NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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 mention of “art school” as a choice in higher education carries with it the stereotype of a classroom full of high school outcasts sketching a nude model. Yes, a sarcastic and outdated notion easy to refute, but a real hurdle nonetheless. And the newly named Ringling College of Art and Design knew that its previous moniker, Ringling School of Art and Design — coined in 1933, two years after the college was originally established as, big breath, The School of Fine and Applied Art of the John and Mable Ringling Art Museum — was not the best option to represent a thriving private institution that has grown from a 3-building campus to one that houses more than 80 in 35 acres and serves 1,090 students. Ringling must also realize that it faces stiff competition in the boutique undergraduate education in design from the likes of RISD, Art Center, SCAD, MICA and others who also happen to have strong visual identities of their own. So this past April, Ringling changed its name and unveiled a new identity that will be ready to roll at the start of the upcoming school year.
Designed by Chicago-based SamataMason, Ringling’s new look joins the rank of other ever-changing identities that hinge on one strong visual identity and then mutate in several, controlled ways. The premise behind this one is the following:
The new identity system is built around the idea that Ringling offers both the constant foundation of an academic institution — a structured, stable, nurturing environment for learning and unique personal experiences — brought to life through interaction with creative, eclectic and energized people.
Consisting of a constant — represented by the classic form of the golden rectangle, and made visible by a set of variables — through an infinitely changeable assembly of images.
The Ringling identity expresses the diversity of individual experiences by incorporating the visual voices of Ringling students, faculty, staff, and alumni who have provided vibrant expressions of its creative heart and soul.
Like the college itself, the Ringling identity is constant, yet always changing.
Unlike other rationalizations for identities, and despite a basic notion that any college in the world could claim, Ringling and SamataMason turned this into a cohesive execution that distinguishes the college from others and, in my own interpretative way, manages to capture what a design school in Florida feels like. The identity is also able to translate the duality that most designers face of the meeting of creativity and structure — both necessary to excel as professional designers — handsomely embodied by the changing texture (referred to as the “Visual Voice”) behind the strict rectangle accompanied by a rather nicely spaced rendition of Scala Sans.
While an art and design education may not be what our parents had in mind when they pictured us as lawyers and doctors, Ringling’s new identity makes a strong case for the seriousness that our silliness can fully develop through. And, if in the process, we can sketch a nude, why not?
Logos courtesy of Ringling College of Art and Design.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
henry’s comment is:
this is definitely one of the few logos for a creative institution that excel in conveying the dynamicism and seriousness of the brand.
hmm, where plenty of logo designers are trying to create a ever-changing logo (and failed) the RCAD's logo do provide a sense of being grounded and yet having the potential to soar ... and be anything:)
On Jul.29.2007 at 10:10 PM
Joe M’s comment is:
Though it may be well spaced unto itself, the shouting scala flops overall. It is always at odds with the storm of shapes at the left because of its busy U&LC-ness.
Also, something about the scale of the lockup is uncomfortable, the length of the type is almost the same as the pile of shapes at the left.
On Jul.29.2007 at 10:31 PM
Frank’s comment is:
Yuck.These logos suck big time.I'd love to see the b/w versions..say in a newspaper ad.
Also, the way they are i can't see how the icons could work as standalones (without the accompanying type) as they say zilch about who, where, what.
Another example of logos mistaken as art (see London 2012 etc).
On Jul.29.2007 at 10:39 PM
Dale’s comment is:
Sad to see any "college of design" jumping on the mutating-logo bandwagon. To me, this is a failure to design, a cop-out in the face of the challenge to develop a distinctive, meaningful mark.
My prediction: This will do nothing to distinguish Ringling. It will either be quickly scrapped or age terribly.
I particularly dislike the way that neither the type nor the imagery-cluster really hangs together. Too much letter-spacing!
On Jul.29.2007 at 11:55 PM
Dale’s comment is:
Sad to see any "college of design" jumping on the mutating-logo bandwagon. To me, this is a failure to design, a cop-out in the face of the challenge to develop a distinctive, meaningful mark.
My prediction: This will do nothing to distinguish Ringling. It will either be quickly scrapped or age terribly.
I particularly dislike the way that neither the type nor the imagery-cluster really hangs together. Too much letter-spacing!
On Jul.29.2007 at 11:56 PM
Chris’s comment is:
Both old and new logos are muddled and unwilling to take a stand; nevertheless, both anchor themselves to a specific date and time. These are not good attributes for a design school to broadcast.
The new one appears to use Adobe Myriad, which is well on track to becoming the new Helvetica: ubiquitous and scorned like a hair metal single from the 80's.
Also, I bet the "+" dies a quick death. Nothing says "dated" like a symbol in the name.
(However, even worse than that logo are the ads -- Ringling would appear to be holding frequent contests for worst student Ringling ad -- and then running with the results!)
On Jul.30.2007 at 12:43 AM
Tor Løvskogen’s comment is:
I agree with Chris, Myriad is becoming the new Helvetica. This logo seems very useless, unless it's going to be used in its full version everywhere, but with only the 'logo' it would be hard to recognize.
On Jul.30.2007 at 01:05 AM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
The new one appears to use Adobe Myriad, which is well on track to becoming the new Helvetica: ubiquitous and scorned like a hair metal single from the 80's.
