AGO's New Logo: Yay or Nay?
The AGO has a new logo, and this ... is it. Done by Toronto design overlord Bruce Mau, the new logo is -- well, to be honest, looking at it on the computer monitor like this is kind of giving me a headache. Or making me feel like I'm wearing those red and blue 3D glasses. I'm curious to see how it'll look when it's 100x this size.
Other than the cross-eyed feeling though, I kind of like this -- I think it's simple, but still interesting. Plus, in a year it's going to be so ubiquitous that we won't even remember what the old logo looked like. (Though if you're interested, here's a kind of neat logo retrospective that the AGO put together. I'm really liking the classiness of the 70s. (There's a sentence I never thought I'd type.))
Anyway, I think introducing a new logo is one of the hardest things you can do, as a brand. I can't remember a time in my life that a major company or organization has introduced a new logo that hasn't been met with heaps of criticism. Logos are hard: they're expected to both stand out and to fit in, to have the power of instant recognition but also longevity. That's a pretty tall order.
So I'm curious to hear what you all think -- yay or nay on the new logo?
Comments (39)
The new logo is very distinctive, which, I guess, is the point. However, it's also pretty damn ugly, too.
It's conditional, take that image and put it on an all black background and go full screen, then it rocks. Have it be surrounded by a bright white and it'll only hurt your eyes.
In that case I say yay.
Malcolm - I did just that. The logo looks great. I can imagine it blown up, will a full-on black background. I'm excited!
I think it's terrible. Why does the AGO need some weird 1997-throwback logo? I mean the only way they could now outdo themselves is to make it a flashing GIF. I think they'd be better off with something a bit more classically styled.
My first thought upon seeing that logo: chromatic abberation, a kind of defect in lenses that produces fringes of colour around edges of an image. Cheap cameras produce this kind of effect. That's the kind of message it sends to me, sorry...
yep that's awful.
It doesn't capture the essence of the gallery at all or make sense with the new design of the building. And it could force them to print everything including their letterhead in full color which will be brutally expensive.
If I pull back from the monitor a little bit, it kinda looks okay... maybe a little faux-3d action going on here. Otherwise? Big, fat, hairy NAY.
Sometimes I think Im the only one in the city who doesn't like Bruce Mau's typography. The Greenbelt signs seem bleh to me as well.
I quite like it, but then I'm a big fan of multi-coloured things. I think it feels a bit modern and a bit painterly all at once, appropriate for an art gallery.
I do want to see it on a white background though. It's hard to imagine it will have the same boldness as it does on black.
Oh, it's good. The hate-everything's at Torontoist hate it, but they hate everything except the thinest slice of bullshit.
It's good. IT'S GOOD. Let's move on.
Can someone recommend to me which pill I should order from Comfort Zone in order to understand this design?
Well I guess it could be worse. If it's one side of the fence or the other, I would have to go yay.
Now I have a sudden urge to spark it up.
I like it - could have been much worse (London 2008). And I trust Bruce Mau on anything his office does.
sweet jesus, the logo is triggering a migraine headache for me. thanks ago.
definite nay. i really hope that mau donated his services for this one...
Oops, I meant London 2012 as a bad logo, not 2008. Lisa Simpson on her knees has a habit of distracting one's mind.
It's not quite awful but it's not very good either. Neither is the AGO's collection, so in that context it's an effective logo.
... actually after looking at the retrospectius, I have to admit at least this is better than the 1990s. I never thought I'd say that either.
While I agree logos are a big part of a brand, here's the important question:
Can anyone picture in their mind the current logo of ANY major gallery in the world?
I'm not as passionate as some when it comes to art, but I do love it and I do a lot of art studies, and I can't. MoMA? The Met? Guggenheim? Louvre? Hermitage? British Museum? Uffizi? Our own National Gallery in Ottawa? Does anyone know off the top of their head what their logos look like? I'm not even sure anyone cares. It's the repute of their collections that's what sticks in people's minds.
So while this logo might not last fifty years, I'm not terribly bothered. I think it looks just fine, and interesting enough to capture my interest for a decade or so.
I think it serves its purpose -- it adds a new facet to the continually evolving identity of the gallery, and will be only one of many, many logos in a long line. It doesn't NEED to be the one-all, be-all.
wait, that doesn't make any sense... that'll learn me to try to be clever in a public forum before I finish my second coffee. Well it probably won't but it should.
I wonder how this looks with 3-D glasses...
I like the idea, but the font is awful. It does look awfully 1997, and at first glance so does the colour scheme...but I think the colours are actually quite nice and work well.
what in the world was wrong with the old one? it was perfect.
this new one is hideous, absolutely hideous. i am REALLY interested in hearing what in the world they are trying to convey here. old was truly gold.
I dunno. The new logo is visually stunning (and visually boggling) indeed, so it's nice and modern in that respect. I think all the negativity from this forum (and other AGO patrons) comes from the fact that it's such a drastic departure from the more simple and "classic" logo it had before. Think of the ROM's old Times New Roman font, and think of the "Renaissance ROM" script. Looks nice, but just not what we're used to. That kind of change is sure to get some eyes wide open... That being said, the new logo is "hip" and "modern," shall we say?
lacks curiosity - primarily due to absence of any typographic uniqueness. it's not something that will grow on me. it's going to stay as it is. non-provocative, banal, vanilla of sorts.
does the job though.
The 1971 one is nice and clean. The curly little butterfly in its 1969 predecessor is downright cute, and arguably the most abstractly logo-like of them all. Fans of the subway typeface should enjoy the 1947 wordmark (not really a logo). And for those who say "I liked the old one best," well, it is hard to argue with what they used at least once in 1914.
Found this link that features the AGO logo transformation
You can see a lot of other logo transformations too, some logo mash ups and funny stuff
Its too early to tell. Would like to see how the logo will be used..
My suggestion is to have a animated logo on the building using projections or tv moniters
The world continues to be fleeced by BMD. Step back and ask yourself this: for all the rationalisation and pontifications put forward by BMD each time they release a new corporate logo, why do the logos all feel "kinda" the same?
Slightly different typefaces used, some visual trick added (today, the multi-coloured AGO overlaps); ultimately he consistently fails to create something unique, considering how different the design briefs from the client must be.
It's the repetition that makes me want to label BMD's process and pricing a fraud.
But if clients can't see that, then these clients deserve what they get.
View More Events
Suggest an Event
Join the blogTO Flickr group
Join the blogTO YouTube Group
RSS
