NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Not all rebrandings and logo redesigns have to happen on a larger than life scale, some happen in small offices under the guidance of a small group of people… sometimes only — gasp — just one person and, the change, only mattering to a diminutive audience. Nonetheless, the results are equally interesting. Such is the case with the work that John Walsh, of holdenandfriends in Knutsford, Cheshire, did for flux magazine — an independent publication covering fashion, music, art and culture — recently, redesigning the logo and the magazine from the outside in.
Needless to say, the change is startling and a vast improvement. The original logo, designed by the editor of the magazine, looks more appropriate for a skateboard or surfing magazine with its italicized F in a circle; the word FLUX was too tightly set, creating a not ha-ha funny ligature between the F and the L; and the logo on the cover just didn’t fill up the space appropriately, or strikingly. The new logo, in contrast, is bold, unique and deliciously letter-spaced, optimizing the usually uncomfortable spaces to the right of Ls and the left of Xs with a smooth, inherent curve. By maintaining (but repurposing) the “dot”, the logo retains a unique identifier to the original while establishing it as a defining element of the magazine’s identity. With such a superficially simple and effortless-looking logo I decided to ask John Walsh a few questions to learn more about his process and this project.
BN: The most evident part of the redesign is that it kept the “dot” that was in the original logo, what was some of the thinking around this?
JW: The big idea around this logo came from the word Flux itself, something that is constantly changing but in the context of this particular magazine, revolving around one fixed point: • being the only fixed point and the only constant thing, the main focus of attention that ties everything else together. I have suggested that in future issues the logo will pivot around this point, so that it might be down the side or at an angle, or even swing round onto the back cover. But whether they will let me be that adventurous is to be seen.
BN: From your web site, it seems that holdenandfriends also designed the original, how has the relationship with the client evolved? And, was it strange to replace your own design?
JW: The editor of flux designed the original logo, but over the years I have been commissioned to work on the covers and various spreads. Each time I worked with them, I told them that I wasn’t too sure about the logo and in my own mind I knew it would be the right thing to develop the magazines’ identity.
The relationship with flux originally started four years ago when I was interviewed by them, having landed on the graphics scene in Manchester with a letterpress studio and a laptop and I’d just produced my first commission which was Factory Records last ever invitation. So, flux did a piece on me, then I went round for a chat with the editor and that’s when it all began. I got a call the day after saying that the magazine was ready to go to print but they didn’t know what to do with the cover, so I sorted it out in the same afternoon. It was a great opportunity and I went on to produce the next eight covers which I loved working on, I was given the title of the issue and a vague roundup of the content, then I would go away, write a short description of how I saw it looking with a very rough visual, built a team around the idea and brought it to life mixing letterpress, photography, pen and ink, typography, whatever felt right at the time.
Then I disappeared off the Manchester landscape to look after holdenandfriends in Knutsford. It wasn’t until 2 months ago that I bumped into the editor of flux in the street again, the next day I got this message:
Hi John,
Good to see you yesterday. Just thought to contact you about this.
We are thinking about changing our Flux logo. We have been for a bit.
We want something bold, classic, timeless. But still somehow contemporary
and forward looking. It is very hard we have gone over it many, many times
and had designers looking at it. Minimal, kind of early Modernist but still a
little unique and up to date. It’s very hard. It also has to realistically
sell to people in shops on front of an A4 magazine.
What do you reckon? Is it something you can help with?
Lee
…So I invited them over to my new office for a brew, told them that I would only present them with one idea, which I did, they liked it, I developed it and they loved it. I should also mention that the job didn’t stop there, I recommended that they can’t just change their logo and leave the rest as it is, so I became their official Art Director and Designer, started from scratch and rebuilt the entire structure of the magazine and now I’m looking forward to working on the next issue.
BN: Did you see any marked differences in designing a logo for a magazine as opposed to a logo for a company or product?