It's not Myriad -- it's Scala Sans (as Joe M helpfully pointed out above). As far a "new Helvetica" is concerned, you may be thinking of Frutiger, not Myriad. They're easy to confuse, since Myriad is basically a well-designed knockoff of Frutiger. I have yet to hear anyone refer to Frutiger as a "hair metal single," though I agree that it is overused in corporate design.
I like the concept behind the Ringling College identity and the strategy seems spot-on. At smaller sizes the execution seems muddled, though: it's difficult to see the elements of the collage. I'm also curious to see some of the implementation (that's where the MICA identity came alive, as far as I'm concerned). Perhaps the frame could have been a bit more distinct. I would be very surprised, however, if SamataMason had not accounted for newspaper and fax usage.
On Jul.30.2007 at 02:11 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
I'm open-minded enough to accept the notion of a mutating logo – as long as there is something that ties all the mutations together (in this case, the frame?), there is at least a possibility of a visual identity being established, however weak it might be in this case.
There's no excuse for this lame type treatment, however. Lame, lame lame! As has been mentioned, the typeface is generic and has too much letterspacing for such a long name. IMHO, the color difference (as reproduced here, anyway) between the two lines of type is too subtle to be useful, but perhaps that's a matter of taste -- I'm big on contrast, and generally avoid similarity (i.e., slight differences that could just as easily be chalked up to a slip of the mouse or press error). Anyway, it appears the designers blew their budget on the symbols, and cranked out the type in 22 seconds flat.
Frank, you mentioned you'd like to see a b/w version -- if you go to their website's logo page and click on "Other Logo Variations" (gotta love title caps), you'll see a grayscale version that seems to work fine (as long as you bought the color version, I mean). IMHO, the old arguments about faxing, etc. are less of an issue than they used to be -- there's almost always a way to adapt a logo for various repro restrictions, and (again IMHO) it's not worth hamstringing a design for the sake of the edge cases. If one knew one's design would be reproduced primarily or frequently in b/w or flexo or whatever, it would make sense to design the logo to function well with those restrictions. Otherwise, not so much.
On Jul.30.2007 at 02:30 AM
Johanna ’s comment is:
They all sort of remind me of pre-CS3 adobe splash images..
On Jul.30.2007 at 04:00 AM
felix’s comment is:
> The new one appears to use Adobe Myriad,
It's Scala Sans.
On Jul.30.2007 at 06:55 AM
L.Vazquez’s comment is:
I'm a fan of simplicity and timeless design.
However, I like how this challenges that notion, especially for an institute of higher learning. This concept is a temporary solution to a long term problem.
L.
On Jul.30.2007 at 08:25 AM
beth’s comment is:
With all the non-accredited / nebulous art schools floating around, I don't understand why they didn't change the name sooner to reflect their accreditation from the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design.
On Jul.30.2007 at 09:06 AM
Chad K’s comment is:
While the idea of a mutating logo is fitting for a creative institution, one concern of a mark like this is that it is simply a template to place elements in. Although the examples presented here are enjoyable and coherent, who will be placing the background elements in the future. Will they have an understanding of the delicacy of positioning and a neutral opinion as to what is represented?
While the logo represents a successful approach of a mutating logo at the time, its longevity will rely on the designers it is passed on to.
On Jul.30.2007 at 09:15 AM
JonSel’s comment is:
In general, I think it's really nice. I disagree with those that think the type is too large or spaced out. I don't find it overly spaced, and it needs to be the size it is to provide balance to the collage/frame. In the land of silly things that only designers care about, I love that they went with square dots on the lowercase i's instead of Scala Sans' usual round dots.
Someone mentioned that the collage gets a bit muddled at small sizes, and I think they're right. That's the only failing here. As long as they maintain some contrast within the collage's elements, this won't be too much of a problem. The more monotone it is, though, the less distinctive it will be.
While the logo represents a successful approach of a mutating logo at the time, its longevity will rely on the designers it is passed on to.
This is always a big concern when developing the flexible, mutable identity. SamataMason has a well-earned reputation as solid-thinking designers, so I'd assume they had some assurances from Ringling that they could handle such a logo. The designer always has to keep in mind the client's ability to implement an identity program. Many clients have no conception of what it takes to successfully manage even the most basic of identities and it would be irresponsible for a designer to suggest a flexible program like Ringling's without making sure the client is capable and prepared for the challenge.
On Jul.30.2007 at 10:03 AM
C-LO’s comment is:
if outside the frame was greyed out or faded or soemthing to not draw the eye outside then MAYBE this would be as strong as they want. It's a decent idea how the logo will change and reflect what the students are creating and where they stand.
but they DO look like pre CS Adobe splash screens.
On Jul.30.2007 at 11:46 AM
exigent’s comment is:
I feel that the image is much to powerful for the typography... I am somewhat drawn to the a'collage of crap" that the typography is noticed much later. This design will be scrapped in less than 5 years due to it's lack of a definitave identity. It is not strong, though it is memorable in that the logo is never memorable due to its ever-changing nature.
As a college, I would give this less than clever design a D. I spared the F due to its attempt at something different....
On Jul.30.2007 at 12:29 PM
Chad K’s comment is:
The boxes appear to change sizes. Is this part of the identity, or just an inconsistency on screen?
