Gunnar, darling, this is a great post.

And I know you are going to kill me, but I can't help it...I am a native New Yorker, my dad took continuing ed at the New School when I was a teenager and I grew up with the New School in my proverbial backyard.

So I hope you will forgive me when I say this:

yuck.

hahahaaa... ha haha...ha. wow. i thought april fool's was over a while back. good one Gunnar!

OK. now really... where is the real new identity... i am curious to see what they actually went with.

The new naming strategy is efficient, effective, and elegant. The graphic expression of the system is less so.

While billboards and graffiti are expressive in their context, there is little that is bold about digitally faked spray paint used as type. It's a tired idea: we've seen faked type-writer type, digitized personal scripts, not to mention faces developed for specific uses turned on their head.

Yet if NewSchool is committed to this direction it would be more interesting to have the words blast out the rest of the content and vary in each application. Perhaps each visit to the site adds a new layer to the spraypaint. And on letterhead and biz cards, an area might be left blank for each individual to add the words New School.

I love courageous clients, and the New School is nothing if not courageous. Consider this: most of the logos that get dogpiled upon (VH1, DC Comics, UPS, et. al.) are rather timid in either execution or strategy. In that significant regard, the New School stands proud. They have my admiration.

A lesson learned from composer Alvin Lucier:

Rather than express opinion; what is your perception?

As a kid who had a couple of graffiti arrests on his juvenile record, I'm pretty sure my father would give a hands down "no" on paying 30k+ to send me to one of the New School offerings.

To me, thats really the problem with the perception that this is going to cast. I know that this will probably do well with students, but the idea behind it is slightly unnerving. In the end, do they really want to let people think that as an educational community they support an image that is synonomous with destruction, despite its supposed creative outlet? I guess if they do, they may have to reconcile with losing a few students due to parent's reluctance to shell out the money.

As an aside, if this is supposed to be a stencilied logo (which I think is what they intend it to look like), they would have to bridge the O's so the counters weren't filled in. Anybody really into stenciling would catch that in a second and would probably question the legitimacy of their logo.

I'm going to agree with Mark on this. Very courageous, and from Gunnar's post and extracts from the new program, it seems to fit the mission. It's quite radical for a university (in graphic approach). As for putting off parents, I somehow think the rest of the program will contain enough information to satisfy their concern that this isn't some destructive cult. How many universities take on the opportunity to truly set themselves apart from the other schools out there? Oh sure, there are loads of rebrandings done by universities to proclaim their sense of school spirit, or to convey the richness of the academic experience, but that's like a bank wanting to convey trust. Here we have a school that's willing to wear its spirit on its sleeve. I'm cool with that.

Well, at least they didn't decide to be cutesy and spell school "skool" or "sk00l"

I have a couple of reactions to this.

First, I want to point out a project I completed last year for the Teen Chicago exhibition at the Chicago Historical Society (CHS) so you can see where I'm coming from (some of you may have seen this in one of the logo smackdowns):

For my particular problem I had a number of constituents to serve: museum donors, CHS's various departments (marketing, merchandise, exhibitions, publications, etc.), the high school students attending the events, and others). And among many other things, it needed to fairly represent Chicago from the start of the 20th Century to today.

We - the CHS marketing dept. and myself - developed a similar varied approach, but this arose from the need to be, in my opinion, a lot of things to a lot people. And, since we wanted a look that didn't "feel" branded, I provided CHS with some 30 logo configurations, some very loose "standards" and let them have at it. Some might say the horse was put out to pasture.

Aside from the aesthetic, this rebrand of The New School has some siimilarities: a varied number of "states" to the main mark's treatment, some variation of color, and a "boldish" graphic approach.

Here's what I think works: this does, to me, convey urban or metropolitan. This is not the mark for a New England university such as Yale or Harvard. Nor is it for a tiny near-ivy league, nor a large university in a not-so-large rural area. This is the identity of a school embedded in the places where "things happen."

Whether or not this aesthetic is appropriate is another thing. Yes, this seems like a fine - if not even expected - identity for a school of fine arts, or even philosophy, literary theory and cultural studies. But I wonder how the "Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy" feels. Sure, it feels "urban" but is this appropriate for a school granting graduate degrees in Health Services Management and Policy, Human Resources Management, or Organiational Change Management (click here for more).

And I can't help but wonder how some of these schools feel about their lengthy names:

• Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy

• Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts

• The New School for Jazz and Contemporary Music

While all three of these are long, at least "The New School for Jazz and Contemporary Music" rolls off your tongue, unlike "Parsons The New School for Design." Couldn't we use some punctuation or demarcation:

Parsons: The New School for Design

Parsons - The New School for Design

Parsons. The New School for Design

Parsons | The New School for Design

So, all in all I have mixed feelings. This is sort of a mixed bag. And underneath it all, while the system tries for a rough, gritty, bold aesthetic, when it all boils down it's still a corporate i.d. with three colors (grey, orange, and red) and one gothic typeface.