JW: I think that I approach every project on an individual basis, the reason people come to me is for a bespoke service (they are not just going to get a typeface and a color palette), I get under the skin of whatever the project is, saturate myself in their world and experience, then go for a wander, shut off and see what happens. I make every single mark have a reason for being where it is and try to imagine every eventuality across all media. For • FLUX I did approach it so that up close you get the subtleties of the line and from a distance, it reads bold and clear. I don’t really know if I saw this as a logo in the traditional sense, I haven’t put any guidelines together for it. So the possibilities as a point of departure, because it is a fluctuating magazine, can have more scope than a company or product logo, and because I’m not just going to hand it over and be on my way, I can guide it carefully in the appropriate direction, we’ll just have to see what happens next with a dot and four letters.
BN: Tell us a bit about the typography in the logo and how it came about.
JW: The typography was originally based on Franklin Gothic, over 100 years old and still looking as fresh as a daisy. Strong, solid, clear, no messin’. Then it was a matter of getting it flowing together smoothly, focusing on the shapes of each character and almost morphing them into each other so that it wasn’t just four independent letters but one seamless sculptural piece. This involved a lot of squinting and standing back until it felt right.
Which is my main philosophy when designing: 1. Do it 2. Stand back 3. Squint 4. If it feels right, it is right. Simple.
John Walsh is an independent art director and designer based in Manchester, UK.
He has been involved in 500+ projects across all media, he just says yes and gets the job done.
18 months ago he joined holdenandfriends as creative director.
Qualifications include an MA in creative technology and a BA in graphic design.
He teaches 1 day a week on the Design and Art Direction Degree course at Manchester Metropolitan University.
He has a 2 year old son called Elijah.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Doug B’s comment is:
10-second blitz crit:
Nice redesign. I love to see the old standards like Frankie G. reinterpreted. I think the dot belongs closer to the "F" (the center of the square "rule" should be overidden by the "it looks better here" optical adjustment rule). The warped "X" looks a bit like it is trying too hard in the b/w version, but looks better on the cover in an environment. Overall, a nice improvement which projects a clean and modern attitude on the mag rack shelves...
richard’s comment is:
logo rocks! would havebeen very easy to do something very curent, but it is smarter to do something that will last and grow with the new magazine's direction. cannot wait to see how they redesign the website! they are redesigning the website aren't they?!
On Dec.29.2006 at 11:53 AM
ryko’s comment is:
i miss the old mark, it could have just been updated. i have no idea why the U is being craddled that way so my eye gets stuck there. the top right X modification is pointless as my eye is never allowed move through the mark to even get far enough to be led out of it. it's a cacophonous mish-mish of miters and scallops – neither here nor there. the dot is now superflous and seems like the typograhic evolutionary counterpart to a tailbone. why is it there? did we used to need this thing?
On Dec.29.2006 at 12:32 PM
elv’s comment is:
The whitespace around the U disturbs me. It feels like there is a hidden shape (like the FedEx arrow?) but there is none.
On Dec.29.2006 at 12:39 PM
sbg’s comment is:
The implementation on the cover is obese and clunky.
Why is this thing called “Brand New” instead of “LogoHackz” or something that more accurately describes what goes on here? Do logos now constitute an entire brand or identity?
On Dec.29.2006 at 04:06 PM
Nick Z.’s comment is:
I agree with sbg. Logos alone do not constitute identity. I'd prefer to see more uses and applications of brand and identity rather than just logo redesigns.
On Dec.29.2006 at 04:12 PM
DBD+A’s comment is:
Really appreciate the context and development history--please keep it up!
Very nice mark for a magazine--simple clean and classy. I'm on the fence about the dot spacing--don't hate it, but don't love it either.
Cheers!
On Dec.29.2006 at 04:51 PM
Kabari’s comment is:
I like the new logo! I enjoyed the info on how it came about getting to see the designers process. Someone mentioned it earlier, but the only thing I have to say is that I don't entirely like the negative space between the 'UX'. I think it's because the space shifts to the right, but the space that creates the dip in the 'U' is also shifted right, so it seems a bit uneven. Maybe that's just my eye though, haha. I'm looking forward to the variations of this that should come as it gets older.