On Jul.30.2007 at 12:41 PM
Colin’s comment is:
Looks like a fun mark to work with, as a designer, and I can see it working well for creating a new identity for the school.
Thumbs up from me.
On Jul.30.2007 at 12:48 PM
Mikefats’s comment is:
Image/icon: unfortunately the photo tiles become just arbitrary noise even at quite a large scale (as per the example at the top of the article.)
Typography: uninspired and bland
On Jul.30.2007 at 12:56 PM
drew kora’s comment is:
At first glance I was like "whaaaaa..."
But then seein ghow the graphics around the Rectangle can change is really awesome. I dig it.
On Jul.30.2007 at 01:04 PM
Frank’s comment is:
@Splashman:
Yeah, i have seen the grayscale version, but that shows the problem - it's grayscale, not b/w.
Now, the reason why a good logo always works in b/w as well is not because you know beforehand that you will need it to be printed in b/w but because there's always the risk you one day might need a b/w version although you can't think of such a situation *right now*.That is the main reason behind a b/w version: Because it's ridiculous to think you already know all situations that might occur in the future.
But the main reason why this identity "system" doesn't work imho is because it doesn't fulfill it's main purpose: To IDENTIFY.
See there's a reason why "Identity" and "Identify" have the same roots.A logo or identity system should make the product/company/etc visually *identifiable* for the target audience.This very logo/identity system does exactly not do this.
Because the concept basically is "frame we can throw whatever crap in we like" which could even work but doesn't because there is no identifiable "frame" that *all* the logos use - shapes of the frames change and where it doesn't change it's just a normal rectangular which is too generic to identify anything.Second, the crap they throw in is hardly recognizable in small sizes and in addition as everytime it changes what they throw in, it just doesn't help either to establish an identifiable identity.
So, bottom line:
- Doesn't work in b/w
- No visual consistency apart from the "frame that might change its shape in which we throw stuff in"
Too weak to identify anything.
On Jul.30.2007 at 01:05 PM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
oh samatamason, maybe you should stick to the annual reports that you do so well. this thing is just really impractical to say the least.
is the "ringling brothers barnum & bailey overpriced portfolio school" accredited now? i always thought they were just a portfolio school and kind of in the same situation as scad (accredited one minute, stripped of it the next).
On Jul.30.2007 at 01:22 PM
Niki’s comment is:
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about this one. When I first saw the graphic at the beginning of the article, I had to squint to figure out what was going on there.
I don't think squinting is a good prerequisite for effective branding.
On Jul.30.2007 at 04:32 PM
babbington’s comment is:
I really don't think this works.
Won't work in B&W. Won't work at low resolution for web. Just a mish-mosh.
On Jul.30.2007 at 05:28 PM
Jeff’s comment is:
Is it just me, or does the Batman keep making an appearance in the shifting logo (3 and 7)?
On Jul.30.2007 at 08:15 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
Frank. I think you're missing the point. This system works just fine. The idea is really just is that a buncha stuff is in a frame. It doesn't what that stuff is it is. This "stuff" is so secondary, so similar in colors/textures/sizes, your average Joe won't be able to tell any of these logos apart. And, let's face it, this is an art/design school. It is a place of creation and discovery, so why not fill the frame up with whatever? Who cares what it is. Type, photos, drawings, abstract shapes, etc? It all works.
These are all so similar, that it identifies just fine. It it really necessary, maybe. This being a school, I assume there was a re-branding committee. I've worked with a number of school's/academic institutions on re-branding/identity projects in the past. Schools love committees. It is the democratic and academic way to get things accomplished. The more red-tape and opinions the better. I'm guessing what this system allowed for was to give every department, discipline, committee something that represented them, their discipline, and thereby, made them feel included.
If one needed to reproduce the mark in Black and White (not grayscale), say if you were making stainless-steel letters to go on a brick surface, one could drop the symbol and just use the wordmark. It happens all the time. That's how to get around the quarks in a system like this during those rare instances.
On Jul.30.2007 at 08:23 PM
Frank’s comment is:
Danny, i don't think i'm missing the point.Point is, a logo is a logo is a logo.
Which is to say this isn't one because it misses all the basic standards a logo has to have to work as such.The thing is, even (or especially) for an art school their logo has to work not only within their familiar environment but even more in unrelated places like newspaper ads, billboards, magazines - whatever - where it is competing with countless other visual elements that try to distract the eye.Which means a logo should be able to tell the core values/competencies/story especially in a "hostile" (read non-related) environment.Which this logo just isn't capable of.Because it's just too generic - the rectangular is too generic, the stuff in there can't be recognized, in addition to that every element changes from logo to logo.
And to say if you need a b/w version "just drop the symbol" is exactly what disqualifies this logo.Because if you do drop the symbol what is left then ? Just the type.With a good logo the exact opposite is possible: That the symbol can stand on its own - no matter where it's applied to - and is still recognizable even without the type.
Again, something that this logo is so not capable of.
All of this is very simple really:
Like it or not, a logo in order to work as such has to fulfill certain basic standards - because it has a defined FUNCTION.That's what seperates it from pure art.Seems a lot of agencies have forgotten about this point lately - probably willingly in hopes to see their name in some important art magazine soon...
On Jul.30.2007 at 09:04 PM
Chad K’s comment is:
If we are talking about a single color/application without the box, we are left with a boring logotype.