I agree with Andrew that the naming is a little weird without some kind of punctuation: it sort of reminds me of a place we've got here in New York called "Michael Jordan's The Steakhouse NYC."

The basic strategy seems bulletproof. The faux-Krylon execution, though, comes off a little too clever for me.

I have to give them credit for being nervy, though. There aren't many places that could get away with this and The New School is one of them.

I think the naming system is novel. But the graffiti type feels completely forced and meretricious.

And why does distressed type also need to be poorly kerned? Is that what passes for "cool" now?

Armin Hoffman, Weingart, even the Dadaists, did it first, and did it better in my opinion.

Next.

Once again, I'd love to know what went on in the client-designer process. I'm imagining, "No—nervier .... no, really a lot nervier ... like spraypaint ... yeah, like that."

I dunno. I'm inclined to disagree with Michael B. in that I think it's very literal without being clever at all. Surely there have to be other ways of portraying "activist, eclectic, open, street-smart, articulate, creative, and courageous" without resorting to a visual cliche?

It is incredibly different from what they had before, which makes me wonder if they aren't going too far in a direction that seems a bit ... faddish?

But if they want to gain attention for a short time, this'll do it.

Ditto the names, though. yikes! Imagine the business cards! Will there be all new, incredibly lengthy urls?

I was surprised at just how strong my physical reaction was to this thing: an icky feeling in the gut and an extended scowl, paired with profane mumbling. Looking at this logo was jarring and confrontational and although there is something to be said for that, my main response was confusion. Spray paint casts a long, specific shadow that initially makes it difficult to square with the notion of a university (graffiti and early 1980s hip-hop culture — perhaps vandalism, depending on your point of view) and, as my mind sorted through loaded words like “appropriation,” "cliche," and “underground,” I realized that this unexpected pairing of "spray paint + college" makes the new logo incredibly compelling (for a moment).

The execution, however, is clumsy. I champion the attempt at conjuring a decidedly anti-digital, back-to-basics, get your hands dirty sort of work ethic — except it looks terribly contrived, with the saturation ebbing and flowing just so and, as Derrick points out, the perfect Os are thoughtless and unsettling in this context. Despite the best efforts at throwing off the clean and geometric dictates of most logos, this just doesn’t look like a spontaneous, fun, engaging, or — most importantly here - analogue mark.

My major complaint, however, is simple and stodgy: It’s a school — show some class (in fact, as the subtitle awkwardly & inexplicably reminds us, the New School is “a university” — aside from being visually distracting, for some reason this addendum feels like it ought to read, “A Three Act Play” or “Caffeine-Free” rather than intoning an institution for higher education). I fail to see why some schools shoot for hipster identities (and usually miss by a few years), when their reputation ought to be visually linked to the serious & time-tested contemplation of their studied disciplines. This logo employs a specific media to respond to a particular & contemporary sentiment in (art & design) education that will probably go away in a few years: we’re not dominated by software, we’re hands on. In fact, the whole logo is committed to evoking the medium of spray paint and little else.

I agree with James: their logo looks contrived. Sorry, I have to give my two cents to this. While Andrew's logo - Teen Chicago - has a more honest look - as far as making graffiti logos goes. The shifting permutations add to its flexibility.

Maybe it's that graffiti is now well within the vocabulary of our current typography fashion that it's lost its initial rawness.

Adding "new" begs the question: what comes after? When "new" becomes older, in due time. The Newer School of Design?

Leave the fuzzy, self-conscious logo on the drawing board would be my recommendation...I pity the poor signage manufacturer who has to put this on doors and exteriors...

I agree with Eunice above that the basic idea of shortening the name to "The New School" is excellent (everyone calls it that anyway -- just as everyone called Federal Express Fedex long before they made it official), but the specific graphic approach has very little interest. The only arguments for it are appealing to MTV-generation sensibilities in a sort of "John Kerry does rap with Emenim to boost his youth demos" sort of thing.

The main message it tells me is that the branders don't really take the proud history of social activism and progressive thought at The New School very seriously and want to "hip it up."

In a larger sense it also fundamentally makes me question Bob Kerrey's leadership of the institution. Is what he is saying that all progressive thinkers need is some new baggy clothes to make themselves "cool" to the young generation? I think that is a serious underestimation of the sincere desire on the part of many young people to connect to the vibrant and serious history of progressive movements. I say they should change the name and set it in Times if they can't find something better than this.

That said, and knowing that I fundamentally hate the idea, here's the only possible real argument for it -- the visual connection to the situationist stencil projects of '68. As an old grafitti stencil artist myself this has some resonance. What overwhelms this connection, though, is 25 and more years of MTV and other corporate mass culture marketing of these visual tropes as purely superficial style accoutrements. This logo is not a protest against our corporate culture, but rather a giving in to the idea that we can't hope to free the young from that culture.

It seems succesful in terms of the project's goals. It provides a consistent name and a consistent identity in a visual format that's certainly unique in the college/university arena.

