit?y
But I think it would have been best to devise a system of replacing letters with the symbols, instead of just injecting them between the words (Aa!to Un'ver&ity). Either this or finding a different palette to write the symbols in so that the dark words of Aalto University better stand out:
Aa"lto
U!nive
rsit?y
V as in Victor’s comment is:
I agree with Chad completely. This is an application that, while it has a great rationale behind it, is poorly executed. It's tough to read and seems to stumble right over the point it's trying to make.
On Jun.01.2009 at 01:10 PM
Charlie of Toronto’s comment is:
This is a case where the idea is bigger then the product. It sounds good talking or reading about it... but as communication goes... "Joe Average" is not going to get it. It's interesting from an experimental point of view, but to coin a phrase..."design for designs sake" is not my cup of tea. And I also agree that the Helvetica angle is a cliche...
On Jun.01.2009 at 01:19 PM
Scott’s comment is:
What an absolute disaster.
And the point of allowing constituents to endlessly "rearrange and change" the logo is what, exactly?
This is a Pandora's box of nonsense. Anyone with even an inkling of knowledge or experience helping organizations understand the importance of consistency ... knows that this could turn into a disaster left in the hands of the everyday Joe. What may seem clever, clean and compelling on first blush can and will soon turn into cluttered, confusing and ridiculous (as they already demonstrate).
On Jun.01.2009 at 01:40 PM
Michael’s comment is:
I think that the designer's stated rationale behind this logo is poor.
Using the 'undefinable' characteristics of a university as the basis of the logo is bound to have disappointing results.
Duy Pham’s comment is:
I like it a lot! I think they really have a bold vision beyond ours, what they are looking for is not something stable but risky, the embodiment of this spirit in the logo is admirable.
On Jun.01.2009 at 01:55 PM
Proverbial Thought’s comment is:
My op!n!on. This f#@*!ing sucks! Possibly the worst professional logo I have seen in a decade or more. Concept, ideas, and other academic excuses for lazy or bad design can't even save this one. It looks like some overzealous Conservative was typing too fast trying "learn" some lLiberal something, and didn't go back and spell check his post. I can't even take this one seriously.
On Jun.01.2009 at 01:58 PM
jRod’s comment is:
Wow is this thing overdone. Way too much going on with this logo and it carries too many cliches... odd stacking, primary colors etc. Add that in with the illegibility and you get a mess of a logo. not a fan of this at all.
On Jun.01.2009 at 02:00 PM
Unimpressed’s comment is:
I hate doing the "me too" thing on logo hating threads, but ... "me too!".
Trying too hard to be different. Universities are great places to try new things, but this one shouldn't have left the lab.
On Jun.01.2009 at 02:16 PM
Shei Reyes’s comment is:
Though the intent is admirable, I am wont to disregard a university that has a question mark in its name. With the other punctuations, the new brand belies the the strength of their curriculum. (No offense to the winning designer, his other stuff are neat).
Plus the brand reminds me of the gibberish I get when I disable the wrong fonts. =/
On Jun.01.2009 at 02:26 PM
grubedoo’s comment is:
I think this concept is memorable, unexpected, well thought out and definitely evokes a response--all-in-all, brilliant, except for Helvetica.
On Jun.01.2009 at 02:38 PM
Steve Rose’s comment is:
The designer starts off with a bad premise: a university is undefinable, so therefore THIS university is undefinable. Unfortunately, he achieves that.
What's the point of having all those variations, if every variation looks that same?
It no way indicates higher education; quite the opposite.
On Jun.01.2009 at 02:50 PM
NicKLAUS’s comment is:
The fact that this is going to be for a school, I think they can get away with the choices made. They have basic references to grammar with the punctuation marks which is something you probably won't have a good grasp on if it weren't for school. Using primary colours is probably a reference to the basic fundamentals of design and they've also included one of the most recognizable fonts known to man-kind which has a deep seeded history with graphic design.
A lot of times people are critical of Helvetica because its been "overdone". Its crisp, its easy to read and it takes most of the guess work out of the picture because everyone knows its Helvetica, its a staple in design history so it works. With the concept of having the punctuation marks embedded within the text, Helvetica helps because its so easy to register.
I'd like to know which version of the logos in the other languages is the official Finnish logo as I would imagine the English version will be secondary unless they will be displayed side by side. I would also like to see how they execute the print materials and any marketing they do as I think this brand has the potential to be very cool and very bold.
Also.. is it just me or does this logo have a little Bauhaus feel to it? Maybe its just the primary colours.
