4 ms·

I profoundly dislike the new logo as it erodes an ever diminishing bygone-era of graphic design. Traditional cyphers, monograms and other iconography are time-

by tfsh 4y ago

I profoundly dislike the new logo as it erodes an ever diminishing bygone-era of graphic design. Traditional cyphers, monograms and other iconography are time-bound to the pre-20th century (n < 1901). In recent years I've noticed an acute shift to brutalism, minimalism and a loss of individuality in all facets of life. One needs to look no further than something as mundane as bollards, forgive me for my tangent but consider these two examples, one from the 19th century [1] and another from the 20th [2]. Granted this is not a scientific or thorough analysis, it is surely riddled with bias, but there is an unmistable trend towards not just forgetting, but neglecting our history of design and ornamentation. Not everything needs to be redesigned, not everything needs a modern sans-serif font. Oxford University is the worlds foremost academic institute; founded in 1096; the Press founded in 1586! The previous logo represented this ancient authority and acts as a vessel to a far-away land in this present day. This type of craftsmanship can not be created anew for they are not of this time, the juxtaposition of such symbolism paired with a modern institute would be nothing less of disingenuous. Therefore we must - for the good of history - preserve these works. 1: https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2022/06/i875/guard_post.jpg https://assets.londonist.com/uploads/2022/06/i875/guard_post... 2: https://kentstainless1.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/stainless-steel-bollard-main-image-KFTB101.jpg https://kentstainless1.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/...

