The UC logo controversy: How 54,000 people, the mainstream press and virtually every designer got it wrong
This image of the minimally updated seal next to
the new UC monogram was published by the North County
Times, the Los Angeles
Times, The Daily Californian and the San Diego Union-Tribune, among others.
The design blog Brand New was the only media outlet that got the “before” and “after” right. (Brand New)
A sampling of the old materials based around the old—now revived—identity. (Compiled by Christopher Simmons)
A sampling of some newer materials, created under the new—now defunct—brand guidelines. (Compiled by Christopher Simmons)
Ed. Note: This article is based on a piece originally posted to
Christopher Simmons’ blog, Teaching Design, on December 13, 2012.
By now there must be few
people who are unaware of the recent uproar surrounding the University of
California’s rebranding effort. The controversial redesign was reported by
outlets ranging from the Huffington Post
to the Christian Science Monitor to
the British Daily Mail. Seldom does
the media take such an active interest in design, so it was disheartening (to
say the least) that they got their reporting so very, very wrong. The outcome
of that misreporting—fueled by an online petition and fanned by our very own
design community—has set back the course of design and cheated the University
of California out of a progressive new identity.
The Controversy
At the heart of the
controversy was the impression that the UC System’s new monogram was to replace
the traditional seal. This was never the case. The seal and the monogram were
always intended to coexist as part of the UC’s overall identity system. The
seal was to be used on official university materials such as stationery and
diplomas, while the monogram would be used as part of a visual identity system
on marketing and promotional materials. The monogram, and the visual language
that supported it, were part of a separate, concurrent system designed to augment the
existing identity, not supplant it. In fact, the new system had already
been in use for a little more than a year when the controversy suddenly
erupted, according to Vanessa Correa, the UC creative director who led the
rebranding initiative. “It appeared on every campus, in a national advertising
campaign, across systemwide human resources materials and on a variety of
websites,” she explains. “The new identity was just beginning to create a dynamic
and recognizable voice for the system.”
That voice was challenged on
December 7, 2012 when Reaz Rahman, a 21-year-old biomedical engineering student
at UC Irvine, launched his “Stop the new UC logo” petition on
Change.org. A week later, following national media scrutiny and some 54,000-plus
signatories to the petition, that voice was, inevitably, silenced. In a press
release, Daniel M. Dooley, senior vice president for external relations at the
University of California Office of the President announced that the logo would be
eliminated from the identity system. Indeed, the system itself has now been
tabled.
So why did so many
people assume the monogram would replace the seal? Two reasons stand out.
Foremost is the way in which the media depicted the new identity, presenting
the logo in isolation from the rest of the system. The North County
Times, for example, exhibited the minimally updated seal next to
the new UC monogram as an example of before-and-after. They weren’t the only
ones. The Los Angeles
Times ran the same image. So
did ABC news, The Daily Californian and the San Diego Union-Tribune,
as did countless blogs and other news syndicates. The Mercury News and SFist at least used the original
seal, but still stated that the monogram was its replacement.
Juxtaposing the seal and the
monogram side-by-side (with the familiar-looking seal on the left and the
new-looking monogram on the right) strongly implies a before-and-after
relationship. This is a matter of visual literacy and an unfortunate failure of
communication design. Since this same image was used on Rahman’s Change.org petition, perhaps this is why so
many of its supporters were under the misapprehension that the seal was being
replaced. The design blog Brand New was the only media outlet, to my knowledge, that
got the before and after right.
The second reason probably
has to do with the online video put out
by University of California on November 14. Many apparently interpreted the
imagery in the video—such as the brushing away of the seal and the crossing out
of the motto—as indicative of the new identity’s disregard of the past. The
intent of the video, which Correa stresses was supposed to be a supplement to the extensive
online identity guidelines, was to explain how the two marks—the seal and the
logo—relate to each other. Explains Correa, “The beginning shows the seal as
the conceptual genesis for the system, while the end underscores the seal as an
integral part of the new visual family.”
Regardless of intent,
interpreting this symbolism as sweeping away the old in favor of the new is a
fair inference, especially absent the context of the more explicit
guidelines. Anyone already incensed by the perceived abandonment of the
traditional seal would only have his or her fears confirmed by watching this
video.
