interesting redesign. personally I'm fonder of the old logo, but strategically I can see the logic for the redesign. Aesthetically it's much more in alignment with their main competitors: Animae and Graphic Novels. Your comment on the capability of repurposing the static for motion graphics is right on target.

But yes indeed, don't mess with the heroes -- they're the guts of the DC brand!

This logo is dynamic; it looks like it wants to move. Unlike other swoosh-arc logos that remain frozen in print, DC’s mark will have unlimited potential in motion graphics and film. As more and more companies work within animated, broadcast, and cinematic media, we'll see a lot of redesign happen for this purpose. I presume Warner Brothers (a shareholder of DC) will redo their logo sooner or later to bring it up to date and unify its empire.

Re: Kyle Cooper Marvel Films bumper

An intelligent designer brings a static logo into motion environment with sensitivity to a company's history and brand,

Re: DC Comics logo

Timid company feels compelled to update because they can't figure out how to make a 30-year old logo move — not because their brand, their basic business, or their company ethos changed.

http://incrediblehulk.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"> Puny humans. Hulk destroy.

Nomenclature time:

UPS logo = The Golden Combover

DC Comics logo = The Blue Reacharound

It's fun to see classic logos get redesigned. For some reason the new ones almost always seem, to me, so trendy looking. Everybody wants movement. Swish, swoop, slash.

For the most part I like this new DC logo. The only thing I'm not sure about is that the DC and the "moving" circle seem like they are 2 different objects. The circle seems to be cutting the DC. If that's what was intended than I'm okay with that. Maybe we will see way it's like that when it's animated.

By the way, I really enjoyed reading about Superman's costume redesign. How could they goof up the neckline like that?

> The Golden Combover

That's fucking awesome, mark. Best descriptor I've ever seen of that new mark.

As to the DC mark, I'm not lovin it.

It feels computer-generated, with an emphasis on bevels, shading, and swirls. But the form and strength of the mark itself is weak and forgettable. And there are clumsy tangents and unrefined areas like the placement and integration of the star, as well as the protrusion of the swirl into the "D".

You know what it looks like? It looks like it was designed by a company that doesn't really know comics, but thinks it does.

Why couldn't it be a simple b/w mark? Why did it have to go 3D?

Like this mark below. It's relatively flat, yet still cool, is it not?

It must be in response to growing pressure and tie-ins with the gaming (Xbox, Playstation, etc.) industry.

Cherrypicking:

This logo is dynamic; it looks like it wants to move.

It looks like it wants us to think this, which is not the same thing.

It's fun to see classic logos get redesigned.

In the same way it's fun to see people get their fingernails pulled out with pliers? recalls to mind The Cheese Monkeys.

DC Comics' softball team beat us a few weeks back. This was widely attributed to the can of Evil they had purchased from us.

Tan, I wish I could take credit for Golden Combover but alas, like many delicious things in this pale, grey life; it comes from Michael Bierut — who was quoting a friend.

Sam, the new logo has more movement with its ellipse than the old/flat circle. Does it not? There's more dimension, and the more I see it, the more it reminds me of rings surrounding Saturn. How galactic!

Well, it's an open question whether movement is what DC needs to be expressing with their logo. The idea of movement is certainly a la mode these days, but it looks to me less like a heroic logo and more like some secondary market expansion team. Brian Collins of B.I.G. has a hilarious presentation on the Swirlie logo cliche, which I'm sure has been noted here before. But no, to be overly but characteristcally literal, both logos are static, thus my skepticism about "movement." Anyway, I just wanted to link to the Superhero store.

The new DC logo looks like Disney Land to me.

oh yeah, it also looks like an NBA logo too.

(or football, or baseball, or hockey, etc.)

Disney will run the world soon anyhow.

Why not just 3D Glaser's Identity?

Volkswagon, BMW, FORD, O Cedar, and a million other companies are now 3 D-ing their Identities.

I don't agree with it. As I said before the world isn't flat.

It's shortsightedness to say Glaser's Identity can't move. To that I say BULLSHIT. No disrespect Jason.

Not being an Animator or Title Designer. I can make Glaser's Identity Dance and do a JIG.

The original may have lost its Dynamism, Jason.

Glaser's Identity is Stronger. Yet, with age it is more Unique, Imaginative, and Memorable.

I'd love to see Glaser's Identity revitalized by himself. Other interesting candidates would be Michael Doret,Gerard Heurera, and Daniel Pelavin.(sp?)

No compelling comments in reference to the new Identity. Good Job. What's now Fashionable will soon be PASSE.

BTW, Of course I like the Gradient of the new Identity.

Perhaps, the new Identity is better suited for our baseball team. What a horrid Identity for the Nationals without continuity.(Unified or Coordinated Style.

...avin sighting.

Glaser's does carry more oomph, and the extra stars his incorporates give it a prouder and more patriotic feel.

Normally I lurk. Although I very much enjoy Speak Up, rarely do I comment on the content (how do you all find the time?).

However, being the huge Nerd that I am, I have collected comics for over 25 years, and much to the dismay of my poor wife, have a collection that is well over 20,000 books. Sad, but true. Comics are probably the biggest influence that directed me towards my career in design.

I have never been a huge fan of DC (although I buy enough), and even when I was eight years old (a mere two years after the initial Glaser logo redesign), I though their logo was clunky.

Comic "style" has changed tremendously in the last 10 years... I attribute the fact primarily to Photoshop. Production value on the books has become surprisingly good, a far cry from the 25 cent books I bought when I first started out collecting.

For purely nostalgic reasons I prefer the "old" clunky DC Logo. But I can appreciate where this new one is coming from. Pick up a book (you just missed "Free Comicbook Day" last Saturday), and look at the content. I don't think this new swoosh is out of line with what is happening inside the books.