Though I find the 'old school' rendering a bit ironic.

I absolutely love it- love love love it.

As a former client, I never managed to sell any of my grafitti inspired cover designs to Parsons. Now theyre lappin in up. Good for them. It very much represents Parsons- the renegade

not SVA- the whatever they are.

AS far as the execution, I cant see the faux and I work with spray

cans all the time. Get outta your Phillipe Starck designed recliners of rage and get into it. Its street. Its NYC. Love it.

Though I find the 'old school' rendering a bit ironic

Ironic. Yes, mm hmm. Right. This is a great example of someone in his recliner trying hard to get his rage on. Its spray paint for Christ sake- nuthin trendy or stale about it.

I'm tired of all this high-minded grammatic post modern aesthetic-building synergy paradigm ideologists .

Ask your average kid who wants to go to school and get down and dirty... he/she'll take spray paint and The New School over an oily palette and SVA. Every time.

Ironically, as soon as I stopped designing covers for Parsons, SVA hired (via Wieden Kennedy) me to do subway ads. Both were street level attempts aimed at kids.

I mean how else can you convey NYC street without jumping on board with Gotham medium all caps. Spray paint. Its genius.

I'm tired of all this high-minded grammatic post modern aesthetic-building synergy paradigm ideologists...average kid...down and dirty...street level...NYC street...Spray paint

Is the average street kid Parson's target demographic?

A kid didn't create this identity. A street graffiti artist didn't do it. A designer sitting in an Aeron chair in a design office trying to talk "urban" did the paint spraying.

Sorry Felix, but ain't nuthin genius about that.

So Street that it's gonna be needing a blood transfusion when it gets gunned down in Brooklyn outside a pizza joint....

So Street that Krylon has a building named after them...

So Street that its font family are all in Attica doin' ten to twenty years...

"A designer sitting in an Aeron chair in a design office trying to talk "urban" did the paint spraying."

Ha!

"It very much represents Parsons- the renegade not SVA- the whatever they are."

Felix, could you clarify?

guy in Aeron chair in a design office trying to talk "urban"

damn, B. How you know I roll Aeron? Shoo.

Parsons- the renegade

its how they like tho think of themselves... which isnt really true.

I kinda like it, but seriously, couldn't they have at least varied the "graffitti" treatment a bit so it was visually different for each school. I mean if you're gonna go all punk rock.... seems to me to be a case where the mantra of "brand consistency" has by far gotten the better of common sense...

I'm currently working on a project that requires the 'digital spray painting' of titles - our budget is probably one billionth of what the new school has to spend, but I'm still spending the time to photoshop each title differently, so that they at least have slightly differnt texture and personality.

Along the same line, this is an identity system that just begs to be extended � la NAi or the Tate, both of which are pretty 'conservative' institutions, but they've at least had the awareness to realise that you can maintain consistency without every pixel being perfectly lined up the same. It's the new school for chrissakes, push it a little!

Street enough for ya?

PS. refresh the TATE site a few times to see what I mean.

Gunnar, Gunnar, Gunnar:

What a WELCOME BACK. Or am I aghast in my own Pomposity.

Speak Up has never since it's inception Critiqued

Three (3) Identities BACK TO BACK.

The new Identity and Nomenclature, Radical to say the least. However, only, (I stress only appropriate for a creative institution.

Maybe appropo for a "B" or "C" level Corporation(s). Specializing in Apparel, Skate Boards or Surf Boards.

Computer software has given Designer(s) so much flexibility and freedom. Often times the lines are blurred between; what is sincerely creative freedom and/or abuse.

This Identity has a very short shelf life in leu of Hip Hop Culture.

My concern, how this new Identity and Nomenclature System will play out on your side of the Pacific Ocean. Will Otis Parson California adapt this new Identity and System ?

There is a severe difference of Misanthropic Culture in California. The Apple and the Orange.

I'm endeared to Chermayeff & Geismar Crest. So much going on there. I wonder if they will ressurrect the crest in the Future as the Identity and Pseudo Spray Paint becomes the sub-brand.

Interested in what Tony Spaeth has to say. Since he is endeared to Semantically Driven Identity.

Drew:

On so many levels your Identity for Chicago Teens is more appropo.

Isn't the demographic for Hip Hop Culture nine to nineteen (9-19) years old. After which youth culture become YOUNG ADULTS.

Debbie and Michael:

Interested to know if Sterling or Pentagram was contacted.

btw- DM: I still like C&G's old mark as well.

Very easy to work with, and a timeless design.

>How you know I roll Aeron?

the Aeron is an Escalade for us design hoes.

they dont last tho... may need to plop down

on one of those green Eames chairs outta DWR catalogue.

you say hoe.. i say ho... lets call the whole thing.. off

As a parsons graduate I have to say that this is really infuriating. First off, "Parsons the new school of design" is poor english. Who wants to attend a college that can not formulate a sentance.