pannSun 4y ago
Is it really 'neglect', when ornamentation is deliberately attacked and avoided [1,2]? When this [3] is what modern architecture thinks a church should look like? They'll give excuses that it's due to cost cutting, then build things like [4] when funding isn't an issue. Not that we should be surprised by lies - all war is waged by deception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime [2] https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/ornament-is-crime-celebrates-the-best-modernist-architecture-in-the-world/ https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/ornament-is-crime... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Memorial_Church#New_church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Memorial_Church... - The initial design included the demolition of the spire of the old church but following pressure from the public, it was decided to incorporate it into the new design. [4] https://www.format.com/magazine/galleries/design/best-contemporary-art-gallery-buildings https://www.format.com/magazine/galleries/design/best-contem...
- boppo1 4y ago
  Demoralisation
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4 look breathtaking. They inspire a sense of awe and wonder in me - they don't look real or plausible in some way, but yet there they are, in the large. Having lots of ornamentation would very much detract from the un-real-ness of the surfaces. The church from 3 really does look atrocious though - though even there, the interior where you are surrounded by stained glass seems like it would be quite impressive to experience directly. Note that I also think other styles of monumental buildings are breathtaking. I was recently in Florence and could barely take my eyes off of the Santa Maria del Fiore cathedral (with its 19th century Gothic Revival facade), and similarly when I saw the Duomo in Milan or the San Pietro cathedral in Rome. But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different styles. Another stunning building was the Pantheon in Rome - which is extremely minimalistic when compared to medieval cathedrals, but still outstanding in its design (knowing you're walking into a >2000 year old building also adds to the feeling). I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with brutalism and invent something new after it, and there will also be beautfiul examples of that new thing, and horrible examples as well.
  - pannSun 4y ago
    > Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4 look breathtaking. [..] But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different styles. And if there was a multitude of styles being built, I would be inclined to agree to disagree, subjective opinions will differ, and leave it at that. But they are not - 90%, if not more, of new buildings, especially large ones, all strive for that minimalist, steel & glass, unpleasant sterile aesthetic. It is not 30% modernist monstrosities, 30% art deco skycrapers, 30% art noveau, 10% classical revival. > I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with brutalism Ironically I am quite fond of some brutalist buildings. They can be quite pleasant. But if any of those count as brutalist, they are far too 'cold' for my taste. Again, that would not be a problem if it wasn't all of architecture striving for that same 'cold' aesthetic.
systemicdanna 4y ago
Perceived loss of individuality is frequently just an outcome of a design epoch change. Most logos that we thought were unique and had lots of individuality came from an era when that particular graphic design style was en vogue. Then later the logos were updated to better follow new trends (a vary fair desire for a business). Yes, Art Nouveau logos were pretty but the vast majority of logos in that era were designed in that style (so not some amazing level of individuality). Same with the sci-fi logos in the 80s (which I still think were ugly). Same with any other trend. Not really a question of individuality. > Not everything needs to be redesigned, not everything needs a modern sans-serif font. If the new typeface reads better then why not use it? If the new logo fits a wider variety of placements or prompts a better response from this generation then why not use it?
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Hard, hard disagree. This good article has been discussed before on HN: https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-logos-and-look-like-everyone-else https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-... It's not just a "perceived" loss of individuality. The new logos discussed in that linked article, especially the fashion ones, suck in my opinion because they're boring and they all look the same. They at least used to have some good degree of variability.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Design is of course a fashion business like most things. That said, a lot of traditional logos had a huge amount of fine detail that doesn't work well on mobile. While not the only factor, it's at least one motivator for a lot of the rebranding/logo redesigns that you're seeing.
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      I don't really buy that. I mean, maybe with older phones. But I guarantee 98% of people buying Balenciaga or YSL or Diane von Fürstenberg have an iPhone that is more than capable of displaying extremely fine detail very well.
EGreg 4y ago
Well, you can thank Jony Ive for taking over the UI as well as the hardware, and rebranding the entire iOS experience in his minimalistic image. Looks like a bunch of people went to do the same thing in OUP. They probably launched a campaign labeling the thing on the left “skeumorphism” or its equivalent. I remember when Apple’s interfaces were iconic and user friendly. Then in iOS 7 I couldn’t figure out where the chrome ended and the webpage/document began anymore. The search bar in Google Chrome on iOS was literally a blank white space. I had to tap there to discover search. Apple… known the world over as a UX leader for its UX guidelines since 1980s … became a follower … of Microsoft’s new mobile interface. Which was later totally discontinued by Microsoft. Well, at least Wozniak liked it. https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=234 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=234
jfengel 4y ago
Minimalism is also a tradition in logos. A logo needs to serve many purposes, one of which is being recognizable even under poor visibility. Many national flags are the height of minimal design, because one key goal for them was to be seen in battle so you knew where your side was. Modern technology has different reasons for a similar purpose. Resolution may be poor because of your screen or network rather than battle smoke, but the idea is similar. The OUP logo isn't a battle flag, and could afford more detail than this logo. But OUP is a living entity. Its history is important, but so are its ongoing contributions. They don't want people looking at their books and thinking, "This logo is very old-fashioned; maybe the book is also out of date." Were it me, I'd have at least hinted at its prior logo. To me, the problem with the new one isn't its minimalism, but its lack of personality. You don't need a lot to have personality; the Twitter logo is very much theirs. Even the Facebook "f" logo, dull as it is, at least has a letter linking to them. (A circle isn't an O; it might even have worked better if it were an O with the same theme.)
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Flag design can be too minimalistic. Indonesia is Poland distressed (and vice versa). (See: <https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-a-Union-Jack-Has-Been-Hung-Upside-Down https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-a-Union-Jack-Has-Been-Hung-U...> for general concept.) There are near-identical flags as well, including Chad and Romania, Indonesia (again) and Morocco, New Zealand and Australia, Ireland and Cote d'Ivoire, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, Senegal and Mali, and clusters such as the Nordics (blue/red cross/field), Latin America (yellow, blue, red), and Slavic states (white, blue, and red). <https://www.britannica.com/list/flags-that-look-alike https://www.britannica.com/list/flags-that-look-alike> There's the challenge between readily identified and readily distinguished.
  - murphyslab 4y ago
    My undergrad university went with too much minimalism. It replaced an stylized crest (anachronistic for a university founded in 1965) with a "red brick". Note that The Concrete University has no bricks to which this might be a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fraser_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fraser_University
ljm 4y ago
It reminds me of an old Digitiser article, called ‘Modern Game Logos are Rubbish’. It was written in 2016 and discussed the burgeoning trend of using a distressed Impact font for game titles and logos, but more generally a shift away from ‘fun’ looking logos. https://www.digitiser2000.com/main-page/modern-game-logos-are-rubbish https://www.digitiser2000.com/main-page/modern-game-logos-ar... From my simplistic outsider perspective, sometimes I think that designers read “perfection is not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away,” and take it so literally that logos and brands start to converge on a single style (simple coloured shapes, sans-serif font).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pvg 4y ago
In recent years I've noticed an acute shift to brutalism, minimalism and a loss of individuality in all facets of life. Is there really evidence of this? Those stylistic developments are 100+ old and have been part of everyday life for much of the last century. There's definitely been a much more recent uptick of commentary that's uncomfortably (and occasionally deliberately) close to some classic complaints about 'degenerate art'.