Getting rid of the frame rids the logo of all the punch and creativity they say it and its contents brings.
I can't help but think of mundane representations for the rectangle other than their 'golden rectangle'. A picture frame perhaps; it is an art school after all. Or the cliche saying 'thinking inside/out of the box'.
The golden rectangle would make for a great representation of the students entering school with and equal view and as they mature through school, they differentiate themselves by their style and work (represented by the filler of the triangle). The problem, however, is when I look at it, the golden rectangle is the last thing that comes to mind.
On Jul.30.2007 at 09:22 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
Frank, regarding b/w applications, you sound like I did ten years ago. *yawn*
That said, yes, "drop the symbol" ain't too bright in general, and completely unsupportable in this case, with such weak, generic type (as Chad demonstrated).
This mark will undoubtedly be flushed in five years or less (if not, more's the pity). But perhaps the school is more interested in justifying new bc's and letterhead than establishing an enduring visual identity. Whatever.
On Jul.31.2007 at 03:12 AM
katharhino’s comment is:
First of all, if you look closely it's the outside border of the "frame" shape that's in the golden proportion. Because of the thickness of the frame, the inside rectangle is most definitely not a golden rectangle. And that's what your eye sees first.
Second, if it's supposed to be the golden rectangle, they should be more careful with the dividing line of color change that goes right down the middle of most of the logos. Shouldn't it divide the rectangle in the golden proportion, instead of in the middle?
Ok, so maybe that's nitpicky. Still, they're the ones who brought up the golden rectangle. They could have just said "a frame for the beautiful art inside."
Third, this makes me think of the National Geographic rectangle on its side.
On Jul.31.2007 at 10:33 AM
Chuck’s comment is:
"Look, look! I can put a white box over stuff and it creates an identity!" Seriously?
On Jul.31.2007 at 10:57 AM
Chad K’s comment is:
Agreed.
PMS485C’s comment is:
Just wonderin'
Shouldn't a design school have designed their own logo?
On Jul.31.2007 at 04:10 PM
Christapher’s comment is:
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
Shouldn't a design school have designed their own logo?
Sure, just as lawyers should defend themselves and doctors should treat their own illnesses...
A little distance is often a good thing.
On Aug.01.2007 at 01:00 AM
Audrée Lapierre’s comment is:
the bigger versions posted later are prettier, but it still looks like a mess, and unusable in a smaller format. The idea was interesting, but not a success
On Aug.01.2007 at 10:56 AM
Leila Singleton’s comment is:
PMS485C’s comment is: Shouldn't a design school have designed their own logo?
That's one of the great things about SCAD — all of their catalogs and promotional materials are designed in-house by a team of alumni. When I was a senior there they even offered a special elective course that required a portfolio review for entrance, allowing a handful of Graphic Design seniors the chance to work on promotional materials for the school (at that time, I believe the class was focused on producing the college's official catalog).
I think it's great when an institution uses its own students, faculty and alumni to produce design work; it is the strongest affirmation that a school believes in the talent it houses.
On Aug.01.2007 at 12:22 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
(or is too cheap to hire a pro)
;)
On Aug.01.2007 at 12:28 PM
PMS485C’s comment is:
Sure, just as lawyers should defend themselves and doctors should treat their own illnesses...
So a designer opening up their own business should hire someone else to design the logo?
On Aug.01.2007 at 03:36 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
So a designer opening up their own business should hire someone else to design the logo?
Good point. Note that I wrote "often," not "always." Branding an academic institution is a problem of an entirely different magnitude than branding a design studio.
On Aug.01.2007 at 06:28 PM
TacftulCactus’s comment is:
Scalability, anyone?
On Aug.01.2007 at 07:16 PM
PMS485C’s comment is:
Branding an academic institution is a problem of an entirely different magnitude than branding a design studio.
True. True. But this is not just any ol' academic institution, it's a design/art one.
Just seems to me to be a missed opportunity for them.
On Aug.01.2007 at 08:38 PM
Armin’s comment is:
The poetic notion of students designing the identity of their art institution is, with all due respect, bollocks. The fact is that – independent of the final result by a professional design firm – design students DO NOT have the experience to manage and sell a complex identity system. Could they design something cooler? Maybe. But more than half of the success of any identity is navigating through the approval process, knowing who to get the right information from, understanding whose voice one should hear when receiving feedback, and having a level of maturity, resilience and communication skills that students do not have. I was a design student myself, and knowing what I know now, just imagining me and a dozen other hoodlums designing the identity for any serious institution is laughable.
One may not like the result, but the final execution is only part of a bigger process that takes years, if not decades, to master, or at least grasp.
On Aug.01.2007 at 09:02 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
^^^^^^^^^
What he said.
On Aug.02.2007 at 05:16 AM
exigent’s comment is:
I too agree with Armin. Thing is, my old high school went through a rebranding not even half a year ago. They... through their cheap ways decided to let the students "design" their logo. Every entry was laughable. Most were drawn on notepad paper or colored with crayons. Illustrator wasn't even a figment of anyone's imagination. After seeing the entries I contacted the school to more or less conduct a meeting on how pathetic these were and how they should pay me to design their logomark.
I created 3 different marks for them to choose from, scraping the student's crap and from there worked with the Superintendant, School Board, Student Council and Alumni leaders.
6 months later, they have a new brand.
Armin is absolutely bang-on.