I find it is very much the same style as the current trend for comic title Mastheads. A trend that I am not too happy with and personally don't feel takes advantage of the rich history that the medium has. There are some sweet mastheads/title graphics that have been developed over the years, but lately everything is beveled, swoops, tone gradients and just plain sloppy typography.

I know this is Marvel (the competition) and not DC, but because this movie is coming out soon, here is a good example:

Classic

Crappy

So the new DC logo... I don't like it, but it fits.

Thanks Hex, although I can't say I agree with you about the un-crappiness of the "Classic", it's great to see someone who really knows comics give their take on it.

I know nothing about the comics world, but I make some assumptions, one of which is that there are probably the older collectors such as Hex for whom comics have a rich history and for whom nostalgia is a huge part of their interest. I would suspect that the old logo serves these fans best. However old fogies die (sorry Hex), and obviously DC is aiming at the younger market, and I have no doubt that they would consider the the new logo "dynamic" or something and the old one, um, fogeyish.

Graphically I'm particular to neither. They say nothing to me about superheroes or comics. The Glaser logo is clunky, the new one could be for anything ... shoes? plastic toys? soap? toothbrushes? Maybe that's the point.

But you know me, my opinion is that if there's nothing wrong with it, don't change it. I don't think it would have been necessary to even 3-D-ize the old logo to create "cache" around it. I think they could have easily traded on the history of their brand to get the newer, young market to happily buy into it.

And, as a last note, if this were a Frank Lloyd Wright building (albeit an ugly one) that had just been torn down to be replaced by a glass tower, no matter how beautiful, what would we be saying now? Is it naive or stupid to think that one day design will hold the same importance in the world? If I had a Milton Glaser logo I wouldn't change it for love or money.

" . . . the younger market, and I have no doubt that they would consider the the new logo "dynamic" or something and the old one, um, fogeyish."

i doubt it-check the rise of retro-throwback stuff across the board, from nba/mlb jerseys and jackets to members only to tracksuits and workwear/denim to sneakers . . . any attempt to update any of that stuff falls flat; the latest jordan shoe (came out 2 months ago) is already hitting sales racks whilst a retro from 89 which is launched tomorrow is expected to (and will) sell out in 15 minutes through internet-only sales.

updating and making dynamic is not achieved through chrome, 3d and a bit of a ring-piece (although if you made the object for real and then photographed it and then knocked out everything but the black and made it more contrasty and then made a duo or tritone then you'd be talking). the new thing has about as much motion as a stone but without the texture and beauty (and anyway why is the notion of motion (lotion) good for print?).

maybe the old DC logo could be reused for the next democratic convention.

ps

Step aside armchair logo- rage-0-maniacs, this one is pretty decent, only because the swoosh is really an orbit and the type is, all things considered, cherried up (aka: good).

I mean come on. Look at Glaser's crusty old clunker; its Bad.

It was Great in 76... but...

btw- there was an article written on this subject in the NY Times last week(ish). Front page (ish).

It made me think immediately of this old Eclipse Comics logo.

My only beef with the new logo is that it just looks so very generic in its styling. Sure, appropriate to its demo, whatever, but when I was an 8-year-old slurping up DC comics the (then brand-new) Glaser logo looked somehow "old", which I thought was cool.

As a side note, major forces of patriotism were at play in the bicentennial year too.

If I had a Milton Glaser logo I wouldn't change it for love or money.

Yes you would.

Glaser is one cool, classy guy. No one refutes that. But if youre telling me everything he touches turns to gold youre simply optimistic. No one gets - or deserves- blind faith in this industry. (Unless it was designed for free).

Rudiger Goetz.. in 1992... now theres a great logo designer.

freelix, I dont think that was marian's point. I understaood her to mean that we should appreciate beuatiful things and not just toss them aside because they may be a bit out-of-date (which is especially funny in this case, because it was more or less out-of-date the day it was made).

I'm probably one of the people who would support Milton Glaser the least, but even I find this redo a little contrived. I'm finding it really strange that a lot of new identities aren't really new, but rather tricked-out versions of the former mark. This mark isnt new, its more or less Glaser's seen in a 3-D view, with the type and stars rotated differently. I wonder if its one of those things that the client can accept without being a huge risk, but it just seems like they arent really thought out as much. Its probably just me, as I'm sure they go through a million ideas. But nonetheless, it seems half-hearted.

ouch.

How can I be an old fogey, I buy comicbooks!!?!! sad, but true.

Yep - I must agree with Marian.

If it ain't broke why fix it? The Nostalgia factor alone in the old clunky DC is worth more then the "flavor of the month" risk associated with a trendy new Swoosh logo.

I understand that DC wants to replenish thier reader base for when the old fogies "die-off", but I doubt that making the Logo more "dynamic" is really going to draw in new younger readers anyway. And besides contrary to popular belief, 70% of the comicbook market is over 21. Most Comics aren't written (or drawn) for kids anymore.

Marian - I know you live in (or near) Vancouver. Visit the Comicshop next time you are on 4th. They have been around since 74 and have tons of inspiring material.

Sorry you didn't agree with the classic vs. crappy example

maybe this will help my point:

Classic

Crappy

Why not just use the original? Sure the "Classic" was hand drawn, but you have to admit that it is waaaayyy better then this computer generated junk.

When I was a kid... ahhh, don't get me started.

I know who's responsible for bringing me out of seclusion with this Identity Revitalization.

Rhymes with WIT.

Felix, all Glaser's Identity need is a little TARN X.

I'll guarantee you if you 3 D Glasers Original

Streamline the type. Ad a gradient. It will

be more Dynamic than the revitalized Identity.

At first glance the new D.C. Comics Identity reminded me of the UPN Identity.

Place Glaser's redrawn Galaxy with Stars on the same axis. Glaser Hands down the winner.

Minor Surgery on Glaser's current semiotic axis

without 3 D-ing will render a more Dynamic Identity.

Should be no problem in your Gifted Hands, FELIX.