Secondly, the faux graffiti is trite, timely, and more of an example of a design "band-aid" than a sucessful solution. Is this one of those "all the kids are into graffiti right now" solutions. Maybe we should make it real drippy too.

And finally, this logo really has nothing to do with what the New School stands for. The school, in general, is very radical, leftist, and cutting edge. This logo looks like Pentagram trying to go street. Like my dad listening to a Jurrasic 5 album or something. It just doesn't match. Additionally, I am once again appauled that a university that claims to house one of the more progressive and innovative design programs in the world - and I do believe it to be - would not look to its own faculty and students to resolve this solution. If you can not trust your own education then how can you expect an employer to trust your students.

You will not find me changing my resume any time soon to "Parsons The New School for Design." Oh, and my teachers HATED graf elements in my work when I was there...

chris

ps: sorry about the typos

I agree with much of what has been said. The naming strategy moves in the right direction but isn’t quite there. Sticking “for” into everything makes it more like a slogan than a name. Is anyone going to say “I study photography at Parsons The New School for Design”? If it’s going to read like a tag line maybe someone should have figured out where the tag line was:

Milano/The New School

for Management and Urban Policy

or maybe even kill “The.” And give the university top billing:

New School Mannes College

for Music

after all, Chris’ grammatical argument revealed something (even though he blew the preposition): Instead of reading them as compound names, in most of the configurations “The New School” can be read as a generic adjective rather than as the central part of a proper name. (How new is it? Is it newer than “New Wave”?)

As to the visual representation, I agree with Mark’s congratulations for courage and Debbie’s “yuck.” It does seem like it’s really trying too hard.

It doesn’t surprise me that the Speak Up audience would concentrate on Parsons but, of course, The New School is much more than one of its units. If it worked splendidly in general but faltered for Parsons that might make me want to reconsider what it should do for Parsons. But I’m not convinced that it works for the university as a whole.

Maven asks: “Will Otis Parson California adapt this new Identity” and the answer is “Not even close.” Just as Parsons was acquired by The New School when the former was cash poor and in danger of sinking in the late ’60s, Otis Art institute reached out Parsons at about the time when many of their current students were busy being born. I believe the marriage was short and not successful by any measure. Otis College of Art & Design is alive and well and about a decade ago moved from their old digs across from McArthur Park to a spiffy building in Westchester. (Before that they had a nice identity program done by PHD. Lots of Gill Sans and a big round O.) The move leaves the students deprived of the experience of hearing automatic weapon fire every night but does make going to the beach much more convenient.

Maven also tells us that “There is a severe difference of Misanthropic Culture in California” but I can’t argue with that since I have no idea what it means.

I'll agree with feelix here even though he's called detractors rage-o-holics yet once again (JK, feelix, but I wouldn't mind having a designer recliner if I ever do decide to recline). I love this logo. It's on the money for The New School: bold and risk taking, while variations adapt easily and appropriately to each department, or 'school.'

The distressed type/spray can effect is an apt metaphor for both their tradition and philosophy. Crossing over from the 20th to 21st century, it's not frozen in a specific time period like the new DC logo is. Spray can art has been around much longer than graffiti artists of the late 70s. I'd even say that among logos of higher education institutions this one says more about the school and it's principals than any I've seen thus far.

oops: principals == principles

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

The execution could be a bit better, I guess, but conceptually it works and its very appropriate for them. Somebody put thought into this, spent time with it, and boom--there you have it. At first I was turned off by it, but it wormed around a little within my headspace, and I realized that...yeah. Kudos to The New School for getting a logo that doesn't look like a fucking logo.

(After much internal thought)

I'll agree with Mark and applaud their courage for adopting and following a strategy they believed in. And conceptually, I think it fits with what I know of the school and its mission and history.

But a part of it just doesn't sit right. Doesn't feel right. It could be the damn improper English. But more, I think I have to agree it feels forced, as if they are so New School, now they have to try and show us that by using faux spray paint. And let's face it, the line lengths are going to be horrible to work with. Good thing they don't have a golf team.

Maybe if the execution had been handled differently, 'The New School' really spray painted and then incorporated with the school names in front, or below. But on the same line just seems wrong.

For now only time will tell if they know something I don't and if their target audiences respond as they expected or wanted. Or if in a year from now, we'll have a whole new identity to comment on.

but I'm still spending the time to photoshop each title differently

Wouldn't grabbing some hardware store lettering templates + spraypaint be quicker?

I doubt Parsons is going to start marking public walls with the new logo in real Krylon. Though if they considered it, there's some good background info to a backlash that Saatchi & Saatchi are facing in London HERE.

i hope they have a good tchotchke-embroioderer.

"Maven also tells us that “There is a severe difference of Misanthropic Culture in California” but I can’t argue with that since I have no idea what it means".

Gunnar:

I was romanticizing the difference in New York and California. Using the word MISANTHROPIC.

Not the PURIST Dictionary Terminology of the word. Meaning Haitred for Mankind. Referencing the differences in CULTURE and Counter-culture.