On Aug.02.2007 at 01:34 PM
PMS485C’s comment is:
Armin, you make a lot of derogatory blanket statements about students.
The notion that college level design students - at a design school - are incapable of designing something long-lasting and "serious" is rather pathetic.
Experience? You gotta start somewhere.
On Aug.02.2007 at 03:41 PM
Armin’s comment is:
PMS, as a design student once myself, this is not meant to be derogatory, it's simply a reality check. They might be "capable" of designing many long-lasting, beautiful things but, as I mentioned, no student has the mettle or the experience to go through the selling/approval process and be met with the necessary seriousness by the stakeholders, which in this case I assume are the dean, a brand committee and the Board of Directors. Designing identities at this level, with hundreds of applications and brand architecture challenges requires a certain level of leadership and confidence from the designer that students just don't have.
It's not a matter of believing it can be done. It just can't be done. At least not right.
On Aug.02.2007 at 04:01 PM
PMS485C’s comment is:
It's not a matter of believing it can be done. It just can't be done. At least not right.
You'd never make it as a motivational speaker.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
On Aug.02.2007 at 04:49 PM
Armin’s comment is:
I won't argue with that assessment.
On Aug.02.2007 at 09:58 PM
Leila Singleton’s comment is:
"…design students DO NOT have the experience to manage and sell a complex identity system."
As it turns out, nor do many "professional" design firms. Daily we are surrounded by the lackluster, incoherent identity systems put out by the so-called pros…I suppose the only thing many have mastered is the "sell" part of the job. Had they been afforded the chance to hone their skills earlier on — say, as students — perhaps they could yield more masterful results? As has been pointed out, the successful formulation of complex identity systems "…takes years, if not decades to master." If that's the case, why not start early?
I personally cannot think of a better place than art school for a student to practice the skills that Armin mentions; being the very institution at which a student is taught, the client is fully aware that they are working with junior designers, and there are mentors (professors) on-site who are not too busy with huge accounts, deadlines and clients to truly help a young designer grasp the "bigger process" step-by-step (versus art directing them sans explanation into a better solution in the interest of expeditiousness). Given this structured, one-on-one guidance and a group of precociously talented students, there is great potential for a high degree of quality and professional output in such an arrangement.
Unfortunately, the circular logic that a young designer is too inexperienced to be allowed to gain experience pervades our supersaturated, super-competitive field, a field in which tenure is sometimes permitted to overshadow talent. This, of course, makes it all the more important for our institutions of art and design to afford students "real world" opportunities in the classroom — after all, what value does a diploma have if it only certifies a graduate classroom-ready?
On Aug.03.2007 at 01:55 AM
beth’s comment is:
On design schools creating their own identities:
I am under the impression most schools don't do this. When I went to CCAD they underwent a major rebranding, and though they had some great resources in their faculty they went to an outside firm, who I felt ultimately did an outstanding job.
Students are certainly capable in many situations of doing professional level design. I don't think the identity of a major academic institution is one of those situations.
On Aug.03.2007 at 10:09 AM
Leila Singleton’s comment is:
Beth, you are correct; most schools do not. My alma mater enlists a professional staff of in-house designers — who also happen to be alumni — to tackle the school's biggest design projects.
I graduated in '03 so things may have changed, but the projects students got to work on were not quite identity systems, and they were closely supervised in a classroom setting by professors who had been art and creative directors, worked in high-profile studios and/or owned their own agencies for decades. Students often had to submit a portfolio to even make it into such a class (for which tuition was covered by the school — yea!). If the student team still managed to produce work that was not usable, the school always had an award-winning in-house team upon whom to rely.
With this built-in backup system, I see no reason why a college couldn't be even more daring and allow a student team to at least collaborate on the institution's identity system. If the identity were to turn out well, what great PR for the school! And what a great addition to students' resumes! If students are "hoodlums" and unable to professionally pitch ideas to deans and boards, they could be permitted to sit in on key meetings to watch and learn as their professors handle the nuts and bolts (though one would hope that verbal skills and diplomacy would be part of the screening process when selecting students for the class). As I mentioned before, the client is also the educating institution, so certainly they would understand that a student is still learning how to deliver the perfect pitch.
On Aug.03.2007 at 12:45 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Hi,
I'd like to chime in here and agree with Armin's comments. To design an identity system beyond just a "logomark" is a complex problem at the best of times and most designers who have worked for a number of years in the industry knows that half the battle is the ability to effectively rationalize and "sell" your solution to your client. This is not to say that design students aren't capable of doing this but the reality is, if you are running a business who do you want handling such an important component such as your identity? At the same time a project such as this would make for an ideal learning experience for students and including them in design presentations and discussions would go a long way in their own educational process.
oh and to throw my 2 cents in on the RCAD identity... i like it. I know a lot of it has been done before but where else besides these design forums will navel-gazing designers (me included) all get together to analyse and compare every little detail... I think what will eventually decide the success of the identity is how well they execute it in application in order to keep things fresh and dynamic.
On Aug.03.2007 at 01:52 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
*sigh*
Leila, I won't bother arguing with your desire for up to be down. Because I've been in your position and recognize your outlook, I can confidently predict (a) I'd be wasting my time, and (b) your perspective will be quite different in ten or twenty years.
On Aug.03.2007 at 04:41 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Everything including the...
