When I went to Carnegie Mellon in the 80's, they decided to update their logo with the infamous "tilted square." It was dreadful and was universally panned, even though it cost the university a fortune. [JF note: Here it is.]Happily, they gave up on it in favor of a plain wordmark, and today you can barely find any remnant of it. [JF: Here's the current version.]So, perhaps there is hope that UC will see the light.
Ah, I feel better now. When I was attending Carnegie-Mellon they decided to come-up with a new logo/branding to replace the very traditional court of arms/shield logo etc. As I understand it, something like $2 million dollars (early 80's) were spent to have as a logo a square, tilted at 14 degrees, with "Carnegie" and "Mellon" starting from inside the box and going outside it. Adding insult to injury they dropped the hyphenation. I think they have since moved-on to other imagery, but your posting of what the U.C system is looking to do makes me feel much better for it makes that horrendous decision by CMU look so very much better.
Cal's fundraising letter arrived in my mailbox right after I first saw the new allegedly-pre-approved-by-alumni graphic travesty. So, I've been suggesting an easy protest to all my UC alum friends: tell UC to get rid of that hideous logo. Run the new one by us first. Then we'll resume sending checks.On the other hand, maybe this was to be expected from a school where one of the ugliest buildings on campus houses the architecture department. [JF: Here's the building the alum is talking about, Wurster Hall at UCB.]
The obvious inspiration for the new logo. A UC professor connects the dots.I know it is more poignant when it strikes near home, but there has been an epidemic of bad university logos recently.I vacation in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and last summer was confronted with this for the first time (on a sign on M-28).With no text, I might add.Between this and the fiscal cliff, I fear we are doomed. [JF note: Hey, the fiscal cliff is not that bad.]
We here at Berkeley seem to uniformly hate the logo as well. I thought you might appreciate the following interpretation. A ... professor here at UC Berkeley, Mike Eisen, has added a pretty good take down of that monstrosity:
As a UCLA alumnus, I read your recent post on the new UC logo with interest and shared it on Facebook with friends and family (many of whom are also UC alumni or supporters). The consensus view was clearly negative. My hunch was that the logo had "designed by committee for a large consulting fee" written all over it. Other UC friends commented that the fading "C" represented diminishing educational standards or funding. But it was my brother who voiced probably the most concise and pointed assessment: "It looks like a toilet flush."I wonder if the designers didn't see what my brother perceived in mere seconds?
The problem with the new one is the fading letter "C", and the shield-like "U" (which might be that way to suggest solidity) that doesn't obviously scan as a U.I think a solid "C" and a more readable "U" isn't all that bad.Attached are six possibilities along that line.