On Dec.29.2006 at 11:40 PM
hyun’s comment is:
At first glance, it looks interesting and i like the idea of the constant dot with the possibility of the revolving letters. But the more i look at it, the more flaws (imo) i notice in the details. the curves of the L and X are not curving symetrically in relation to the U and I feel like the curves should be a direct echo coming from the U. The X itself really bothers me, the bottom and top curves seems out of sync.
Just my 2 cents.
On Dec.30.2006 at 12:11 AM
tde’s comment is:
Terrible, terrible, terrible.
No sense of continuity in the letters. One can understand, I suppose, the carving of the L and X to provide a sense of flow (flux if you must) around the U. But why alter the top line of the F with that harsh angle. It ties to nothing, it relates to nothing and it simply looks like an effort to "do somehing" in the absence of any sense of overall design or message.
And then there is the dot. The post states that the before logo was designed by the editor of the magazine - implying that it was an amateur hack job. But it does at least create the sense of an identity or a brand regardless of the perceived amateurism. But at least in the original logo the dot served the purpose of being a stylized part of the letter f. Now, the dot is cut free from its original purpose and marooned out all by itself to the left of the text. Why? The dot doesn't have any meaning by itself and there is no sense of connection at all to the word Flux. It just hangs out there, serving no purpose. Obviously retention of the dot was an ill-conceived effort to tie the old and new logo and provide some sense of continuity. But - for this to make any sense at all the viewer would have to associate the dot (all alone and floating away from the text) with its former incarnation as an integral part of the F. Nobody in the world will do that - particulary in the absence of the stylized F from the original logo that anchored the dot.
Also, I am assuming that the original stylized F was used throughout the publication - as a sort of logo - such as an end point to text, etc. - that would inculcate a sense of brand identity among readers. Now that is gone. The only part of the new logo that you could draft into such iconic double duty is the forsaken dot and - alas - little dots are already pretty common in text aren't they.
Just a horrible idea.
On Dec.30.2006 at 01:14 AM
maria’s comment is:
The sketch is better than the result. The space in flux is not as effective as the initial idea might indicate.
On Dec.30.2006 at 01:32 PM
Mark’s comment is:
It's clever I get the 3D optical illusion thing going on between the "F" "L" and "U" and the intention of making the "X" look different in design.
The logo IS constantly in flux.
The only thing thats bothering me is the wide spacing between the letters, making it a little harder visualize the illusion.
The previous logo looks too trendy to me and the supposed "f" looks like an "r".
I greatly appreciate seeing how the logo formed from the original concept to the finished product this time.
It gives a better sense of the underlying idea behind the logo.
On Dec.30.2006 at 03:33 PM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:
tde, you think there is no reason for the angle of the F. There is a reason. I don't know if it is intentional, but the removal of some of the F helps to equalize the space between F L with the spaces between L U and U X. And it performs that function very well. (I do think the F could have been prettier if it had the same curve as the top of the X or if the top of the X didn't curve at all.)
Also, tde, you were assuming. And you spent a paragraph tearing apart your own assumption. How is that useful, or even interesting?
As for the mark itself, I think it works well. I like it and I want to like it more, but it does seem like it could use a little refining/finishing work.
Finally, it is good to see some thoughtful, intelligent work coming from (nearly) my neck of the woods.
On Dec.31.2006 at 08:54 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
J Gill
You say there is a reason for the F lopping but then admit that you don't know whether it is intentional or not. So, in your mind, a solid design decision is one that may or may not be intentional, eh?
Anyway, your hypothesis for the f lopping makes no sense. If one wanted to equalize the space between the FL with the spaces between the LU and UX it would have been far better to lop off a portion of both the top bar of the F and the middle bar, rather than just lopping the top alone. Slicing off both bars would have the added advantage of mirroring the space left between the U and the inside of the X.