On Aug.04.2007 at 05:56 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
Von, you crack me up!
(one slight amendment: Everything including the kitchen sink and second-rate typography.)
On Aug.04.2007 at 03:30 PM
Leila Singleton’s comment is:
I guess it's just that residual hoodlum in me that subscribes to such crazy notions as preparing students for the workforce and allowing their talents to benefit their schools. My prediction? In ten or twenty years, RCAD will have a new logo for us to crit and my inner hoodlum will be busy spray painting yet more inflammatory, subversive ideas on another wall…who knows, maybe one day I will go so far as to say that students should learn how to prepare a professional resume prior to graduation!!! ;-)
On Aug.05.2007 at 01:50 AM
Su’s comment is:
It's a bit like an inversion of what Andrea Tinnes did for CalArts a while back, no? See top left image here.
On Aug.05.2007 at 11:58 AM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
I guess it's just that residual hoodlum in me that subscribes to such crazy notions as preparing students for the workforce and allowing their talents to benefit their schools. It is also the best of opportunity for students to demonstrate their initiative, originality and creative energy -- exactly the traits that (good) design firms look for in their new hires.
Leila, there are many ways in which RCAD students can make use of their talent to benefit the school -- primarily by creating a rich, vibrant design life at the school. They should be making their own magazines, their own t-shirts, their own posters; they should design their own products and start their own businesses; they should set up a student chapters of the AIGA and arrange talks and workshops with local and national designers. Such a design life is very much a part of the identity of the school, just as important as a logo or a set of recruitement publications.
Armin's point, as I understand it, is that developing the identity of a large institution is only partially a graphic design problem: it is also a strategic problem, a marketing problem, a copywriting problem, a research problem, a management problem. It's not just a matter of being able to "sell" your design; you have to coordinate a varied team of professionals to produce a solution that satifies the needs of a wide range of constituencies: administrators, teachers, alumni, donors, in-house designers, etc. Most professional designers cannot offer all these skils by themselves, which is why institutions often go to brand consultancies (which often bring in freelance designers as part of the teams) or larger design firms (which subcontract any services they cannot provide internally).
Could students benefit from seeing this process up close? Sure. But to expect a group of design students to deliver a solution that even remotely answers the full extent of the problem is, as Armin put's it, bollocks.
On Aug.05.2007 at 12:49 PM
Rebecca’s comment is:
Although not averse to the use of Scala, I feel the type could use some work. There seems to be some tension between the primary and secondary information: specifically, between the first "g" in Ringling and the "A" in Art.
However what I extremely dislike about this logo is the very literal way in which the information is presented. It seems to be a collage of every subject of study instead of a clear, concise visual mark. The "logo" is a confusing mess of bad taste.
Come on: "Like the college itself, the Ringling identity is constant, yet always changing" - this is an absurd statement and cop-out from delivering an identity.
On Aug.05.2007 at 05:56 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
i can tell you as a student at *cough* RSAD that probably the #1 issue the students have had about the logo change was the fact that we paid (rumor has it) $60 grand for a logo we could have come up with for free (being a top design school), and used that money for any number of other more useful investments. given the fact that Ringling doesn't really have an endowment to speak of, throwing money into something that only kind of works is a virtual waste.
On Aug.06.2007 at 01:57 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
@Anon 1:57
I agree, to a point. Since the institution is evidently willing to settle for a 2nd-rate logo, might as well get it for free.
On Aug.06.2007 at 02:22 AM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
we paid (rumor has it) $60 grand for a logo we could have come up with for free
Important lesson for the anonymous student: nobody (except perhaps Paul Rand, and he's dead) gets $60 grand for a logo. You get paid that kind of money for delivering an entire positioning strategy, which is based on market research, extensive discussions with stakeholders, many rounds of creative, testing and retesting. The identity package probably included the design of a stationary system, main signage, website, recruitement publications, adverstising templates, and an identity manual for in-house designers. The whole process can take 6 months to a year to complete. You may not like the final mark (or think, as Splashman does, that it's 2nd rate, whatever that means), but you can be sure of two things: 1) there was plenty of work involved, and 2) you and your buddies wouldn't have been able to do it.
By the way, a student interested in joining the design profession, should probably avoid spreading the "you paid how much for a logo?" misconception. If you don't value the design process, why would your future clients?
On Aug.06.2007 at 09:22 AM
John’s comment is:
Anonymous,
As a working professional who vets his own clients, let me suggest to you that you begin to cultivate the idea that 60K for ANYTHING in the design field is a GOOD thing. Turn your argument around to a potential client who can't see the value of spending $1000 on a logo, much less 60K, when they can get a mark that's good enough for them at logosrus.com for $50. Your attitude will only devalue your intended profession out of existence. Get a grip and grow up.
On Aug.06.2007 at 11:07 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
@Jose, "2nd-rate", in this context, means "lame" (that's a technical term). And yes, that is merely my opinion; I don't pretend to have a direct line to God on the subject. Note, however, that in this forum my opinion is not particularly unique.
Regarding the $60k, of course RCAD paid for more than a logo, and those who whine about the fee are arguing from ignorance. One can presume that RCAD is satisfied with the service they received. My remark at 2:22 was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and more of a commentary on the logo (LAME!!!) than on the fee.
On Aug.06.2007 at 12:41 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
Note, however, that in this forum my opinion is not particularly unique.
