NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Mondayne’s comment is:
Over here in the UK I get laughed at (and sometimes yelled at) for doing anything remotely like this. It's seen as too dated and too American. But being an American, and having been alive in '94 I do have a soft spot for the style.
Nice update by Scher, and as always nice type by Hoefler & Fere-Jones. One question: Is the new identity always horizontal this time? Or what?
On Jun.13.2008 at 08:52 AMdolzhenkov’s comment is:
Heh, http://www.artlebedev.ru/everything/russia/logo/
On Jun.13.2008 at 10:10 AMAdam Western’s comment is:
Since when is a 90 degree rotation qualified to be called a "reinvigoration"?
On Jun.13.2008 at 10:35 AMMatt’s comment is:
This logo is terrible. It literally starts strong and ends weak. What theater company wants a logo that brings to mind a strong start but weak finish?
Awful logo.
On Jun.13.2008 at 10:49 AMbrd’s comment is:
Thumbs down on this one.
On Jun.13.2008 at 10:55 AMArmin’s comment is:
> Since when is a 90 degree rotation qualified to be called a "reinvigoration"?
It's not just the logo, it's the overall identity.
On Jun.13.2008 at 10:59 AMBen’s comment is:
I love it. Says that print is still alive and not everything is getting a shiny coat of gloss paint and a drop shadow. I think it fits a theatre company well with its quirkiness.
Still, I dont see the need for the so called "rebrand"
It's the same but different...no need.
g-sppud’s comment is:
Bleh.
Another example of something that would get crushed in a critique if done by your typical designer, but (as usual) it will immediately be hailed as a masterpiece because it was done by someone with notoriety.
On Jun.13.2008 at 02:24 PMMr Posen’s comment is:
Precarious, BOLD, visually rich and so NY, I love it all! Cynics be damned.
Wünderwoman’s comment is:
“You can basically take any version of sans serif font, organize it in the same way and with the same proportions and it would be recognizable as The Public’s logo,” says Scher. "The system was designed to be flexible, because we knew it would need to be handled by individual designers over the years."
***
So basically, this is a non-news item. It was originally designed with such flexibility in mind that it really isn't news (or shouldn't be) when it rotates or changes face. Right???
Personally,
I think the beauty of this brand solution isn't in the logo, but in the extension of it (i.e. the posters that Scher has done over the years).
The logo's job is not to "get in the way" of those brilliantly recognizable, urban, kinetic posters. I know I've had then hanging in my studio for inspiration over the years. I think they define NYC.
I guess I have a nostalgic spot for this one...and I'm glad it hasn't become "web2.0-candybar-gradient-glossyized-er-ific" like every other logo out there. :)
On Jun.13.2008 at 04:43 PMSal Sen’s comment is:
Every time I see the program as a whole, in design annuals and such, I think, "Damn, that's strong. And flexible."
On Jun.13.2008 at 06:02 PMneuehaus’s comment is:
Very strong, Very flexible. I'm bookmarking this at our place:
On Jun.14.2008 at 12:00 PMRay’s comment is:
As a born and bred New Yorker who has always found the Public theater branding compelling and inspirational, there is a big part of me who is a bit saddened by this. Yes, it's visually compelling but I think the beauty of the branding in the past was that there was no real branding—just a style/aesthetic—every event had it's own message/imagery that seemed appropriate to that particular event. Now it seems a bit forced into a grid/corporate guidelines.
I think when creating branding for theater there should always be good balance between theater branding and the event's subject matter. I don't think the current branding does that.
About the logo—maybe it's because I've seen Knockout used so much, but I feel that it's lost some of it's edge. It feels much more corporate to me, I've always been a fan of the original. The vertical treatment, as well as "P" set in Morgan has always been very distinctive to me. I don't understand dropping the "theater" and including a period. I don't know anyone who calls the public theater, "the public" it's a bit strange it sort of loses it's anchor.
That's my two cents.
On Jun.14.2008 at 01:19 PMatomo’s comment is:
The cynic in me is agreeing that if I tried something like this it would be slammed for using too many weights, or was awkward. The graphic designer in me though, loves that it shouldn't work but fuckit, it does. And the designer always wins.
On Jun.16.2008 at 12:30 AMScottS’s comment is:
Pick a new typeface. Rotate it 90 degrees. Add a period. Voila! Here's my bill...
On Jun.16.2008 at 08:58 AMAmpersanderson’s comment is:
I agree that this is a perfect example in proving that a brand is not summed up in its logo. I will miss the use Akzidenz, but subtle transition over the years makes perfect sense to me. As this identity is such a glaring presence in NYC, it should contain some of the transitory shiftiness that is, intrinsically, the city itself. New York is never stagnant or still; neither should this brand be such.
And to give credit where it is due, Scher's current Shakespeare in the Park poster has been the best visual to line the subway system walls in months.
On Jun.16.2008 at 11:45 AMSean Williams’s comment is:
Is this a logo for a PUB in LIC (Long Island City)? That's what it looked like to me at first glance.
On Jun.16.2008 at 01:52 PMComments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.