Will somebody oblidge me with this exercise. I haven't downloaded my adobe software on this new computer.

Off Topic:

My analogy is based on Safeway's New Revitalized Identity in its third (3rd) or fourth (4th) incarnation. Any Ideas who revitalized Safeways Identity ?

I heard that the new Photoshop in CS2 has a filter called "Disney". Just one click and you can 3D anything with amazing results. Hold down the option key for the orbiting effect. Or hold down option shift to include automatic gradients.

You don't have to be "into comics" to know this is a ridiculous logo. (ouch, I just hurt myself).

Graham, we are in agreement.

(I think they could have easily traded on the history of their brand to get the newer, young market to happily buy into it.)

Sorry Hex, if it's any comfort, I count in the fogey generation. And thanks for the updated (all new!!) classic vs. crappy. Also, yeah, I've been to the Comicshop, but I've always found diving into other people's fetishes to be a little intimidating ... at my age.

And Felix,

But if youre telling me everything he touches turns to gold youre simply optimistic.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. Close, but not quite. I admit the logo is clunky, and not his best work, but the truth is that as a society we treat graphics with the same abandon we once treated architecture: tear it down, make way for the new. Then you get to a point where all the old icons are disappearing. I think it should mean something to have a Rand or Glaser or Bass design. Not just to designers, but to the world. It is like having a Frank Lloyd Wright, or Mies van der Rohe building, even if it's only an outhouse. Richard Neutra designed your tool shed?! Holy fuck! Don't replace it with a new, water repellant, plastic shed from WalMart.

I predict that one day UPS will resurrect their Rand logo because the fact that they actually once had a Rand logo will mean something. Same with DC. One day...

So who/what becomes the brand at that point. The Glaser logo for DC or Glaser's name? The Rand logo for UPS or Rand's name?

Geeeez, I swore I wouldn't jump into anymore logo critiques, but here I find myself once again. I guess this if for the marks man. As important as Rand is, isn't it time for Turner to get a chance to shine with UPS?

So who/what becomes the brand at that point. The Glaser logo for DC or Glaser's name? The Rand logo for UPS or Rand's name?

You want the TRUTH, Jason. You can't handle the TRUTH.

Believe it or not, over time the Designer's Signature with Reputation has built a certain amount of Equity and Promise. Overtime, the Designer's signature and reputation become more POWERFUL than the BRAND or PRODUCT.

Brands and Products outlive Designer(s).

The Designer(s) Name, Signature, and Reputation will live FOREVER.

Another reason why Forgery's are no good.

It is the Designers and/or Artist Signature on the product coupled with Original Thought, Vision and Technique and/or Problem Solving Capability which make the Product Unique.

True Story, I mentioned this on Speak Up before. Ferdinand Leger was commissioned to create an advertisement for this company. Ferdinand was too busy. The unknown Designer that worked for Leger showed his layout and sketches to him. Leger's response was; "your sketches are as Good as I would've done". And signed his name to it. The story proves the signature is everything.

Which is what Mark Kostabi has preached for over twenty years.

Funny Stuff Michael.

It could use a little TARN X.

DM

When did DesignMaven become Alpha Male? Is this some alias / superhero thing we're witnessing?

So who/what becomes the brand at that point. The Glaser logo for DC or Glaser's name? The Rand logo for UPS or Rand's name?

I think you're confusing the issue. Think about it in architecture terms. The brand is DC, the logo is an important graphic mark because it was designed by Glaser.

or

The chair is your cat's favourite seat, but you're not going to put it in the attic, because it was designed by Charles & Ray Eames.

Speaking of rebranding, DESIGN MAVEN, i don't like your new name, will you change back please?

Just avoiding the Paparazzi, Marian. (LOL)

Only for you.

Jason, it was a way to FLY UNDER THE RADAR.

Now, I'll have to leave the country once again.

My weakness is sought of like Bobby Fischer not being able to avoid that infamous chess game.

Actually, never intented to post until June. Under my Real Name, DM.

Armin Bamboozled me with this rebranding. I'm a LOLLIPOP for this sought of thing.

Sorry for the second post.

Felix:

Your New York 2012 Olympic Bid Identity was

on The Apprentice Thursday Night. I'm sure you got a lot of phone calls about it.

Letting you know in the event you didn't see it. You can catch the repeat on CSNBC.

DM

Yeah, the old DC logo did have more meaning

and pehaps appropriateness towards what the brand

represented (patriotic american superheros??)

The new one does look slick and exciting; on

first impression I was cool with it. Upon further

introspection (10 min later) I can start to see

the potential downsides of it.

But one thing I have noticed in our culture is

a growing and permeating trend of "flashier" but

less meaningful visual solutions towards branding.

Most people outside design, even myself if I

turn off my design googles, eat this stuff up.

The question is: "Is it really that unhealthy

for you?"

Funny this. I teach logos at Portfolio Center in Atlanta. A few quarters ago I added Marvel Comics to my list of logo projects. In fact, it was the "flip-book" motion graphics on the front of the current Marvel films that compelled me to add them. Surely Marvel could do with a better mark than the boring logotype they've been using for the past 10 or so years. Several students have taken on the project, and each of them struggles with the very issues that this new DC logo seeks to address: movies, endorsements, interactive gaming, the expanded marketplace.

It's a tricky thing, trying to brand a comic book company that seeks to expand its reach beyond the panels and word balloons of the printed page. Does this new DC logo do the trick? I dunno. My first reaction is that it seems somewhat generic. I echo an earlier comment that it could well be a masthead for a monthly book. ("In This Issue! Darkseid Spells DOOM for Team DC!") And I agree, it could also be a mark for the new Washington Nationals baseball team. There is a perhaps unfortunate homogenaity to modern "dynamic" marks, be they comics, sports, computer software, etc. But a swoosh here, a 3D effect there, and voila! You've got a "bold" mark that speaks to the "energy" and "vitality" of whatever it seeks to represent.