I'm on the fence on the logo myself (I find the the type disappointing though certainly not offensive, and I think the concept, though strong, is not fully resolved). Frankly, I think your use of the word "lame" is more descriptive and precise, as far as expressing an opinion is concerned. My problem with "2nd rate" is that it implies shoddy, careless work (which I doubt was the case here) and precise categories ("these logos are 1st rate, these are 2nd rate") that seem to claim objectivity where there isn't any.
I don't mind ignorance -- it's a condition that is easily resolved. What bothers me is the arrogance and self-satisfaction that comes across in some of the student comments. I can't think of two character traits that are more detrimental to a young designer's career, and it makes me wary as I start looking for interns for my studio.
On Aug.06.2007 at 01:28 PM
Stephen’s comment is:
Its much better than the old outdated logo. As a student at Ringling we made fun of the star logo. I am not so sure of the ever mutating logo. It conveys little in the way of branding for me.
And its a good point with such excellent designers at the school and alumni why would they not resource them?
On Aug.06.2007 at 02:13 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
@Jose: I agree, "2nd-rate" is a sloppy synonym for "lame", but I used that term in only two contexts: (1) in my snarky response to Anon's claim that the $60k could have been better utilized -- a response which was not intended to be a cogent analysis of the logo and/or its designer, and (2) in an earlier comment on the typography.
As you can see in my first comment in this thread, my initial reaction to the illustrated element of the logo was fairly neutral; then and now, I don't feel strongly either way. Regarding the typography, I stand by the the term "2nd-rate", using your definition ("shoddy, careless"). True, there is no objective yardstick, but I think it's relevant that while many have defended the illustrated element of this logo, nobody (as far as I can tell) has attempted to defend the typography. It appears some guy typed it in, loosened the tracking, and clocked out for the day after telling himself, "Won't matter -- everyone will be concentrating on the kewl graphics anyway." (No, I don't really believe it happened that way; my point is that it appears careless.)
IMHO, 2nd-rate typography dooms a logo (no matter how wonderful the other elements might be) to 2nd-rate status (again, using your definition). But that's just me, right now. I may well feel differently in another 10 or 20 years.
Regarding arrogance vs. ignorance, I agree. There's that famous axiom: "The more I know, the more I realize how little I know." The corollary is as follows: "The less I know, the more I realize how much I know."
On Aug.06.2007 at 05:08 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
What the heck is IMHO...
This isn't instant messaging.
The type is fine.
You don't need a yardstick.
Here is objectively why:
• "Ringling College" is seated on top, in it's own line, setting the name of the institution with primary importance, and "of art + design" below in a descriptor position.
• It makes sense to have both the name and descriptor the same size (using only tints to separate). Having "of art + design" in the same size elevates the role/importance of art and design. It doesn't become shrunken and withered as in the previous logo.
• Type should be as simple as possible in conjunction with a logo like this. With so much going on...do you need any more? People should only be required to remember one distinguishing feature of a logo, one thing to make it memorable. Having "fancy type" just screws with this icon.
On Aug.06.2007 at 06:11 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
It appears some guy typed it in, loosened the tracking, and clocked out for the day after telling himself, "Won't matter -- everyone will be concentrating on the kewl graphics anyway."
Fair enough, though, to my eyes at least, the kerning is not that bad . It does seem like an after-thought, though I would suspect that the folks at SamataMason would describe it as "matter-of-fact," which would make it a deliberate aesthetic choice rather than the result of carelessness. There's a certain "undesigned" feel to the whole thing (mark included), which makes the choice of Scala Sans (a typeface that very much calls attention to its own design) somewhat odd. Trade Gothic would probably made more sense.
I have tough time using terms like "2nd rate" for work associated with design firms as accomplished as SamataMason. It's not a matter of giving someone a free pass; it's just that I'd rather try to understand what they're doing rather than dismissing it out of hand. I feel the same way about Pentagram's Sacks Fifth Avenue identity. Though I really dislike it, I can see why it's an interesting approach. Perhaps I'm being too kind, but I've been known to change my mind in a far shorter span than "10 or 20 years," and I find that it pays to be humble in my opinions -- I don't much like the taste of my own words.
As long as we're doing quotations, here's one of my favorites...
"It's not what people don't know that gets them in trouble. It's what they know that just isn't so."
--Mark Twain
On Aug.06.2007 at 06:39 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
@Jose: I'll defer to your analysis. Thanks for keeping it civil.
@Danny: . . .
On Aug.06.2007 at 07:06 PM
Leila Singleton’s comment is:
Jose brings up several good points. I agree, students should take the initiative to be active outside of the classroom (if they have time — many students do, after all, hold jobs while attending class full-time). I additionally agree that the marketing/strategic challenges mentioned are likely out of reach for a student sans assistance…just as they are for a professional designer who does not have a focused marketing background.
I still believe that design students can help create their schools' logos. Something that has been overlooked is that we're talking about selecting a team of only a handful of the best senior and grad students in our nation's top design schools; we're not talking about freshmen and remedial slackers who don't even mount their projects straight. An anecdote several posts up mentions a high school using its students to redesign its logo — while an amusing tale, I would not put 14- to 18-year-olds taking generic high school art courses in the same league as a graphic design student on the brink of graduation from a world-class institution. Top art colleges deserve more credit and respect than afforded by such a comparison.
