I wonder why they couldn't make a design system that integrated or utilized the previous logo, or an updated version of it. The new one is hideous and redundan

I wonder why they couldn't make a design system that integrated or utilized the previous logo, or an updated version of it. The new one is hideous and redundant, as are all of the alternatives (which look more like positioning/alignment errors in Microsoft Word). 1. "LIBRARY Library" -- really? 2. The colors don't evoke a library OR Congress, but a construction site. 3. There's no "logo" here, strictly speaking: just a bunch of words. The article even explicitly says "Our view here at the Library of Congress is the image of a treasure chest, filled with limitless information and services, ready to explore and amaze if you open it up." There's absolutely nothing in this new logo that communicates "the image of a treasure chest" filled with anything at all. Similarly, the "bookshelf" examples look less like a bookshelf and more like someone having issues putting clip art into text in Word. I really hope feedback about this logo influences all involved parties to reconsider this design.