I'd be curious to know how much Marvel's recent movie successes drove this decision on DCs part. In an effort to keep up with the X-Men and Spider-Man driven elevated profile of Marvel, perhaps DC saw themselves in danger of being seen as stodgy old farts?

Credit where credit is due: New UPS Logo as "The Golden Combover" is courtesy of former Rand student Tracey Cameron.

I'm not a big fan of the logo for many of the reasons above (looks generic and whatnot), but I do think it pretty much fits with DC's current superhero output, and some consistency across various media is definitely a step in the right direction. So far, these characters/properties have been identified with DC in the comics, but Warner Brothers on the screen.

What I wonder about is whether they plan to use the new logo for properties connected to their more specialized lines, like the Vertigo comics and related movies. This logo is a little too "BAM! Here come DC heroes!" to fit with their "mature readers" line, in my opinion.

(A quick glance at the main DC web page versus the Vertigo page suggests they might be keeping these separate afteer all, though.)

I'm not a big fan of the logo for many of the reasons above (looks generic and whatnot), but I do think it pretty much fits with DC's current superhero output, and some consistency across various media is definitely a step in the right direction. So far, these characters/properties have been identified with DC in the comics, but Warner Brothers on the screen.

What I wonder about is whether they plan to use the new logo for properties connected to their more specialized lines, like the Vertigo comics and related movies. This logo is a little too "BAM! Here come DC heroes!" to fit with their "mature readers" line, in my opinion.

(A quick glance at the main DC web page versus the Vertigo page suggests they might be keeping these separate afteer all, though.)

I'm not a big fan of the logo for many of the reasons above (looks generic and whatnot), but I do think it pretty much fits with DC's current superhero output, and some consistency across various media is definitely a step in the right direction. So far, these characters/properties have been identified with DC in the comics, but Warner Brothers on the screen.

What I wonder about is whether they plan to use the new logo for properties connected to their more specialized lines, like the Vertigo comics and related movies. This logo is a little too "BAM! Here come DC heroes!" to fit with their "mature readers" line, in my opinion.

(A quick glance at the main DC web page versus the Vertigo page suggests they might be keeping these separate afteer all, though.)

Robynne: that was thePhotoshop CS2 filter's name in the beta version -- before the adobe acquisition of macromedia. it's now called "kazaam," to give it a forward motion feeling. they also another called, "kerplunk," that is an all in one click replacement of Fireworks.

Marian: I predict that one day UPS will resurrect their Rand logo because the fact that they actually once had a Rand logo will mean something. Same with DC.

I think that's a bit much to think -- given that designers don't have a significant name recognition and cultural weight, and is a arcane subset within not only culture in generall but also the fine arts. Even though both Rand and Glazer were among the groundbreaking designers of american modernism, touting their names to rekindle their retired logos seems unlikely as a ongoing brand asset...

Everyone has seen works by both -- very few know who they are.

Personally to me, it looks like the work of a new boy straight out of Photoshop school, it has no character, no emotion. it doesnt reflect the way that comic books are now developing. It is too clean compared the the dark world that some of the superheroes such as Batman and Superman are now living in. Just take a look at the the new Superman and batman TV cartoons, take a look at the movies, the Batman movies, Where is that in the logo. Were is the darkness.

Creating a logo does not just mean hopping onto your computer and churning out some fancy looking, shiney pice of art. Where is the research in this logo if any at all. Whrer is the grit, where is the true reflection of the superhero. They arnt as clean and innocent as they used to be. Which is why the old logo should have stayed or at least been redisigned by someone who can understand the concept of creating a logo that reflects certain attitudes and emotions.

In the note from the DC publisher on this, he states that the logo was...

created by designer Josh Beatman of Brainchild Studio under the care of our design wizards Richard Bruning and Georg Brewer...

Richard is DC's Senior Vice President.

Georg is Vice President of Design/Retail Product Development

I've a hunch that the logo was more of an in house production than anything else. Josh must've worked very closely with the VPs, and vice versa.

Alpha Male /Design Maven/Multiple Personalities/Chameleon Man - you're not the only one being brought out of seclusion/hibernation by this post. I don't think I've been active here in months.

I don't have a lot to say about this subject matter at the moment, but for one point:

When I was a kid, and when comics were for kids and not adults, I remember being strongly drawn to comics by DC. When I look back on that, it could have been for many reasons. I look back on comics now and think that Marvel certainly had more going on with plots and I doubt there was much difference between the art that the two shops were producing.

What I can say is that the DC seal jumped out at me at the comic book store. You'd see it in different colors, but the orientation and size was consistent, and it was bold and attention-getting. It was particularly attention-getting from the comic rack, and for whatever reason outshone all the other insignias.

Even now, from 50 feet away, I feel the new mark pales in comparison to the old mark. I'm not talking about styling, I'm talking about its ability to stand out. I'm talking about "grey factor." Move far enough away from the new DC mark, and it goes gray. But you'd have to move twice as far away from the old one for the same effect. You can squint your eyes, blur your vision, and get the same effect looking at this screen.

I think that the new mark, while more "in line" with what's happening in comics, in art, in endorsements, movies, games, and merchandise, fails to be distinctive. It looks a lot like all of the comic art and doesn't stand apart.

John, you mention adding Marvel to a list of potential student logo reworks. While the Marvel mark, in my opinion, isn't as strong as the old DC mark, it's stronger than DC's new one.

Oh... I should make one other point:

Visit the DC home page and look at their home page favicon (you can also see it in some browsers by the URL when you go to the home page. I don't think the new mark will shrink so gracefully.