Again, I'm not proposing kids fly solo. Given the guidance they would receive in a classroom setting, I fail to see how this hypothetical situation is much different than junior designers, fresh out of school, working on identity systems as part of a design firm's team. The key difference, in my estimation, is that they would have more creative input and receive more one-on-one attention in the classroom than on the job.
I suppose we will have to resign ourselves to respectfully disagree on this point. :-)
The arrogance Jose cites in some of the students' posts is far less flagrant to me than that of some of the professionals who have posted. If we are to welcome the younger generation into our profession and make them feel valued, calling students derogatory names, or telling them to "grow up" when they express opinions that reflect their inexperience, is the wrong approach. It is also unprofessional, and reinforces the very tone of arrogance bemoaned.
Some of these reactions seem less about talking design logistics and more about jealously protecting tenuous, tenured turf, using the weak — but impossible to counter — argument, "I'm older than you and have X years of experience." Let's not exaggerate, folks; age and experience are quite valuable, but can be accrued by anyone, virtually by default. Talent is crucial and NOT a given. If we allow talented youth the chance to gain at least some experience instead of fearfully locking them out, they can begin productively contributing to and advancing our profession much sooner.
My 35.6¢!
On Aug.07.2007 at 02:35 AM
David E.’s comment is:
If we allow talented youth the chance to gain at least some experience instead of fearfully locking them out, they can begin productively contributing to and advancing our profession much sooner.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. If students are seriously interested in advancing the profession of design, they need to have some understanding of what makes the field of design a profession.
College level law students aren't qualified to practice law. College level medical students aren't qualified to practice medicine. The reason design students are in school is because they aren't yet qualified to practice design. To say otherwise is to say that graphic design is something much less than a true profession.
The best thing a student can do is to put all of their engery into their schoolwork and understand that it's going to take them a long time and a lot of hard work to become a good designer. As Armin pointed out, there is so much more that goes into creating an identity system than a student could possibly have experience with. There just isn't enough time or qualified people to teach that in college.
On Aug.07.2007 at 02:04 PM
David E.’s comment is:
As for the logo, I think it would make a good concept for an advertising campaign. For a logo, it seems too trendy... a self-concious attempt to appear contemporary. It's lacking the qualities make a logo memorable and lasting. I would also wonder how this would work in many applications such as small sizes, on signage, in black & white, etc.
On Aug.07.2007 at 02:18 PM
PMS485C’s comment is:
Graphic design IS less of a profession than medicine or law.
Do designers carry malpractice insurance?
Large identity systems and approval hurdles are complicated as a whole, but in the end, are usually based on a single great idea.
And a great idea can come from anyone, professional or not.
Of course this brings up the discussion of whether or not a great design needs to have a great idea behind it. And if it doesn't, then we're not dealing with a profession at all, but a trade. Which does usually require time spent with elders dispensing their techniques and wisdom.
The best thing a student can do is ignore the pomposity of some of the posts here and tackle everything you can get your hands on and learn.
On Aug.07.2007 at 04:22 PM
David E.’s comment is:
Graphic design IS less of a profession than medicine or law. Do designers carry malpractice insurance?
To my knowledge, there doesn't exist degrees to which an occupation can be considered a profession. Either it is or it isn't. Teachers don't carry malpractice insurance either.
...And if it doesn't, then we're not dealing with a profession at all, but a trade. Which does usually require time spent with elders dispensing their techniques and wisdom.
Are you trying to say that "trades" require technique and wisdom, but "professions" don't? You're kidding, right? (Yes, there's pomposity in some of these posts, but it isnt coming from me.)
An idea (great or otherwise) is only one small part of any design project... even a simple project.
And a good design education wouldn't really allow time for students to be involved in anything but their course work. A student who tried to practice design would do so at the expense of their education.
On Aug.07.2007 at 07:14 PM
LA’s comment is:
to DISGRUNTLED:
Not sure what you’re talking about when you made the comment about SCAD being stripped of accreditation. They are accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The five-year professional M.Arch. degree is accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board. I personally got a fantastic education there (accredited or not), and my husband’s M.Arch degree has been held in high regard because of the school’s accreditation. I can only assume you perhaps actually ARE disgruntled?
Not excited about the logo; its problems have been noted ad nauseum above.
It's unfortunate that some people hold graphic design on a lesser professional level as medicine or law; learning is learning, and a profession is simply an occupation or line of work.
On Aug.16.2007 at 10:29 AM
blah’s comment is:
i remember visiting SamataMason last spring semester when they were in the midst of working on this logo. the magnet wall boards were covered in concepts, printouts, other logos, etc... it was exciting to see such a well-know, well-respected studio's process...
with that said, i cannot even fathom how much Ringling paid for this design. we had a very nice and well-spoken gentleman speak to us for 1.5 hours about SM's process, and thinking... and blah blah.... typical sugar coated bullshit jargon speech to impress college students. "we arent great designers, we are creative thinkers...".
long story short... i think the logo comes up short. it seems there was too much mental hand holding walks on the beach, rather than actual chair time. i know great design shouldn't be a "beauty contest" but c'mon. sometimes i think these "top designers" are so good at feeding so much bullshit to the client/general masses, that they start to believe it.
On Sep.28.2007 at 03:29 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