On Jun.01.2009 at 03:05 PM
koyo’s comment is:
It's a kind of joke?
On Jun.01.2009 at 03:25 PM
Tushar’s comment is:
It's the opposite of a serious looking, institutional identity, which is refreshing. I also like the designer's rationale behind the use of punctuations - it is convincing, but I don't get the 'meaninglessness' of helvetica. What is a meaningful typeface? The idea of using primary colors is an extra - an idea over an idea. That's too much for a logo I think.
On Jun.01.2009 at 03:47 PM
Panasit’s comment is:
I don't like this. And I do think it's the font and the color that is the problem, not the typeface itself. For an idea, not even a great one, this is very poorly executed.
On Jun.01.2009 at 03:49 PM
Andrew Meyer’s comment is:
I think this is a clear instance where a concept that is interesting as a theory doesn't successfully make the jump into reality. While in many ways the designer is right that universities constantly endure change, the whole purpose of creating a visual identity is to solidify (even if only for some time) an image that will help to identify and define the university's image. In many ways, the concept chosen for a creation of an identity, challenges the very concept of an identity. He could have submitted a series of blank sheets of paper along with his concept and probably better executed it.
Again, while it's an interesting idea, it's totally unhelpful for achieving the purpose of creating a visual identity in the first place.
On Jun.01.2009 at 03:59 PM
Joey V’s comment is:
I didn't get it when I first saw it. I felt like I wasn't in on some joke. That is a horrible way to make your audience feel; left out, excluded, or dumb.
"The fingers you have used to type are too fat. To order a special typing wand, please mash the keyboard now."
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
This is bad. I want it to be good, but I think the student overthought this one. Honestly, I'm surprised this won. What sayeth this of the instructors at the university? Different for the sake of differnet is never good. Next time, shoot for good, not different.
On Jun.01.2009 at 04:27 PM
Eli’s comment is:
The imprecision of this kills me. Punctuation has a purpose - all those little squiggles actually mean something. By placing them randomly in text, they're asking anyone who looks at this to ignore those meanings. Possibly the least literate branding I've ever seen.
On Jun.01.2009 at 04:58 PM
John Leschinski’s comment is:
Wow, in a bad way.
It took me a while to figure out what was going on here, and I still my see the punctuations as letter replacements. What a disaster.
Teresa’s comment is:
I like it! Why do universities' logos need to be "professional" or "institutional"? It's especially refreshing for one that includes many disciplines, including economics.
Its oddity is exactly the point here, a mark that solidifies this university as different. I had trouble with legibility at first, I will admit, but:
1. I always have trouble parsing the extra vowels and
2. Now I know to only read the black letters, it's entirely readable and memorable.
Boo to contests, but Yay for challenging the status quo with a solid concept.
On Jun.01.2009 at 06:23 PM
Teresa’s comment is:
Also, bravo for avoiding the silly trend of replacing letters with punctuation. That hit its peak with Se7en.
The stark interruption used here means more, I think, than "clever" letter replacement. And honestly, once you read and understand a logo, do you ever really *read* it again? No, your eye sees the outline and your mind fills in the rest.
On Jun.01.2009 at 06:26 PM
Esteban’s comment is:
Today is June 1. Are you sure this shouldn't have been posted exactly 2 months ago?
On Jun.01.2009 at 08:00 PM
David’s comment is:
I think the idea is there (and good) but the execution is slightly lacking. I wouldn’t have used the question mark – too many negative connotations, and I probably would have tried the punctuation in a different weight to the letters. But overall the concept is appropriate for the client.
On Jun.01.2009 at 08:46 PM
abu’s comment is:
I think it's a clever idea, both conceptually and in a practical sense.
I like how it employs a very minimal ensemble of elements to set up a visual language that's stylish and remarkable while also being very easy to extend and rearrange.
I agree with the blogowner that exploring some more option for the typeface could have lead to a more polished and distinct visual result, but again I think this just restates the cleverness of the concept - it just works good enough with the minimal effort of plain old helvetica.
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:03 PM
abu’s comment is:
@erik «My girlfriend goes to MICA and when they unveiled their new expensive logo, a lot of the students were upset and felt they could have done better for less.»
Well maybe it's me but I'd say that they felt so because they still have to learn a lot.
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:07 PM
henry’s comment is:
i like the concept behind the logo, which manages to creatively convey the energy and and interaction that goes on in a school.
the things that springs to mind from the visual languages is the questioning and dialogues that makes a school vibrant.
would like to see it in some practical application and see whether it has any difficulty in its execution:)
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:24 PM
Aditya’s comment is:
I love that this approach is grating on the conservative littérateurs.