The mirrored scalloping of the L and the X tie together visually, but lopping of the F is done at a harsh angle and does not tie to the scallops on the other letters. It is simply out of place.
It's just beyond bizarre to scallop two of the four letters in an interesting way but then just lop off part of the F. Why, why, why? It was just not throught through properly and reeks of half-assery.
Finally, if anything rather than all of this seemingly arbitrary lopping and scalloping, one would think that ligature of some or all of the letters would be more consistent with the concept of "Flux".
On Dec.31.2006 at 09:25 PM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:
So, in your mind, a solid design decision is one that may or may not be intentional, eh?
No, not in my mind. Everything I've ever designed comes a PLAN which I formulate after exhaustive research. And I NEVER EVER just try something to see if it works. And I would MOST CERTAINLY NOT discover why something works after the fact. However, I have heard of other "designers" having happy accidents. They are, of course, all pathetic hacks.
Anyway, your hypothesis for the f lopping makes no sense.
You should read my hypothesis of M twisting. It's just CRAAAZY!
It's just beyond bizarre to scallop two of the four letters in an interesting way but then just lop off part of the F. Why, why, why?
Lookie here. We kind of agree! But to parapharse Dr Frasier Crane: I can't stand your exaggerating. You always make things ten thousand times worse than they actually are!
Finally, if anything rather than all of this seemingly arbitrary lopping and scalloping, one would think that ligature of some or all of the letters would be more consistent with the concept of "Flux".
Wouldn't the world be a dull place if this mysterious One controlled all design decisions? There is more than one way to flux a logo. And I think John Walsh has done a pretty good job.
On Jan.01.2007 at 06:31 AM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:
Armin,
It's been a long time since the last logo smackdown. I think it's about time for another!
ryko’s comment is:
yup, he fluxed it up real good alright.
On Jan.01.2007 at 12:37 PM
Orangetiki’s comment is:
I Agree with Ryko. It looks as if the U is craddled or that it has a massive outline that cuts into the L and the X. It is a litle hard for me to see the connecting line. otherwise I am indifferent with this logo. The old logo seemed a lil more "branded" as something more toward a static product, but both logos I think do work. Just my two cents.
On Jan.02.2007 at 10:40 AM
Mark’s comment is:
Am I the only one who sees the 3D illusion going on between the letters?????
On Jan.02.2007 at 01:37 PM
felix’s comment is:
At best, this is a senior level design student experiment. logos are meant to position companies with ownership in a particular language or category. this does neither.
Hell I'm no type genius, but if Jonathan Hoefler stepped in this pile he'd be flinging it back across the pond.
On Jan.02.2007 at 05:53 PM
Mark’s comment is:
What the heck is so horrible about this logo?
Its not generic,its not swooshy,it's not all-lowercase,it doesn't have to visual elements fighting for attention, it has no gradients,nor any photoshop effects,AND it's not predictable.
The more I look at this logo the more I think "theres something more than what meets eye" in this logo.
Use your imagination,every logo doesnt have to be so boring and cookie-cutter.
Trying to make every logo look 'perfect' ends up looking dull.
On Jan.03.2007 at 02:34 PM
Dave C.’s comment is:
Ok, is it just that I'm the only one that sees the, albeit sophmoric, humor of the headline to this post? Either that or I'm the only one juvenile enough to bring it up.
You've all analyzed this logo to death, so I figured I would leave it alone. However, being in magazine publishing myself, my comment is less about the execustion of the design, but more about the departure from the original logo. Neither the old nor the new logos say anything about "change". The logo doesn't communicate the point its supposed to make. That being the case, why make such a huge departure from the original logo for no other reason than the old logo didn't work.
Ok, the old logo sucked, but this new one isn't a great improvement and now they've gone so far from the original, it will be difficult for newsstand readers to recognize the magazine on the rack. My guess is that newsstand sales will drop dramatically. Only time will tell, though.
On Jan.20.2007 at 02:32 AM
Name’s comment is:
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