by tfsh 4y ago

pannSun 4y ago

Is it really 'neglect', when ornamentation is deliberately attacked and avoided [1,2]? When this [3] is what modern architecture thinks a church should look like? They'll give excuses that it's due to cost cutting, then build things like [4] when funding isn't an issue. Not that we should be surprised by lies - all war is waged by deception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime [2] https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/ornament-is-crime-celebrates-the-best-modernist-architecture-in-the-world/ https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/ornament-is-crime... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Memorial_Church#New_church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Memorial_Church... - The initial design included the demolition of the spire of the old church but following pressure from the public, it was decided to incorporate it into the new design. [4] https://www.format.com/magazine/galleries/design/best-contemporary-art-gallery-buildings https://www.format.com/magazine/galleries/design/best-contem...

boppo1 4y ago
Demoralisation
tsimionescu 4y ago
Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4 look breathtaking. They inspire a sense of awe and wonder in me - they don't look real or plausible in some way, but yet there they are, in the large. Having lots of ornamentation would very much detract from the un-real-ness of the surfaces. The church from 3 really does look atrocious though - though even there, the interior where you are surrounded by stained glass seems like it would be quite impressive to experience directly. Note that I also think other styles of monumental buildings are breathtaking. I was recently in Florence and could barely take my eyes off of the Santa Maria del Fiore cathedral (with its 19th century Gothic Revival facade), and similarly when I saw the Duomo in Milan or the San Pietro cathedral in Rome. But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different styles. Another stunning building was the Pantheon in Rome - which is extremely minimalistic when compared to medieval cathedrals, but still outstanding in its design (knowing you're walking into a >2000 year old building also adds to the feeling). I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with brutalism and invent something new after it, and there will also be beautfiul examples of that new thing, and horrible examples as well.
- pannSun 4y ago
  > Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4 look breathtaking. [..] But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different styles. And if there was a multitude of styles being built, I would be inclined to agree to disagree, subjective opinions will differ, and leave it at that. But they are not - 90%, if not more, of new buildings, especially large ones, all strive for that minimalist, steel & glass, unpleasant sterile aesthetic. It is not 30% modernist monstrosities, 30% art deco skycrapers, 30% art noveau, 10% classical revival. > I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with brutalism Ironically I am quite fond of some brutalist buildings. They can be quite pleasant. But if any of those count as brutalist, they are far too 'cold' for my taste. Again, that would not be a problem if it wasn't all of architecture striving for that same 'cold' aesthetic.

systemicdanna 4y ago

Perceived loss of individuality is frequently just an outcome of a design epoch change. Most logos that we thought were unique and had lots of individuality came from an era when that particular graphic design style was en vogue. Then later the logos were updated to better follow new trends (a vary fair desire for a business). Yes, Art Nouveau logos were pretty but the vast majority of logos in that era were designed in that style (so not some amazing level of individuality). Same with the sci-fi logos in the 80s (which I still think were ugly). Same with any other trend. Not really a question of individuality. > Not everything needs to be redesigned, not everything needs a modern sans-serif font. If the new typeface reads better then why not use it? If the new logo fits a wider variety of placements or prompts a better response from this generation then why not use it?

