3 ms·

"They didn't plan on abolishing the UC Berkeley seal as many UCB students thought; this is only to unify the image of all UC's." Yes which as a designer, reall

by colmvp 14y ago

"They didn't plan on abolishing the UC Berkeley seal as many UCB students thought; this is only to unify the image of all UC's." Yes which as a designer, really annoys me. The thousands of people who berated the logo and team who designed it simply did not understand what was being replaced nor the full context. I think the new identity is vastly superior to the existing branding. Here is a proper comparison: http://minesf.com/resources/cca/2012/12/13/why-the-university-of-california-re-brand-is-better-than-you-think/ http://minesf.com/resources/cca/2012/12/13/why-the-universit... http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ic_uc_we_all_c_for_california.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ic_uc_we... An identity is more than just a logo it's an entire system. And I think it's far better than what people give it credit for.

jlgreco 14y ago
Regardless of what isn't being replaced, and what is being replaced, it is still ugly as hell. Being marginally better than what it actually is replacing is a pretty poor defense.
- colmvp 14y ago
  I had the same gut reaction, but after seeing it's application I actually like it. I don't love it, but it's definitely fresher than the vast majority of academic identities. And it's not replacing the crest which remains it's separate entity.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    That gradient makes my eyes want to vomit, no matter what it is being used for. This logo is ugly regardless of application.
officemonkey 14y ago
I believe there are two failures here: one is design. The other is communication. It's fair to argue that the design/branding was better or worse. I happen to think the new logo looked insipid. The rest of the branding seems to stand up better. However I think we all should agree that the communication regarding the branding was a travesty. This doesn't seem to be the designer's fault, but they're catching most of the blame. What I don't like about the original article is the "your opinion is wrong and here's why" attitude. Telling people that they are wrong up front is another communication failure.
- bcoates 14y ago
  If the designer is responsible for the video in the OP that unambiguously establishes that the logo is replacing the seal, then it is their fault.

by colmvp 14y ago

jlgreco 14y ago

Regardless of what isn't being replaced, and what is being replaced, it is still ugly as hell. Being marginally better than what it actually is replacing is a pretty poor defense.

colmvp 14y ago
I had the same gut reaction, but after seeing it's application I actually like it. I don't love it, but it's definitely fresher than the vast majority of academic identities. And it's not replacing the crest which remains it's separate entity.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  That gradient makes my eyes want to vomit, no matter what it is being used for. This logo is ugly regardless of application.

officemonkey 14y ago

I believe there are two failures here: one is design. The other is communication. It's fair to argue that the design/branding was better or worse. I happen to think the new logo looked insipid. The rest of the branding seems to stand up better. However I think we all should agree that the communication regarding the branding was a travesty. This doesn't seem to be the designer's fault, but they're catching most of the blame. What I don't like about the original article is the "your opinion is wrong and here's why" attitude. Telling people that they are wrong up front is another communication failure.

bcoates 14y ago
If the designer is responsible for the video in the OP that unambiguously establishes that the logo is replacing the seal, then it is their fault.