After I heard about the controversy in class I decided to google it and see what media had reported on it before reading the articles. Most of what was said was rather uninformed and invited commenters to call the logo various names, or state that they could have done better.
Seeing these comments I was not surprised when Michael Bierut mentioned them in his article "Graphic Design Criticism as a Spectator Sport." What he is saying is very, very true. People today seem to notice design and are willing to form an opinion about it without being informed or thinking about why things were changed.
This isn't something that is limited to design. Jumping to conclusions and calling somethings "stupid," "dumb," or "ugly." is the norm these days. You see it happen with movie casting choices, when a favorite competitor is eliminated from a reality tv show, or when an author decides to kill off a character. People are ready to defend the old ways and not be open to change, or to think about why that change has to happen.
In the case of the University of California logo the change was needed to unify all the different sections of the college. While the logo itself may not be the greatest thing, there was a very strong reason for wanting to have a logo that brought everything together. I think the biggest problem and why everyone decided to state their opinion was misinformation. If it had been very clearly explained right away what the new logo was doing I feel it could have gone by unnoticed. Sure, some may still have called it ugly, but the public outcry would have been much less.
I find it more a shame that the University did not stick to their guns. I think they should have as the designers who made the logo were from the University. Personally if I were looking to apply to college and heard all of this I would think twice about applying there. I would feel like the design department was stepped on and not defended as it should have been.
In the end, I think this whole debacle just hurt everyone and showed how misinformed people can be.
Good argument, Caroline.
ReplyDeleteI guess — and maybe this is consistent with Bierut — designers (and their clients) need to anticipate this kind of response, and manage it. Present the new systems more carefully, respectfully of the "audience" or other constituencies (alumni/ae who donate money, et al).
Anticipating it might also, perhaps, influence the design itself.