May 15, 2008
AGO Unveils "Bold New Logo"
Torontoist presents an imagined inside look at the creative process behind the AGO's shiny new logo, above.
Designer: Bruce Mau
Client: Art Gallery of Ontario
Due: May 15, 2008
Creative Brief: Design a "distinctive new logo that will represent the Gallery well beyond its Fall 2008 opening." Logo should capture "both the stability of the century-old institution and the forward-looking energy of the new Gallery."
(If that proves too challenging, refer to graphic design portfolio created while at OCAD, circa 1977.)
Creative Tasklist:
1. Open MS Word.
2. Choose primary font. Helvetica? Too advertisement-y. Verdana? Too webby. IMPACT? Done!
3. Art meets fashion: borrow colour palette from H & M Spring/Summer 2008.
4. Open MS Paint. Also, a serious bottle of whiskey.
5. Copy. Paste. Click. Drag. Over. And over.
6. LSD flashback!
7. Examine finished product. Worry someone might think it's a joke. Remember that you are very Big in Toronto and could probably shit out the letters AGO and get an award for it.
Write a serious artistic statement, just in case.
"The Art Gallery of Ontario is relaunching with a renewed mission to bring art and people together to experience spaces that are dynamic yet timeless, popular yet iconic," says Bruce Mau. "The new logo is similarly imbued with fluid motion and spontaneity, counterbalanced by stability and legibility."
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Hrmmmm. Actually, my first impression is surprisingly not too bad! I think the mis-aligned, multi-colour overlapping is echoing some early 80s designs that suggested multi-colour printing with poor registration. This is a bit more slick and intentional-looking.
On the other hand, maybe it's a bit too 1960s pop art? Still, looks pretty nice on the black background.
I dunno, I think I'm gonna have to see it in context before I can be strongly for or against it.
I like it! :)
(PS - typeface)
do i really have to explain why i said "font" instead of "typeface"?
reminds me of the neon sculpture on the north- east side of the AGO that they just trashed.
um..north-west...bzzzzzzzz.
That is a fuckn' awesome logo.
Perhaps Sarah could give us some examples of what she believes is good logo design so we can put her silly criticism into context.
bad logo design: London 2012
good logo design: London 2012
Are you sure the Mau people didn't just open Photoshop and run the Bruce Mau filter? Would have freed up some time and attention for filling out RFPs and returning sales inquiry calls.
I lol'd pretty hard.
Still, I have to agree with spacejack that it doesn't look bad, especially next to the horrendous London 2012 example. Maybe I'll boycott those games, too.
Um, yeah, I like it.
I kinda love it, and I even like the way it would look when faxed, which I thought would be a hot mess.
i also think it's not that bad, especially, yes, compared to that first shockingly hideous london 2012 thing. the colours are nice, i guess.
i also also think it's not nearly worth the presumably stratospheric amount they paid the designer. and i maintain that it looks like something out of a 20, maybe 30 year old design portfolio. or like the fancy cover title of one of my little sister's school projects.
This logo would be fine if the AGO only housed pop and post-modern art, but it doesn't. It looks like it took all of 5 minutes to design, and even less time spent thinking about it.
Can't argue with that. Does look pretty straight-forward. If I might ask: What were we looking for? Many logos and corporate designs these days are simple and straight-forward (terms like 'clean' and 'sleek' seem to have some cachet), likewise too the practice of offsetting the placement of the logo (down and to the left = edgy).
I'd also like to acknowledge that my first reaction was the same as reetdoontoon's. I was reminded of the neon installation.
I think its OK, overall.
As someone unschooled in all things art, my first thought was that this would look more at home hanging outside a museum dedicated to Andy Warhol. I would prefer something classier.
I like this logo. It is bright, colourful, and immediately recognizable. Very retro-future.
Not terrible, not great, just mediocre. Apparently, Toronto loves mediocrity.
I would have hoped for something more timeless. The logo does have a Pop-Art/80s vibe, which in itself is not bad, but doesn't quite fit for a century-old institution. Why not a little Art Deco or Art Nouveau? Two of my personal favourites.
Hey, anyone that can shit out the letters A, G and O does deserve and award.
For something, anyway.
I think A would be the hardest. G and O would probably come easier.
It falls far below mediocrity, it looks horrid, poorly thought out, lacked any imagination, no creativity, no vision, lame, embarrassing to the Gallery, and on and on. If they came up with that, no chance they ever tried LSD or and mind or mood altering substance or they would never have put that trite piece of sh-- out there.
"retro-future"? do you even know what that means? like, zero.