Not surprisingly, the
petition’s Facebook page was soon rife with comments
deriding the new logo and imploring the University to “keep it as it
is!” Posters and signatories professed their love for the seal and
bemoaned the abandonment of the motto “Let There be Light.” These would have
been fair laments, if only the seal were being replaced or the motto
changed.
In his official press
release, Dooley made one last effort to clarify the relationship of the seal to
the logo, the logo to the system and the system to the brand. But it was to no
avail. As with the reporting that preceded it, people were only listening for
one thing. Cheers erupted in the design critique I was attending when someone
texted the news, “They killed the new UC logo!”
It’s not about the logo
“Designers too often judge
logos separate from their system…without understanding that one can’t function
without the other,” noted Paula Scher, when I asked her views on the controversy.
“It’s the kit of parts that creates a contemporary visual language and makes an
identity recognizable, not just the logo. But often the debate centers on
whether or not someone likes the form of the logo, or whether the
kerning is right.” While acknowledging that all details are
important, Scher also calls these quibbles “silly.”
“No designer on the outside
of the organization at hand is really qualified to render an informed opinion
about a massive identity system until it’s been around and in practice for
about a year,” she explained. “One has to observe it functioning in every form
of media to determine the entire effect. This [was] especially true in the
UC case.”
In the slideshow above, then, is a sampling of
the old materials based around the old (now revived) identity, as well as a sampling of some newer
materials, created under the new (now defunct) brand guidelines. If we contrast these before-and after-exhibits,
we start to appreciate how an identity is a system and not just a logo. If we further consider the fact
that the seal and monogram were to coexist in separate orbits, we begin to form
a more complete understanding of the new identity. Yes, it is progressive, and
yes, it is uncharacteristic of other universities. One assumes that
these choices were intentional. Clearly it was too progressive and too
uncharacteristic for the 54,000-plus signatories of the petition and the many
designers who prematurely panned it on design blogs and in the press.
It’s about the discourse
Catalyzed by Rahman’s
petition, a vigorous and often intensely emotional outpouring of opinion
rapidly ensued. But rather than engaging in a thoughtful discussion around
the complex issue of evolving an institutional identity, social media and the
mainstream press were awash with reactionary articles and borderline reporting.
Take this article from Salon.com which quotes an individual
identified as a blogger as saying, “It looks like a Swedish flag being flushed
down the toilet.” It may be worth noting that this same blogger also suggested that if one were to
turn the logo upside down, flip it and look at it just right, it kind of looks
like the backside of an elephant. This may be a valid individual opinion, but
it is not a situationally relevant one.
The Los Angeles Times quoted “one twitter user” as saying, “New UC logo is an
abomination. Back to the drawing board.” Again, a valid personal opinion, but
not a publicly constructive one.
The SFEgotist broke the news by writing,
“Yesterday, the University of California debuted their rebrand—and proved in
the process how important it is to have a professional do your logo. We can’t
even express how poorly done the new one is. So maybe you can help us. Put your
thoughts on the UC logo in the comments. And try not to puke on your keyboard
when you do.” That’s the entirety of their post; 63 words that basically say, “Give
us your opinion of why this sucks.”
“There
is confusion between having an opinion and having a relevant opinion,” said Correa.
“This results in even less productive social discourse around everything—not
just design; it’s a basic misunderstanding of democracy.”
Rahman sees things
differently. Although he regrets the tenor of the conversation, he defends his
decision to launch the petition. “Sometimes undermining leadership is necessary
when unacceptable decisions are made,” he explains. “Garnering 3,000 opinions,
as they did with the now disposed monogram, is a paltry representation of the
entire UC community of more than 234,000 students, 207,000 faculty, 50,000
retirees and 1.6 million living alumni.” The outcome, he says, was a victory
for democracy.
Design as a discipline is
challenged by this notion of democracy, particularly in a viral age. We have
become a culture mistrustful of expertise—in particular creative expertise. I
share Correa’s fear that this cultural position stifles design, as designers
increasingly lose ownership of the discourse. “If deep knowledge in these
fields is weighed against the ‘likes’ and ‘tastes’ of the populace at large,”
she warns, “we will create a climate that does not encourage visual or aesthetic
exploration, play or inventiveness, since the new is often soundly
refused.”