When I think of differences between California and New York.

Hip Hop Culture Aside and Harley Davidson Biker Clubs. These lifestyles are universal.

Mentioning California, First thing comes to mind is Laid-back lifestyle i.e. Surfing, Dune Buggy's and Muscle Beach, Sunshine year-round.

Mentioning New York, First thing comes to mind. Very Demanding i.e. Brick City, Stick Ball, and Night life, (City that never sleeps).

Apologies if this was already stated.

I think if anyone has taken branding 101 you should note that the audience is always the key objective of communicating a visual language. The biggest concern I have is that the aesthetic execution is a current trend that will be re-designed in several years. Isn’t the idea of an identity supposed to surpass the current trends of our time? I wonder if they took that into account. What does graffiti have to do with “The New School” when really the whole idea behind graffiti has old school meanings? Is this a contradiction onto itself? Anyone, am I completely out of line? Does this question make sense -- “Oh man, it’s going to be a long day.” Thanks.

branding 101

none of us have taken this course. is it available online or by correspondence?

graffiti has been around since written symbols. spray can graffiti as long as the spray can has and will be around. I'd venture to say it's a timeless as most contemporary logos.

it's a completely appropriate metaphor for the left of center philosophy of The New School, given it's founding ethos, it's current teaching and where it's going.

I led the team that developed the visual identity for The New School so I can shed some light on the development process.

By the way — they are a terrific client. Bob Kerrey was fun to work with. He is very decisive. He has a clear picture of what The New School is about, and is defining a mission for the University that truly distinguishes it amongst its competitive set.

Here’s some of the rationale for the identity.

The brand architecture that Alan Siegel and Peter Swerdloff developed is expressly designed to build the identity of The New School on an enterprise, or institutional level. Currently there is uneven recognition that the eight schools are part of the university, so this system actively drives understanding. It also activates the name by using it to modify the divisional names. Milano, The New School for Management and Urban Policy actually positions the Milano offering. (For those of you who wonder about the grammar -- writing guidelines address grammar issues when the names appear in text, and of course the graphics provide visual punctuation. For those commenting on the subtitled “University” modifier that rests below the logotype, that is a year-one element created to smooth the transition from dropping University from the official name.) From a brand architecture standpoint this is an elegant solution.

This is an exciting institution. To paraphrase Kerrey -- The New School is a place that teaches the ideas, skills and techniques that make democracy work. That’s a powerful idea. The University divisions teach the subjects -- arts, humanities, music, political science, communications -- that are essential ingredients in a working, healthy democracy. And its heritage is one of independence, occasional contrarian views, a multitude of voices and robust dialogue.

The people who shaped The New School did so as a rejection of classic universities. In fact it was founded as an anti-university. It is located in New York City, Manhattan to be more precise, which is one of its defining qualities. It is of New York, and helps define the city. The New School does not aspire to be Ivy League. It doesn’t have a leafy, walled campus. It doesn’t want an athletic program. Its 25 buildings are dispersed about Manhattan.

The idea behind the identity is a simple one — activist voices engaged in dialogue — expressed in a vernacular that is integral to New York City, and urban environments all over the world. My team, (Young Kim, Lloyd Blander and others) debated the cliché question and it’s evident where we came out on it. Graffiti has been a media for voices with alternative views, and limited channels, in urban settings for a long time. And people will continue to see it and respond to it for a long time to come. (Try and find a copy of The Faith of Graffitt, written more than 30 years ago by Norman Mailer collaborating with Mervyn Kurlansky and Jon Naar. A wonderful book which chronicled graffiti of the prior several decades.)

I’m droning on, so just a bit more that might be interesting.

With regards to the styling of the graffiti (which was not photoshopped, but painted) — we went towards a representation of the genre, vs. a very individual hand or writing style. We didn’t want it to be about a single voice. Hence the three different logotype versions.

And one final thought -- Graffitti is made by people who care. The most powerful graffiti is about the place where you see it. About something that will affect that block, city, state or country. It’s made by someone who has a stake in an outcome, and wants passionately to influence that outcome. The students, faculty, and alumni at The New School believe they can change the world. The leadership of the school is committed to teaching the ideas, skills and techniques that will equip them to do just that. This identity is about that spirit.

Thanks.

Howard Belk

Chief Creative Officer

Siegel & Gale

I am very glad Henry Wolf was not here to witness this brand debokle.

That poor, poor logo identity. Such a responsibility to please everyone. And for one logo to have to tell the whole story of all the divisions of the New School, such a heavy burden. One that should never me the sole responsibility of a type treatment.

I agree with many of the earlier statements against this treatment. And I have reasons of my own.

Frankly, it hurt my eyes to try to focus on reading the text. If we are about communication, I certainly think this is the antithesis. Why not keep things simpler? Cleaner, timeless, elegant and modern?

1. it's not great design, sorry designers, I know how after too many cooks etc. shit happens.