Mark, those faxed versions are totally boss.
Your task list is facile. Look at the counters of G and O, and the legs of A. There's variation in width and height. It is a bit too similar to Impact for my taste, though.
It's not bad, although I'd be interested to see how it would look in monochrome for a letterhead.
reetdoontoon: I has assumed the logo was meant to refer to that neon sculpture. I had no idea it had been removed.
RE: Lostracco
It looks far better faxed. It looks like something out a sixties film's animated opening title sequence, and not in a good way (like Pink Panter).
Like, like? What's with the freaking overuse of the word "like," which means, like, nothing. And yes, I know what Retro Future means to me. Check out http://www.discogs.com/release/1096228 Here's an artist who was producing music and photos before you were, like, born, omigod!
this logo is facile. but i'm glad people like it. honest. perhaps it will grow on me, the way coloured tights did, or the globe and mail redesign, or the idea of breakfast sandwiches at starbucks.
and i like it faxed too! a happy compromise.
doggiez: "approximately, zero." is that better? and retro future may be an album title, but i don't think that's been a criteria for an expression actually meaning something since, yes, way before i was born.
There's the famous story about the huge client who hired the big name designer to come up with a new logo.
They spend an hour or two briefing the job, and at the end of the briefing, the designer scribbles for a minute or two on a piece of paper and slides it across the table.
"There's your logo."
"WTF!", say the clients. "You have months to work on it! This took you 2 minutes."
The designer, who was 43, says "No. It took me 43 years and two minutes."
The end.
Liking this or not liking it is obviously subjective, but some of the reasons for not liking it posted here seem kind of silly.
A few things:
If anyone really wants to know where the "big idea" came from for this logo please refer to Bruce Mau's book – Lifestyle. Check page 89 or something... and the truth will be revealed.
It was a ground breaking idea 12 years ago, but now, it's just a recycled design – I have no problems recycling work, but when a client approves it or when it's published in one of phaidons best selling books i think it's time to dig a little deeper into the originality bin – especially for public brand like the AGO.
secondly, who faxes anymore?
Davedave: Yep. Think also of Whistler, whose Nocturne paintings were so famously compared to a "pot of paint."
I like it fine. Looks like the AGO on a sugar high. Could be better, could be worse, but what's going to stop them from redoing the logo again in several years? I hated the ROM logo redesign much more, and I still haven't warmed up to it.
I don't like it. I don't think this is a successful visualisation of "fluid motion and spontaneity, counterbalanced by stability and legibility." Not by a long shot.
As other people have mentioned, the font is brutal and the style looks dated and seems too fixed in the 'pop art' genre to seriously represent an institution with a collection as varied as the AGO's.
I just think this is an unimaginative and inappropriate failure. But what do I know, I guess they like it.
I may not know about art, but I know what I like!
And I like this logo.
On the plus side it wasn't designed by Liebeskind.
Faxing may be on the outs, but there are countless other media where this logo will have to be rendered in black and white or a single spot colour.
@32: Photocopying, perhaps?
(I mean, we still *photocopy*, right? RIGHT? Am I so old?!)
We still fax at my work.
My first impression was that I don't like it. It is mediocre at best. It looks like a logo for tripped out Sesame Street program. I wouldn't want to deal with the hassles involved in using this in a smaller font. They could have done better. It's disappointing.
i hate when people find fault in a logo because of a stupid production value... who cares how it faxes/photocopies... manage the design system properly and all will be well — any good designer will make one colour or tonal iterations before it's released into the wild... and this logo does.
So many amazing logos have never seen the light of day because some twit project manager or client doesn't think it will fax.
i said it once, and i will say it again... who cares about faxes... faxes are about the content, not the design.
i find it funny, that people skim past the fact that it is a completely recycled identity and only comment on whether or not it faxes...
YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF FISH!!!
coming up with such a tasklist is so provincial and conservative.
style & substance editor. doh.
Yespar - If a design doesn't work in reality, it doesn't work.
Things have to be faxed, shrunk down for business cards, embossed in metal, put in grey scale on newsprint, knocked out on Pantone 526, printed only in solid Pantone 117, put on clear plastic, et cetera.
Torontoist isn't a design forum, but in the design forums and here at work, everyone's calling it a throwback to the 80s or part of the related 'new ugly' (London 2012). Designers don't like it.
And it's my experience that twit managers and clients are the ones who want things that only work in a single execution, because production is an abstract concept to them.
tyrannosaurus_rek:
So it's clear you are a production artist and not a designer...