I think that's a bit much to think -- given that designers don't have a significant name recognition and cultural weight, and is a arcane subset within not only culture in generall but also the fine arts. Even though both Rand and Glazer were among the groundbreaking designers of american modernism, touting their names to rekindle their retired logos seems unlikely as a ongoing brand asset...

gregor

Not neccessarily true. Westinghouse one of PAUL RAND clients in the 1960's commissioned RAND to Design their Identity. Approximately 1973 Westinghouse merged with another company and was known as White Westinghouse. The Identity was changed. RAND's Westinghouse Identity was no longer in use. Later throughout the years someone had the Vision to bring RAND's Identity back to life. Which is now currently in use again.

Such decisions are made internally by the CEO or Executive Committee. As Marian eloquently stated, corporations can easily trade on the history of their brand to get the newer, young market to happily buy into it.

It happens more often than you think. Consultancies are always given the option.

Example, my Mentor Michael Bierut worked on the Revitalization of SAUL BASS, United Airlines Identity and Livery Redesign. Pentagram was given the option to change the Identity. Pentagram refused. Instead of changing a Historic Significant Identity; Pentagram Preserved SAUL BASS' Identity. And performed minor Cosmetic Surgery to the type. As well, giving the livery a facelift. And BASS Double "U" on the tail fin was abstracted to Bring Image Inline With Reality.

Debbie Millman, President of the Sterling Brands was confronted with the same problem. Sterling revitalized the Brand for Quaker Oats. Another SAUL BASS Identity. Sterling was given the option to redesign Larry, the teeny tiny Quaker Identity in Blue on the side of all Quaker Oats Packaging. Sterling Decided Larry had way to much Equity to be redesigned. Sterling preserved Saul Bass' Identity and Larry's History. At the same time Sterling performed minor surgery to the rendering of the Quaker Man on the front of Quaker Packaging.

On the flipside. Many of Speak Up Patrons grew up with Danne & Blackburn Identity for NASA affectionately known as the worm. I grew up with the NASA Identity currently in use. Implemented in the 1940s. Danne & Blackburn Designed the worm 1974.

In the 1990s NASA recruited a new Director Daniel S. Goldin. Who favored the 1940s Identity, because he grew up with it. Well the AIGA, along with Caroline Hightower,(President) and Phillip Meggs (noted historian) did everything within their power to persuade NASA Director Daniel S. Goldin to continue to use Danne & Blackburn's Identity. The AIGA and its members approached (then) President of the United States Bill Clinton to intervene and continue to use Danne & Blackburn's Identity. Because it was part of the Federal Design Improvement Program. President Bill Clinton expained; it was Daniel S. Goldin Director of NASA personal discretion to change NASA' Identity. And it would be improper for him to intervene. NASA reverted to the older Identity. It was the callapse of the Federal Design Improvement Program. This also shows how ridiculously uncaring Government and Corporate Managers can be. Many view Professional Design as a None Essential Service.

From a semiotic standpoint. There is no comparison of the two Identities. Clearly Danne & Blackburn Identity embodies the Essence of Identity Vocabulary.

Drew:

Thanks for the SHOUT OUT. Your letter is coming this weekend.

Mr. Hartwell:

Are you teaching your Designer's Semiotics and Semantics ? That's a major problem with Identity Design. Semantics and Semiotics are not being taught. We would see Identities that rival BASS and RAND; if younger Designer(s) were taught Semantics and Semiotics.

On a more somber note. The reason perhaps Uncle Milti was not retained. DC comics probably didn't want to pay Glaser's Fee. Which would've probably exceeded a couple million dollars. Glaser's Fee is based on how the Identity will be used across all media, comic books, gaming industry, internet, digital media, film distribution, merchandising, etc.

Don't give that crap about the FEE. SAUL BASS received over a million dollars for Rockwell International in the 1960s. Forgive me Lord for thou have sin. I never, ever, discuss a Designer's Fee !!!!!!

DC comics has the money to pay Glaser. Look at how Marvel tried to bend ovre Stan Lee Stan Lee got the last Laugh. If he wasn't paid in the beginning. He's FILTHY RICH NOW !!!!!!

An interesting read, Stan Lee vs Marvel Comics.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10302

DM

Man, I look away and another logo gets kicked in the face by misunderstanding and disrespect. Maybe DC did some testing about its old logo and they found that kids think it's lame, but nobody, NOBODY, that collects comics buys them because of the company's logo. I've been doing it since I was a kid, and the company logo is the last thing that matters in comics. Each comic series carries such a strong individual brand that the DC, or Marvel, or Vertigo, or Image, or Darkhorse's logos don't really matter. Should they be appropriate? Yes, but don't fix something that wasn't broken. The old logo was perfectly appropriate, and carried the weight of DC's history. This one looks temporary, like a one-off for a 'radical x-treme' throw-away toy.

I had no idea Glaser did that logo. It doesn't matter. Nostalgia and history matter more than name-dropping, and that's why this decision doesn't sit right with me. The new one will get lost with the flashy, chrome, 3D-ish logos of the comics themselves. The old logo sits like a solid stamp or seal. The new one sucks like the vacuum created by the lack of a sturdy concept. As graham pointed out, retro can work, and does. This logo will be just another trendy design between the older, stronger one and its inevitable revival in 50 years.

Like Hex, I also grew up reading comics. I'm a natural pack-rat, so my childhood hobby turned into a collection. Over the last 20 years, I have amassed roughly 10,000 comics. I have no plans of selling any of them, for me it's not a collection of resale value it's a collection of memories and good times. Also like Hex, comics led me to the door of graphic design.

The main application for the DC logo is the comic book cover. Not the movie screen, and not the television screen. On the comic book cover, the logo needs to be the third thing seen by the target audience: the first is the masthead, and the second is the illustrated content area of cover.

By itself, and from a graphic design stand point, I think Glaser's DC logo is very nice. It's strongly recognizable at first glance, keeping everything to a minimum and yet the eye keeps moving. But as much as I admire most of Glaser's work, the DC logo never worked that well in it's context: on the comic book cover. It's a round peg that needs to fit in a square world.