That alone says a lot.
Could we see some applications, please.
On Jun.01.2009 at 11:39 PM
Alex C.’s comment is:
It's of no surprise that most of the people here comment on the perceived weaknesses of this logotype—why not a solid logo or mark?
In a country like ours, where schools are treated like corporations, we expect their visual identities to be on par with Coke or Apple. But I think it a little myopic to view an educational institution through the lens of a corporation. This proposed identity is very dynamic and incredibly flexible (a good thing for future interpretations/reinventions).
And for better or worse, Helvetica is still the neutral typeface, which makes you go, "Oh, that's a smart system" as oppose to "Oh, look at what another clever use of Gotham."
On Jun.02.2009 at 12:33 AM
e|v|l’s comment is:
I have to say that I had a really hard time seeing this at first as the name of the school isn't one that I am familiar with. That being said I like the concept and the fact that it is so simple and out there especially for a university even though it is a design one.
I do find it hard to read and think that it loses it's legibility with the alternate marks.
I guess I am somewhere in the middle on it neither bad nor good.
On Jun.02.2009 at 02:04 AM
Sanjay Basavaraju’s comment is:
It is interesting and intriguing. We would be narrow-minded if we looked at it by applying prejudices as to how it should look to represent an educational institution in a country where most of us haven't been.
It is unique and appropriate in representing the state of mind and energy at an art, design and engineering school. Sigh. At least it is not boring. And it is fine to use helvetica if one is convinced.
On Jun.02.2009 at 03:12 AM
Sanjay Basavaraju’s comment is:
It is interesting and intriguing. We would be narrow-minded if we looked at it by applying prejudices as to how it should look to represent an educational institution in a country where most of us haven't been.
It is unique and appropriate in representing the state of mind and energy at an art, design and engineering school. Sigh. At least it is not boring. And it is fine to use helvetica if one is convinced.
On Jun.02.2009 at 03:12 AM
Jedd’s comment is:
w*&ha%$t t$he "f(uc^k?
On Jun.02.2009 at 03:35 AM
Andy Malhan’s comment is:
Call me a purist, but I still believe that the purpose of design is to communicate. This doesn't very effectively. I see what the designer was trying to do, and I applaud the concept, but I think it's a poor execution.
On Jun.02.2009 at 04:03 AM
Sagarika’s comment is:
I think design competitions usually throw up dubious results but I like this solution. It's quite a refreshing approach for such an institutional client in an age where, in my opinion, most competent identities come across as being painted by one brush, one hand.
I think that the level of design competence in Finland must certainly be quite high seeing that a 21 year old came up with this wonderful solution.
On Jun.02.2009 at 06:40 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
I usually agree with most of the opinions posted here, but I think this is downright awful. It's difficult to read, the colors are garish and 80's looking, the font choice is dreadful.
Furthermore, a bureaucratic institution like a university is incapable of managing the seridipity of a logo with loose standards. This is branding suicide, and will certianly result in infighting over what's an acceptable ammount of variation.
On Jun.02.2009 at 09:38 AM
Stephanie’s comment is:
My first question whenever I look at a new design is "Why not?"
I am surprised at a lot of the comments here. I really find this new identity quite interesting. Perhaps if I see how the rest of the identity rolls out I will change my mind and think it's really horrid in execution. However, just based on this one entry with just the logo, I see a lot of potential in playing with the type, colors, and copy.
It's just way too soon to jump to a firm conclusion. Give it a chance guys.
Also, I really wish people would stop dumping on students. Being someone who has been mentoring young minds, I really appreciate the naivety that fresh talents offer. They aren't restrained by rules and dilapidated by cynicism. It's something we all should still have.
On Jun.02.2009 at 10:52 AM
Josh’s comment is:
I like the image, not sure I agree with the statement in regards to type choice though...
'The typeface Helvetica has been chosen because it is the most “meaningless” typeface.'
I would vehemently disagree with that sentiment.
On Jun.02.2009 at 12:01 PM
Dan’s comment is:
I'm getting a bit fed up of the logo hating and pulling-apart to the nth degree that goes on in the comments for every single post that Armin puts up.
I admit I agree with some things here, but really, some of you are embarrassing yourselves. You sound like teenagers. Could you just stop, think and re-read your comments before you post them, and listen to how "like, ohmygaddd, did you seeeeeee that?! Um, duh!" they are.