2. I don't think one can convey all of the departments of the New School with a single trademark. I.E. while the shield identity worked for a while it might be too stayed and corporate for the current university.

3. I understand that graffiti has been around for eons, and has taken many forms over the centuries. but does that make it an appropriate metaphor for the, multi cultural, multi national, multi disciplined avant garde institution? If you were branding ONE thing. or a single company, only aimed at the new gen "z" ers, like an apparel manufacturer, maybe this treatment would satisfactory.

4. I agree with the idea of editing I.E Fed-EX

- I am a student of The New School, period.

I study art/design at Parsons, I study music at Mannes, Urban Policy at Milano.

WHY MUST IT BE SOOOO COMPLICATED.

5. Designers of this I.D. I know you tried to please. And you were just following orders. I have no idea how much you were paid, what kind of chairs you sit in, or what you ware to work. I would be curious however, to know not how you appeased a bunch of middle aged suits, with titles like president, in good continence with out maybe presenting other concepts, directions, or design solutions. And if you did, what were they?

Do these decision makers really think the final branding is going to last? I do think that they took a perfectly great idea to re-brand and integrate, and then got it all wrong. The want to convey a strong urban presence? Graffiti? Why not just put the skyline on it while they are at it?

Yeah, yeah I get it, Graffiti, spontaneous, creative, radical form of expression. And gutsy sure, maybe. But appropriate, for The New School Brand - nah, nope, next?

And as far as Parsons, the international programs they offer, how does that apply?

one thing that troubles me almost most of all. As an alumni of Parsons, with my BFA

how dare you say:

"Parsons, and although it has been a degree-granting school for most of a century, it is perhaps known best for its evening classes and is thought of by many as a sort of left wing Learning Annex.

A LEARNING ANNEX! I teach in continuing ed, at Parsons, and thoroughly enjoy that, but to call my alma-matter a learning annex, what have we become now absorbed by the mighty New School, - the art students league? (no offence to the league)

The mission statement from the web-site:

Parsons School of Design focuses on creating engaged citizens and outstanding artists, designers, scholars and business leaders through a design-based professional and liberal education. Parsons students learn to rise to the challenges of living, working and creative decision making in a world where human experience is increasingly designed. The school embraces curricular innovation, pioneering uses of technology, collaborative methods and global perspectives on the future of design.

With all that said, does this brand reflect that design credo?

Lets celebrate all of the colleges unique qualities - Communicate the multifaceted-ness by designing all of the print materials with cohesiveness and by explaining each of the Universities' divisions as unique and independent thinkers, and doers. SHOW examples of the work and accomplishments, in the catalogs, on-line and direct mail. Use other visual components to tell the stories, strong mission statements, treated consistently, within the fabric of all of the university materials.

thanks to those who read through my entire rant,

Andrea Cutler Parsons '84

Andrea:

And for one logo to have to tell the whole story of all the divisions of the New School, such a heavy burden. . . I don't think one can convey all of the departments of the New School with a single trademark. . . I am a student of The New School, period. I study art/design at Parsons, I study music at Mannes, Urban Policy at Milano. WHY MUST IT BE SOOOO COMPLICATED.

I think it must be so complicated because the problem is so complicated. The New School has been fragmented for years. Most people who are aware of Parsons, for instance, are unaware that it is part of The New School. How do you get people to recognize the university as a whole and not lose the equity in Parsons and not end up with some sort of frankensteinian sewn-together beast like New School/Parsons? Now how do you do it so The New School as a whole seems coherent, i.e., how do you have a consistent naming scheme for different schools with different name equity and different linguistic problems in fitting together with the university’s identity?

Designers of this I.D. I know you tried to please. And you were just following orders. I have no idea how much you were paid, what kind of chairs you sit in, or what you ware to work. I would be curious however, to know not how you appeased a bunch of middle aged suits, with titles like president, in good continence with out maybe presenting other concepts, directions, or design solutions. And if you did, what were they?

It would be massively na�ve to assume that they didn’t present a variety of solutions. And what’s up with the “just following orders”? Were you trying to evoke Adolf Eichman? What “orders” are you assuming? They were developing a physical manifestation of a strategy. That’s what designers do for a living (or at least that’s what they are supposed to do.) No matter what you think of the strategy, the verbal manifestation of it, or the visual rendering of it, all of this “appeasing” crap makes me wonder what you teach and what you do for a living. If it has anything to do with graphic design, do your students a favor and quit.

one thing that troubles me almost most of all. As an alumni of Parsons, with my BFA how dare you say:

"Parsons, and although it has been a degree-granting school for most of a century, it is perhaps known best for its evening classes and is thought of by many as a sort of left wing Learning Annex.

A LEARNING ANNEX! I teach in continuing ed, at Parsons, and thoroughly enjoy that, but to call my alma-matter a learning annex, what have we become now absorbed by the mighty New School. . . .