Marvel always did a good job of making their logo fit with 90 degree angles so it belonged on the cover. Kyle Cooper was a genious for making Marvel's existing logo move (instead of Marvel wanting to redesign it so it looked like it wanted to move).

DC's new logo isn't completely bad nor is it completely good... I think it just needs some more tweaking. The letters need more strength so it pops from the overall graphic. Maybe it's less white space behind the "DC", it maybe it's not having that flap on top of the "D," or maybe the top right corner of the "C" is a little more rounded (or the bottom left corner is more visible so as to compliment the top right corner)... or something else, it just needs some more tweaking.

All that being said though, I think DC's new logo can fit on a comic book cover. I think it will look good in motion on the screen. It pays homage to Glaser's work, and does not rely on gradients to give it a 3D perception. The new glossy look compliments the styles of the new mastheads (that are done well) and the new smoother styles of illustration that have been cropping up from artists and colorists over the last few years or so. Overall, not too bad but I will miss the classic DC logo.

I'm surprised this thread is getting as much milage as it is. I had no idea that anyone actually cared about DC.

Michael Holdren’s comment echo my own. But I'm not sold on tweaking this new logo. I don't think it is a question of "how much?", but more like... "how come?" I would be very interested to hear the reason they decided to do it in the first place. And why they opted for an "All New" version over a revisit/edit to the original clunker. (part of the problem with these outsider-looking-in logo critiques, no insight as to original problem or design brief).

Sure this new generic logo works with the "new" slick look of todays comics (although Matthew Squire doesn't think it is dark enough for today's comic icons - which I disagree with - I think DC's logo should represent the "idea" of heroism, gritty or not). But is that really the point? The old clunky DC never really meshed with the visual style of the books that I read in the 70'sand 80's, so does the Brand need the logomark to seamlessly fit with the visual look of the rest of the cover/book. I don't think so. That is a pretty tall order given the variety of visual styles being published today (even by the same company).

I also disagree with Chris Rugen’s comment that NOBODY buys a book based on the logo (even though I said something to that effect earlier). Many times I have been scanning the racks at the local comic shop, looking for books to pick up, and I have picked up an unfamiliar title purely because it was published by a company who also produced other books that I like. Even though I should know better then to judge a book by its Logo.

This backs up Andrew Twigg’s comments about the clunky DC mark's distinct legability. DC wants customers to know who is publishing that comic. Which makes me question why they would throw away so much "equity" (god I hate that word in reference to design) built into the old mark.

Wow! Some fellow comic book lovers...Excelsior!

I collected comics up until my mid-teens and continue now, years later, to buy and enjoy the more mature graphic novels.

I always loved the DC bullet. It was cool. And I thought it looked good on the cover. But times have really changed for the comicbook industry and I think a redesign of the logo was in order (for all the reasons that have been listed above). I mean they print these things on heavy bright white coated stock these days! I can't even look at them anymore, but obviously a, largely, younger audience does. And plays the video games, and watches the movies.

Why should it matter who created the original logo? I don't see why this issue is dragged out of the closet every time a redesign comes along. Is it because some of you fear the transient nature of graphic design? The bullet was good when it was done and up until recently. It's been printed on millions of comics that will be around until they disintegrate. Glaser's name is in the history books. Time for change. So let it go.

I think the new logo could be a good deal better. As it is, it's serviceable but little more. My main problem with it is the swoosh and how it interacts with the type and the star—which looks so tacked on that it should never have left "rough stage." It is, as has been pointed out, completely generic.

One reason this thread has gotten such traction is nostalgia. Those who grew up with comics have a connection to all that's happened and is happening. The DC mark being changed is Huge, with a capital H. For one, the old mark was Glaser's, and secondly, the new mark resembles something you'd see on a shaving cream can. People will feel a little cheated by this.

On an unrelated (but related note), DC's site doesn't work. Links are broken everyplace; Marvel's site is solid. But they both have the Amazon style of presenting info. Maybe we'll see a new site at DC soon.

I wager this discussion would have taken a very different tack if it was not revealed to be an old Milton Glaser logo.

On the new logo: generic, etc. The execution is all fine and good, but I too wish they had been more successful in animating the old mark before redesigning it to be new and trendy.

"I have picked up an unfamiliar title purely because it was published by a company who also produced other books that I like."

Exactly. It's the company and the previous experiences with the work, not the logo, that drives the decisions, and the logo needs to have that quick visual read. The logo should fit, but it really doesn't move product. I'd argue that this one dilutes the recognition, kills the nostalgia, and blurs it into the cover content. If the design brief called for this...I question the motives (yes, I realize fully that I don't have any research to back up this assertion).

Chris Rugen:

Exactly. It's the company and the previous experiences with the work, not the logo, that drives the decisions, and the logo needs to have that quick visual read. The logo should fit, but it really doesn't move product. I'd argue that this one dilutes the recognition, kills the nostalgia, and blurs it into the cover content.

Your argument is not BULLETPROOF !!!!

The Logo and/or Identity represent the QUALITY of the manuafactuer or product.

Which is embedded in our minds as consumers.

Which is why Manufacturers incorporate Identity. To separate them from their competition.

If the product was a crappy product. Nobody would care.

Lay a MISSIONI Sweater next to a JHANE BARNES. The average person couldn't tell the difference. Unless they were aware of the QUALITY of material in each merchandise. MISSIONI incorporates, vincuna, angora, mohair, camel, cashmere, and silk, into their product.

MISSONI made by hand, and is exclusive.

Off the rack and beginning at $ 800.00 dollars and exceed $ 3000.00

JHANE BARNES made by computer. Cost $ 95.00 -

$ 200.00 dollars. Generally cotton, rayon or some other synthetic material.

Without their respective Logo and/or Identity the average consumer would not be able to differentiate THE QUALITY.