What really bugs me about this logo is not the minute detail of it, but the fact that there really is no idea behind it. Forget the detail and the 'logo principles' you all keep talking about (simple, bold colours, etc, blah, blah, blah, yawn, yeah, thanks for your advice Paul Rand), and let's talk about THE IDEA, people.
I swear some people wait for a new post on here so they can just think of more witty criticisms and comparisons to other identities.
Sorry Armin, the quality's going down, but there's very little you can do about it.
On Jun.02.2009 at 12:29 PM
Ross’s comment is:
I feel like this is an idea the designer had and then the contest came around and gave them an opportunity to put it into practice. Find some justification for how it relates to a university and call it a logo. It could "work" just as well for a publishing company or a design firm or a search engine— anything you want to wrap that logo around with the right "explanation".
On Jun.02.2009 at 01:21 PM
Jem’s comment is:
I agree with Dan and Stephanie, alot of the negative feedback (like the one RIDICULOUS comment above), is just self-aggrandising drivel.
The 'fact' that this identity attempts something new (in context) and challenging, should alone warrant some degree of acknowledgment. It may not completely work, but, I would prefer this over spaced out trajan circling a coat of arms any day.
On Jun.02.2009 at 03:15 PM
damon’s comment is:
it's SO hard to read my eyes are literally hurting right now. That's bad.
this concept could have been achieved by stacking the letters in different orientations without the random punctuation messing it up...colour and pattern could easily have been used to replace the punctuation and would have ultimately given it a TON more diversity and dynamism, while retaining some level of legibility.
not into it.
Chris Rugen’s comment is:
I hope we can see the logo in the context of the larger identity here on Brand New. I applaud the faith of the client (though not the contest), but I find the concept visually confusing and not particularly compelling. It feels like an interesting concept that needs a bit more refinement. Or a good poster concept that will end up confusing as an identity system.
Thinking practically (as a designer who works for a large university), I would be willing to bet that this system causes a lot of problems further down the road. Particularly when it comes to controlling the logo's use and avoiding bad variations.
An aside: the amount of acrimony that's being flung around in this comment thread is a bit disheartening. Give your opinion. Read others'. Accept the subjectivity of it all. Stop attacking people you don't know at all. Please.
On Jun.02.2009 at 04:18 PM
Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:
What the #@%!?
Joking aside, I love this solution. It is unique, fun, and strangely enough, quite legible.
And that is more than can be said for most new identities these days...
On Jun.02.2009 at 04:41 PM
Dan’s comment is:
First thing that came to mind was this great poster by Michael Ciancio ...
On Jun.02.2009 at 08:33 PM
svenja’s comment is:
First thing that came to my mind was this identity for an event about typography in Germany.
On Jun.03.2009 at 05:31 PM
Jd’s comment is:
This logo gives me a seizure. and it just reads like a *@&*!. A logo should be the anchor of the brand, and not changed at any ones discretion on any given day. I'm cool with the choice of Helvetica, but his concept of it being meaningless is another story.
On Jun.03.2009 at 06:18 PM
Char’s comment is:
I DO?N'T G!ET I"T!
On Jun.05.2009 at 11:43 AM
Jenni’s comment is:
I call bullshit. The "artist" clearly just pulled this out of his @!$!$!. I bet even he is surprised he won the contest.
On Jun.06.2009 at 12:26 PM
Dan’s comment is:
It's so sad to see that this website has become a beauty pageant for identities. They're posted up in front of the firing squad just waiting to be shot down or spared. I doubt that's what Armin had in mind when it started.
On Jun.08.2009 at 02:43 PM
Paul Cooley’s comment is:
"Also, I really wish people would stop dumping on students. Being someone who has been mentoring young minds, I really appreciate the naivety that fresh talents offer. They aren't restrained by rules and dilapidated by cynicism. It's something we all should still have."
Thanks for that Stephanie, I love this place, but I can't help feeling attacked every time I come here. Being a student myself, I am in awe of the simple existence of a forum like this, but some of the comments directed to us "newbies" can be a little bit of a bummer.
That said, This little logo is a compelling entry into the "conceptual" folder in the graphic design cabinet, but boy do we need some context. I want to like this so much, but I have to be honest and say that I was a little to convoluted at first glance...which as I have learned, is not how a logo should operate.
On Jun.14.2009 at 06:01 AM
Sen’s comment is:
This is one of those things that I wish I had thought of first, because I could have. In fact, anyone could have. That's what kills you.
I mean I'm all about concept, but still.
On Jun.14.2009 at 10:20 PM
Andy’s comment is:
They use the typeface Neue Helvetica Bold for the logos.
On Jun.16.2009 at 11:51 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