Are you deliberately misunderstanding? If you’d just copied what I wrote you’d have stumbled across a closing parenthesis—I wrote “Over the years it acquired various schools (Speak Up readers will know Parsons) and although it has been a degree-granting school. . .” It is New University as a whole, not Parsons, that is often believed to be a collection of continuing ed classes.

Lets celebrate all of the colleges unique qualities - Communicate the multifaceted-ness by designing all of the print materials with cohesiveness and by explaining each of the Universities' divisions as unique and independent thinkers, and doers. SHOW examples of the work and accomplishments, in the catalogs, on-line and direct mail. Use other visual components to tell the stories, strong mission statements, treated consistently, within the fabric of all of the university materials.

Why would anyone assume that any identity program would preclude doing any of this?

I attended Parsons for a couple of semesters. It is a bureaucratic mess. Trying to register for classes and obtain basic student aid there is a frustrating, miserable, and extremely time-consuming exercise in line waiting. Some classes I took there were great, but too many others were lackadaisically taught those uninterested in teaching or haplessly led by unsupervised recent graduates without any teaching experience or aptitude. The tuition is exorbitant.

Re-branding is fun for designers, sure, but the New School would have better spent its students’ money if it streamlined its administrative process and hired more good teachers. After all, a logo is only as good as its product, and the best advertisement for any product is a happy customer.

A university’s logo does not need to show all the aspects of the school’s curriculum, it only has to look good on the occasional sweatshirt sold at the student bookstore. The Chermayeff shield is fine for this purpose. It is as good as a burnt-orange longhorn cow, purple arch, red flower, or any big, boldly colored initial cap.

I would be curious however, to know not how you appeased a bunch of middle aged suits, with titles like president, in good continence with out maybe presenting other concepts, directions, or design solutions. And if you did, what were they?

As Jack Benny has said, People say the darndest things.

1. the whole designer appeasing the client stance and is prevalence in the design "community" is simply tiring. Do you think designers sit in the conference room chair (Knoll by my preference, though they may have Aeron) decked out in their best existential black wear, bored looks on their existential masks, thinking: "shit we have to appease these guys"? Think partnerships and collaboration, and you'll sleep easier at night.

2. You teach what? It's not clear what, if your impression is that Siegel & Gale, concepted and presented a single ID for the New School, not to mention that somehow you think the designers, or Siegel & Gale will appease you by presenting other concepts and/or the process they had for this ID on SU or elsewhere. That's a lot of proprietary information to give someone just 'cause they is an unhappy camper.

it only has to look good on the occasional sweatshirt sold at the student bookstore.

You're not serious, right? You should have continued your studies, because you clearly haven't learned anything about the purpose of an identity.

Re-branding is fun for designers

Oh yeah, lots of fun, what with all the appeasing and such.

Is your point just that re-branding is a useless exercise? "Money better spent" is most often the complaint of those that don't understand what is happening and don't care to learn. If the New School is simply putting a pretty face on an administrative mess, then the future will clearly bear that out. I, however, will assume that this is simply the tip of the iceberg, and that if they are going to the time and expense of re-branding visually, then they are considering the entire organization and searching for ways to improve and advance the "product".

Thanks for responding Howard. I hadn't noticed the three slightly different treatments...

The style and execution is sooo 5 years ago, and that's precisely the problem with it, should the identity of a 100 year old university attempt to be so trendy that it will be out of fashion next year? I sincerely hope this is a joke.

The style and execution is sooo 5 years ago

maybe you can elucidate on The style and execution, as I think a number of posts have referred to the grafitti treatment in terms historical longevity and as philosophical metaphor.

I'm particularly keen hearing about the execution as dated.

Dear Mr. Swanson,

Wow, perhaps you put me in my place.

Allow me to clarify myself.

Cleaner, timeless, elegant and modern, and not so illustrative is what I was suggesting.

I am all for having one brand for all of the New School,

I just questioned the design of this one. I see there are others who might also agree. It seems as if you are needing to defend this selection.

As far as "following orders," the designers mention that there was a definite client direction - Clients was fun to work with. He is very decisive. I am sure there were a lot of people who had to approve the design, and a lot of though went into it. With many rounds of revisions.

And no, as a descendent of survivors, trying to evoke Adolf Eichman, was not the direction I was taking.

Thankfully - I do not know anyone murdered over design.

I do understand they were developing a physical manifestation of a strategy. You need not tell me "That’s what designers do for a living (or at least that’s what they are supposed to do.)" I went to school at Parsons. And while I do not claim to be an expert on all things design related, I know that in the end there are often compromises.

I certainly did not mean to say, that the designers were incapable, I am sure there were other designs presented, I was curious as to what they were. I am sure it was a collaborative effort. I suppose in the end - especially with larger institutions there is a fair amount of “appeasing” so it might be interesting too anyone here how the selection of the particular direction had been made.

I was by no means suggesting that the firm of record make us all privy to the many rounds they presented

or defend themselves, it was a rhetorical

statement.

I was also not aware that having a strong opinion would lead anyone to insinuate that I do my students a favor and quit teaching. Thank you.

maybe people do say the darndest things

like.....