My original comment was not about design or production in anyway – it was about how the logo was great 12 years ago when it was originally designed... (and it worked then, even in a world where a facsimile transmission was the thing of the future).
I simply asked a question about who faxes anymore – and Gloria responded that she did — Thank you Gloria, i too have faxed a few pages this year — It was you my friend that began the discussion of production values.
and as mentioned before, each and everyone of your wonderful ways of reproducing the logo — even knocked out of PMS 526 —is possible with the design of a good identity system. That said, a good identity system would most likely restrict the logo from being knockout or reproduced in some random colour.
2nd thought: looks nice big. Small, as it will be in many many many advertisements for events that AGO is part of, the colours and design elements aren't as visible. Business cards will look fine, I guess - are they going to be black business cards with white type? That would be rad. But there are worse logos. Many, many many.
I always have to sway clients away from horrible things they want in their logos, like weird gradients, ridiculous bevels, or overcomplicated, hackneyed, and unnecessary elements. As a guy who does a lot of TV work, I've also been on the receiving end of some existing logo that looks OK in print, but is an utter disaster in a 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio.
As rek said, logos have to look good in all different sizes and elements, and it's not up to the designer to dictate where these will be used—because the client will use it absolutely everywhere, including in ways that make designers weep.
As an example, Canwest recently redesigned their logo from a totally uncreative, overcomplicated, dry, and corporate-looking globe to a simpler, more striking honeycomb logo. The Toronto Sun's last wordmark redesign (from the iconic round ball to the cheap-looking red box), on the other hand, was a step back.
Logos: serious business. Also, lots of companies still use faxes all the time. I do for signing quick contracts and agreements. I'm not going to sign a paper, scan it, and then email a big-ass JPG just so they can print it out when they receive it.
Retro future means "what popular culture thought the future would look like in a past era."
Like the Jetsons is retro future.
addendum:
page 176 – 190
16 years ago
and can we stop talking about production values — i can all but guarantee they have all been taken into consideration... but thank you for the glorious recount of what could happen to your contract signing process if the fax no longer existed.
ps. save the environment use pdf's.
@Kevin: But The Jetsons wasn't ever intended as retro-future. Now something like The Venture Bros., which often satirizes that sort of jet-age mentality, makes excellent use of the retro-future concept.
Ms. Prickett,
You have cause to be proud. Another article trailed by a long, robust chain of comments.
Bravo.
DaveDave:
sorry, but i have to agree with Ms Prickett.
her reasons for not liking it are subjective. but hey, so are most (read: all) articles on Torontoist.
to put it politely, the logo does look like shit. it looks like someone had leftover pastel cardboard from a previous not-to-be-named AGO exhibit and cut out the letters with it and voila! a logo!
i feel like i need 3D glasses to see it properly. perhaps i will see a dinosaur when i stare at it for 30 seconds?
and these comments about faxing it are fucktarded. i've been an AGO member for 4 years and i have yet to receive a fax from them.
Perhaps they should also have a logo that looks good on 8-track tapes?
It's shiteous. The H & M colour palette is so cheap.
I just designed a logo for what could be the best word ever.
Fucktarted
ive used multiple overlapping fonts and colours. And I just faxed it to myself and it is glorious
In case anyone's interested, here's are 60 pixel versions in colour and grey.
Though it's worth noting that when the designer makes small versions, they might not just open photoshop elements 2.0 and set image size to 60x60.
Is the black square part of the logo? If so, that's kinda cool.
I think it looks quite good, but rek is right about making sure it works on various surfaces and print methods. The fax test is useful.
Also, would it still look good on several different colours of T-shirts? On a leather jacket?
Good examples you cited Marc, Canwest made a huge improvement while the Sun took a small step backwards.
Yespar - You brought up production as a non-issue; and the point of your comment was not "hardly anyone faxes anyway". Then you lamented the death of great designs because they were completely unrealistic, boo hoo.
I'm both a designer and a production artist, thank you very much.
In my production duties I'm forced to work with reality, not the esoteric and unrealistic expectations of pure design. Much like how numerous studios and agencies are forced to correct Mau's shitacular work when his clients show him the door, production designers have to find ways to make ridiculous design decisions work wherever the client and media buyers have decided it's going to go.
If a logo doesn't work in a black and white newspaper ad, etched in glass, on a patterned background, at 5/16" wide, or when you look at it sideways, some production designer is going to have to fix it. These production considerations are necessities, not niceties.
But regardless of faxes and etched glass mugs, the full-sized colour version of this logo is garbage.