Which Logos are Designed to do. Bring recognition and remembrance. Signifying The Quality of Manufactured Goods.

It would be the same if you were buying a Patek Phillippe, Vacheron Constantin, Corum, Ebel, Cartier, Franck Muller, IWC, Jaeger LeCoultre, etc.

The above referenced watches to include Rolex and Tag Heuer emphatically do not keep better time than a TIMEX. The Logo and Identity on the watch assure the consumer they are investing in a unigue history of watch making experience. To include purchasing the BEST minerals, e.g. gold, silver, platinum, titanm and diamonds money can buy.

Patrick C.

Why should it matter who created the original logo? I don't see why this issue is dragged out of the closet every time a redesign comes along.

It's called paying HOMAGE and giving CREDIT.

Why provide Editorial Commentary or Critique on an Identity when the author of said work is unknown ? That would make Speak Up and Design Observer Editorial Columnist appear uncaring and imbecilic. Albeit being uninformed.

Michael Holdron:

The main application for the DC logo is the comic book cover. Not the movie screen, and not the television screen. On the comic book cover, the logo needs to be the third thing seen by the target audience: the first is the masthead, and the second is the illustrated content area of cover.

Is not the MASTHEAD semantically in and of itself a LOGOTYPE. An Identifier of the Brand Identity. Semantically, and Semiotically Mastheads are categorized as Nameplate.

JonSel:

I wager this discussion would have taken a very different tack if it was not revealed to be an old Milton Glaser logo.

Speaking for myself. Looking at the Identity. Being Educated in Semiotics and Semantics; I immediately knew the 1960s ALPHA SEAL or MONOGRAM. Both Legitimate Semiotic Symbol Category was the better. Certainly, the Visual Language of the MONOGRAM Identified its Designer as someone cognizant of The Psychological Theories Of Perception and Good Gestalt.

Although, your former employer Landor

created another GENRE for its use.

Unless we're discussing, Whirlpool, Screen Gems, Security Pacific Bank or United Airlines. Swoosh Identities I am endeard. Incorporated the Swoosh before Carolyn Davidson Designed it for NIKE.

In the Visual and Verbal Language of Semotics and Semantics.

The Swoosh has no Legitimacy or Category in Semiotics. It is a Meaningless Device.

Void of representation.

'Although, your former employer Landor

created another GENRE for its use'.

JonSel:

The above paragraph should've been my last.

I was referencing Landor's ingenius use and perhaps abuse of the Swoosh.

DM

ALPHA MALE:

Is not the MASTHEAD semantically in and of itself a LOGOTYPE. An Identifier of the Brand Identity. Semantically, and Semiotically Mastheads are categorized as Nameplate.

I didn't realize that I was implying otherwise. I do agree that the masthead acts as a logotype in its application, which is why I stated that it's the first recognizable graphic on a comic book cover.

Chris Rugen:

Exactly. It's the company and the previous experiences with the work, not the logo, that drives the decisions...

For me, this is partially true. I recognize which publisher produces what kinds of comic books. Marvel usually has better artists, and DC usually has better writers. In the last few years though, that theory doesn't seem to hold out as well. Marvel added Joss Whedon and Brian Michael Bendis to their fold, and DC now has Ethan Van Sciver, Michael Turner, and Jim Lee. When I make my purchasing selection, I look at the names on the covers. I know what writers and artists I like, and whether its DC or Marvel or Dark Horse or Image or anyone else carrying their work, I buy that issue.

Speaking of (good) mastheads, I wanted to see if anyone knew who was responsible for the new Green Lantern masthead.

It far exceeds the crappy ones used over the last 10 or 12 years. I'd bet that it was done in-house, but I think it'd be great if some of these guys that do good design work would get some recognition. I'm sure Hex and I would agree that there's simply not enough of these that are done well like this. Sorry if this hijacks the thread, any admin can remove this post if it does.

It's inline with the discussion, and as a Hal Jordan fan (yeah, they brought him back), I'm curious about who did it too.

Michael Holdren:

There are a lot of unsung heroes in Design.

Unfortunately we may never know who Designed the Logotype.

Your example of Green Lantern exemplify Visual Strenghth, Uniqueness, Imagination, and Memorabilty.

All characteristics of Great Identity Design.

DM

Back to my Dick Dale and The Del-tones CD.

Master of Surf Guitar.

Wha chu no bout dat Felix !!!!

I'm Suprised and Baffled Monsieur Vit has not weighed in.

This will be the first Identity Critique in History he has missed since Speak Up inception.

Or does Monsieur Vit believe his Patrons think he cannot remain NEUTRAL. Since Glaser is one of his HEROES.

And likewise I may add.

DM

DM

Pulling those two lines out of context so you can critique them is a bit silly. I think it was obvious that I was referring to the backlash that arises every time a great designers work is redesigned. I was not being critical of this information being included in the discussion. Of course we should know who designed the original and why. Come on.

Patrick C.

I actually didn't think your comment was disingenuous. Very familiar with your astute and very articulate writing and understanding of Design Discourse.

It's been levied against Our Group on more than one occassion. The name dropping and defending a Designer(s) work.

Truth be known. Identity Critique and Commentary is what put Speak Up in the History Books.

And got Armin where he is today. (wink) (wink)

Inside Joke. (wink)

Old logo = beethoven

New logo = N'Sync

nuff said.

DM....good to have you back. How's the new system?

As for the logo, I think a key statement was made early on in the discussion:

"It's fun to see classic logos get redesigned. For some reason the new ones almost always seem, to me, so trendy looking.Everybody wants movement. Swish, swoop, slash."

The very problem with this logo, besides it's over-the-top WeUsedPhotoShop appeal, is that it represents more a trend than it does the brand. Glaser's (and yes I'm a fan) identity was in use for 30 years. Think about that. Whether you loved it or hated it, it worked for DC for 30 years.

Like many redesigns today, the new mark is simply a 'me-too' approach. It's not distinct, it's not emotional, it's simply trendy.