Debbie:"yuck."

Mitch: hahahaaa... ha haha...ha. wow. i thought april fool's was over a while back. good one Gunnar!

Enuice: "The new naming strategy is efficient, effective, and elegant. The graphic expression of the system is less so."

Tan:I think the naming system is novel. But the graffiti type feels completely forced and meretricious.

Perhaps these other people should quit their jobs as well.

And Gregor, you seem eager to slam anyone who has an opnion about the design that is less than favorable. Obviously this new design is not for everyone, and clearly there is a strong outpouring of opinions. My apologies if my choice of language offended anyone, I never expected such a can of worms to be released.

Any one else?

And Gregor, you seem eager to slam anyone who has an opnion about the design that is less than favorable.

your making broad assumptions, again.

seeing this post vaguely reminds me of this.

I don't remember when the complete name integration happened, since all of the schools were under the London Institute umbrella, but they adopted "University of the Arts" for more credibility...

Dude, like, it would be so, like, radical, if we like, totally actually spraypainted the entire school. Like, graffitti, REAL GRAFFITTI.... All over the buildings! OMG! YES! We could have, like, a new school for graffitti.... YES

http://www.thenewschool.com/index.html

uh oh...

So, here's a question:

We're in the midst of developing a new mascot for a school. After making the first round presentation, the client posted the sketches on their website and gave their visitors the opportunity to vote and comment on the options presented (don't get me started!). Needless to say, there were as many opinions as there were respondents (which is to say hundreds).

Now, the demographic reading this site and thread is admittedly different from that of my example (here we are dealing with, presumably and for the most part, trained and working designers). The intended result differs as well (nothing we say here will likely change or affect the new The New School identity). But the tenor of the commentary is shockingly similar.

For our mascot project, the comments revolved almost exclusively around aesthetics —�after all, the respondents were not privy to, nor enrolled in, the overall strategy and motivations that guided the project. The responses were predictable and uninformed and as such provided no real insight on the project (a point I continue to argue with the client).

Here at least, we have extensive documentation available (including Siegle & Gale's research documents, and a set of definitive strategy markers) yet the discussion continues to center on the execution. We have voluntarily reduced ourselves to the same level as those reactionary students and staff polled in the mascot project — ranting about what we see, not what we know.

Am I a fan of the look of the new identity? Not so much. Am I impressed by the idea of it? Absolutely. Reading the case for the new direction, and appreciating the considerable research and considered analysis, the design strategy seems appropriate, bold, and engaging. It unifies geographically and academically diverse schools under a common philosophy and personality, and under a common aesthetic.

I think the thinking behind the new identity program is worth more discussion than how much we like or dislike the color, type and spray paint effects.

The more we obsess over the superficial, the further we marginalize design as a profession.

cchs,

I agree with you that aesthetics are less important than concept in a majority of design projects, but the difference with this project is that the aesthetics and concept are intrinsically linked.

Part of the creativity involved in this project is the idea of using spray paints. Actually, I would argue thats where most of the creativity/innovation is (with a bit given to the naming convention). Beyond that, we have pretty simple logotypes. And, in my opinion (and my opinion only, though it seems to be agreed with by a few) the execution of the spray paint is flawed. That takes takes a lot of wind out of the concept.

Concept and execution together make a great design project. One without the other makes it half-complete, and half as great.

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but what'll they do when the "newness" wears off? Much like the problem with "modern" or "contemporary" art.

newness of spray paint?

I consider spray paint to be a classical execution.

It'll be around a good while.

At least 10 years.

They should of went further, avoid a conventional font, make it absolutetly look "street" for crying out loud! make it look like graffti! and incorporate some type of symbol or something of the like.

Then it might "WOW" me!

I think readability is second in graffiti am I right?

They should've shortened "The New School" to "TNS"

I apologise for arriving late at what looks as if it is a very interesting discussion for the most part. The only exception is this Gunner person. As an attorny friend of mine has pointed out to me, when you can't attack a person's argumnent you attack the person. As a strategy for making a point the nazi comparison is neither as effective nor as clever as Gunner seems to think it is, I suggest he read up on Godwins Law

Ms. Cutler, you are right on the money.

Gunner, are you really on the faculty? Grow up.

i'm sorry, as a current Parsons student— this branding is a failure.

And im not talking about on a formal sense alone.

The brand is trying to sell a idea that's a 100% misrepresentation of New School.

The attempt for unity of the schools is a extreme culture clash with the various schools of New School. The typical point of view of a Parson student/ facuilty is NOT interested in being associated with Lang or any other of the other school for that manner. And I'm pretty sure the attutide is univeristy-wide.

It's case and point why my attempt to work with Lang's newspaper fell extremely short. The lack of repect and understanding of the different schools is painfully obvious.

Instead of unting the Univeristy, the oppisite has occured. the attitude is a kind of action from above move that alienates and casues passive-agressive moods in people.