3 ms·
As far as rebrand is concerned, this one is actually good. The new icon is clever. I think they could've kept the serif font. The new type isn't doing it for
by pcurve 4y ago
As far as rebrand is concerned, this one is actually good.
The new icon is clever. I think they could've kept the serif font. The new type isn't doing it for me.
The Met museum logo is brilliant. I've been going to that museum for 30 years, so there was emotional attachment to the old one. I like them both.
- tsimionescu 4y agoWhile I don't think it's as big of a crime as this article makes it out to be (and I personally prefer the look of sans-serif fonts), I still don't see what's "clever" about the logo - it seems like a generic O with an unpleasant proportion of full vs striped portions. The striped portion can be take to look sort of like the pages of a book being flipped, but only if you know the context - otherwise the first thought would be tire marks or perhaps a keyboard.
- pcurve 4y ago"The striped portion can be take to look sort of like the pages of a book being flipped, but only if you know the context - otherwise the first thought would be tire marks or perhaps a keyboard." I could be reading into the logo, but I think it's clever because the logo could be interpreted many different ways: 1. "O" for Oxford. 2. The striped portion is paper flipping, as you pointed out. 3. The round O evokes old mechanical paper press / publishing machine, machines, so it has connection to the word "Press" in the Oxford University Press. The stripes also create movement / motion.