The more I look at it, the more I feel as if doesn't belong there—much like the crappy cover highlighted by Hex. Maybe I'm just showing my age, but say what you will about Glaser's original, but it was DC Comics. This re-make doesn't carry the same weight and influence, the individuality, of the now 'retired' DC logo.

And maybe the difference comes down to the tools. The Glaser logo was done without a computer. It involved far more of the human touch (Much like the Hex's classic covers). And it shows. And honestly, I do think it matters. There has to be an emotional connection to the brand, and the logo is a part of that connection. The old logo had it. The new one doesn't.

POPE, Rob Bennett:

Many thanks, and heartfelt appreciation.

Mutual Admiration.

Was waiting and anticipating your response.

I concure.

Scrap the current revitalized Identity.

DC Comics should pay Glaser the Two Million $ 2.000.000.00 dollars to revitalized DC Comics Identity. He's more than worth it.

Small Change for DC Comics.

Or give the revitalization to Speak Up Authors.

With me, you, Felix, Jonsel, and Bierut acting as Identity Council.

Truth be known, Glaser hands have never touched a computer. A proclimation he made.

Link below.

http://www.designboom.com/eng/interview/glaser.html

The new computer is Great. It's more like an Entertainment Center. I've been watching more television on it and recording television programs with the built-in DVR. Haven't loaded my Adobe software, yet.

I really find it interesting that everyone keeps referring to the original DC Logo by saying "Glaser's DC Logo." Is it because Milton designed this logo that we are defending it so much? If it was a no name designer who created the original DC logo would there be this much debate involved? Or, are we all secretly big comic book geeks and cannot bare to see this identity change?

We know, that without a doubt, Milton truly considered everything, both aesthetically and strategically when he designed the DC Logo. But, in 1976 did Milton have to consider all of the same things that this new logo had to embrace? The main application for the logo in the 70's was print. This is not the case today. DC Comics have changed and so has their audience as well as the translation of the heros into other media - movies, video games, etc., it's all far beyond print and it probably goes beyond simply making the logo move.

I agree with a lot of the other critiques about the aesthetics of this new DC logo. Specifically that it tries to make us think that it is moving and that it probably has one too many bevels and swooshes. However, if there is one application where a swoosh seems more appropriate, the comic book/super hero seems to be far more suitable then the thousands of misappropriated swooshs used on other "logo designs" that exist for other industries.

I am just not convinced that the original logo design or a updated instance of such communicates everything that DC Comics is trying to do today. The heritage of the original DC logo is simply not enough. DC Comics is obviously trying to generate new audiences who are probably too young to care about the past; or others who have seen the transition of these superheros from a low screen print to coming to life on the big screen. Milton has said on many occasions that he cares less about what things actually look like more about what they say. It seems that more and more, DC Comics cares about what they look like and being "trendy & cool".

If we take a step back away from what we know about the graphic design history of the DC logo and look at what we know about DC Comics today, the new logo really isn't that bad.

> I'm Suprised and Baffled Monsieur Vit has not weighed in.

Sorry Maven, I was overseas enjoying exotic foods in undivided Berlin and I haven't had a chance to read or contribute to all the wonderful discussions this week. (So apologies if I repeat anything that has already been said).

However I do have a superficial opinion… The logo looks more like a Major League Soccer (if they started a women's league) logo than a comics logo. With the huge amount of talented artists and letterers in the DC world I am surprised they didn't tap into that pool for a logo built from the actual stuff that comics are made from.

Kingsley mentioned Marvel early in the discussion. That's a mature logo for comics that works — specially in its animated form.

It has been a long while since I checked in to the site. And as usual I am several days behind in joining the conversation.

Of course this forum did not exist in 1976 when Uncle Miltie redesigned the DC logo, and both the design and comics industries were quite different, but does anyone think that there was a debate about a logo change at that time? I think when I rifled through the comments today I saw some mention about nostalgia. And that is the key question. Last week I was at a conference and Kevin Grady of GUM alluded to that very notion when he was talking about his influences. Is something that was designed or illustrated in the 1960s or 70s actually better or does nostalgia for childhood memories make it better in retrospect?

As for the new logo, it blows big time. But the Glaser logo never was all that either.

Nostalgia. We've brought this full circle. Your comments, Mark, are valued---and in truth, the reason I wrote about this new mark was nostalgia.

What does it do for us as designers? Does the new logo suck because it replaces something we have attachment to?

There's an interesting history of the DC logo here: http://www.apocalyptek.com/index.html

The old DC logo is recoginizable and legendary the new one looks like "swooshy generic" crap that got taken over by this Anime and Manga craze.

The DC logo to me IMHO looked up to date and unique there was no need to change it.

Plus what is it with going from four stars to one?

huh?

The old Dc logo looks great even in black and white!

Try to do that with the new DC logo!

However the new DC logo looks great in this image for some reason

well, i first of all like to say, this is a sorry website. i got none of the information i needed to know. i still know nothing about nike shoes.
im doing a report and i need help.
GET BETTER SOURCES OR GET DUMBER PEOPLE.

that is all i have to say about this information or this site. thank you for your time for the people who read this.

GOOD RIDENCE DUMMIES.

well, i first of all like to say, this is a sorry website. i got none of the information i needed to know. i still know nothing about nike shoes.
im doing a report and i need help.
GET BETTER SOURCES OR GET DUMBER PEOPLE.

that is all i have to say about this information or this site. thank you for your time for the people who read this.

GOOD RIDENCE DUMMIES.

well, i first of all like to say, this is a sorry website. i got none of the information i needed to know. i still know nothing about nike shoes.
im doing a report and i need help.
GET BETTER SOURCES OR GET DUMBER PEOPLE.

that is all i have to say about this information or this site. thank you for your time for the people who read this.

GOOD RIDENCE DUMMIES.