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Hard, hard disagree. This good article has been discussed before on HN: https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-logos-and-look-like-everyone-else https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-... It's not just a "perceived" loss of individuality. The new logos discussed in that linked article, especially the fashion ones, suck in my opinion because they're boring and they all look the same. They at least used to have some good degree of variability.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Design is of course a fashion business like most things. That said, a lot of traditional logos had a huge amount of fine detail that doesn't work well on mobile. While not the only factor, it's at least one motivator for a lot of the rebranding/logo redesigns that you're seeing.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    I don't really buy that. I mean, maybe with older phones. But I guarantee 98% of people buying Balenciaga or YSL or Diane von Fürstenberg have an iPhone that is more than capable of displaying extremely fine detail very well.

EGreg 4y ago

Well, you can thank Jony Ive for taking over the UI as well as the hardware, and rebranding the entire iOS experience in his minimalistic image. Looks like a bunch of people went to do the same thing in OUP. They probably launched a campaign labeling the thing on the left “skeumorphism” or its equivalent. I remember when Apple’s interfaces were iconic and user friendly. Then in iOS 7 I couldn’t figure out where the chrome ended and the webpage/document began anymore. The search bar in Google Chrome on iOS was literally a blank white space. I had to tap there to discover search. Apple… known the world over as a UX leader for its UX guidelines since 1980s … became a follower … of Microsoft’s new mobile interface. Which was later totally discontinued by Microsoft. Well, at least Wozniak liked it. https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=234 https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=234

jfengel 4y ago

Minimalism is also a tradition in logos. A logo needs to serve many purposes, one of which is being recognizable even under poor visibility. Many national flags are the height of minimal design, because one key goal for them was to be seen in battle so you knew where your side was. Modern technology has different reasons for a similar purpose. Resolution may be poor because of your screen or network rather than battle smoke, but the idea is similar. The OUP logo isn't a battle flag, and could afford more detail than this logo. But OUP is a living entity. Its history is important, but so are its ongoing contributions. They don't want people looking at their books and thinking, "This logo is very old-fashioned; maybe the book is also out of date." Were it me, I'd have at least hinted at its prior logo. To me, the problem with the new one isn't its minimalism, but its lack of personality. You don't need a lot to have personality; the Twitter logo is very much theirs. Even the Facebook "f" logo, dull as it is, at least has a letter linking to them. (A circle isn't an O; it might even have worked better if it were an O with the same theme.)

dredmorbius 4y ago
Flag design can be too minimalistic. Indonesia is Poland distressed (and vice versa). (See: <https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-a-Union-Jack-Has-Been-Hung-Upside-Down https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-a-Union-Jack-Has-Been-Hung-U...> for general concept.) There are near-identical flags as well, including Chad and Romania, Indonesia (again) and Morocco, New Zealand and Australia, Ireland and Cote d'Ivoire, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, Senegal and Mali, and clusters such as the Nordics (blue/red cross/field), Latin America (yellow, blue, red), and Slavic states (white, blue, and red). <https://www.britannica.com/list/flags-that-look-alike https://www.britannica.com/list/flags-that-look-alike> There's the challenge between readily identified and readily distinguished.
- murphyslab 4y ago
  My undergrad university went with too much minimalism. It replaced an stylized crest (anachronistic for a university founded in 1965) with a "red brick". Note that The Concrete University has no bricks to which this might be a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fraser_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fraser_University

ljm 4y ago

It reminds me of an old Digitiser article, called ‘Modern Game Logos are Rubbish’. It was written in 2016 and discussed the burgeoning trend of using a distressed Impact font for game titles and logos, but more generally a shift away from ‘fun’ looking logos. https://www.digitiser2000.com/main-page/modern-game-logos-are-rubbish https://www.digitiser2000.com/main-page/modern-game-logos-ar... From my simplistic outsider perspective, sometimes I think that designers read “perfection is not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away,” and take it so literally that logos and brands start to converge on a single style (simple coloured shapes, sans-serif font).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pvg 4y ago

In recent years I've noticed an acute shift to brutalism, minimalism and a loss of individuality in all facets of life. Is there really evidence of this? Those stylistic developments are 100+ old and have been part of everyday life for much of the last century. There's definitely been a much more recent uptick of commentary that's uncomfortably (and occasionally deliberately) close to some classic complaints about 'degenerate art'.