This is not to suggest that
design outcomes are immune from criticism, or that they may only be criticized
by insiders or experts. But critique, by definition, must be based on
informed—not personal—opinion. Although the collective opinion and aesthetic
taste of one’s audience and the culture at large must always be considered,
respected and valued, it is important to remember that design is a discipline
that exists in part to identify new opportunities for
communication—opportunities that the general public usually doesn’t see.
Leaders exist because of
their unique ability to envision and direct such possibilities. Designers
exist for the same reason, and because of their ability to give those
possibilities form. In virtually every arena—save perhaps U.S. currency and, it
seems, identities for American universities—design looks and functions very
differently today than it did a decade ago (let alone a century ago). This
is not because the public rallied together to demand more progressive
design. It is because leaders articulated bold new visions, technologies
offered new opportunities for communication and designers met those challenges
and opportunities with suitably innovative solutions,
often against substantial public resistance.
But on what basis, other than
a comfortable familiarity with the status quo, is
that resistance typically founded?
In the case of the UC
rebrand, almost everyone engaged in the “critique” of the new
identity—designers included—did so based on very little information. What was
the brief? What challenges is the UC system facing? What is their long-term
plan? What are other institutions doing? What is the assessment of the current
identity? What audiences are they trying to reach? These are critical
considerations that no doubt precipitated and drove the design process. But
throughout this controversy, no one wrote about the strategy behind the new
identity. In fact, no one wrote about the identity. Instead we fixated on one
deliverable of a thoughtfully considered design process: the logo.
Design is a process, not just
an outcome
Non-designers commonly use
the term “design” as a noun to describe the result of designing—in other
words, the way a thing looks. But to design means “to plan and fashion the
form and structure of an object, work of art, etc.” Any critical
conversation about design must, therefore, include some consideration of the
factors that framed that plan. There are reasons why this
identity system was introduced. There is a purpose it was meant to achieve. Do
we know those reasons? Do we know that purpose? We do not. To condemn a
thing solely on the basis of
how it looks (or on assumptions of how much it may have cost) without accounting
for the context within which it was created and within which it must operate is
exactly the kind of bias from which institutions like the University of
California exist to liberate us.
Rather than making an effort
to understand the outcome or the process that formed it, the response in all
quarters was uniformly reactionary: an online petition; an open letter from California’s Lietenant
Governor; students proposing their own logo ideas; competitions to crowd-source
a redesign; hundreds of derisive comments, tweets and posts. Worse, many
(though notably and commendably not Rahman) voiced their reactions
with vitriol and dismissive condescension for the only people who actually know
all the facts—the design team behind the new identity. Perhaps worst of all,
there was no shortage of designers willing to pile fuel on the fire.
Yes, once again, designers
are the problem. I’m not talking about the designers who created this
surprisingly controversial identity. I'm talking about everyone else. I’m
talking about the haters. Designers who want the profession—and themselves—to
be taken seriously need to be asking questions that get to the core of the motivations
and goals that frame a project before passing judgment on the outcome.
Otherwise our “criticism” is simply subjective. And if and when we do criticize
the work of fellow professionals, we should strive to do so in an informed and
civil manner. That sounds like advice your mother might give you, but it
actually comes from AIGA’s Design Business and Ethics: “A professional designer shall be
objective and balanced in criticizing another designer’s work and shall not
denigrate the work or reputation of a fellow designer.”
Writing “the logo sucks” may
garner a bevy of Facebook “likes” but it doesn’t do any favors for our
professional profile. While we collectively lament that the term “graphic
design” has been marginalized over the years to simply mean “decorator,” let’s
acknowledge that our summary dismissal of the UC identity based on the look of
a single element has made designers the most culpable participants in that
redefinition and the most damaging contributors to our own demise.
Not only that, but designers
who publicly jumped on the anti-logo bandwagon in interviews for television,
radio, blogs and newspapers have helped to undermine our own professional
relevance. “Design by committee” has long been the nemesis of designers who
aspire to create progressive (or often just credible) work. If you think
answering to a committee of 12 people makes for a compromised design, try a mob
of 50,000.
So, rather that blasting the
next new logo, let’s start
conversations about the identities of
which they are a part. And let’s help people understand the distinction.
Let’s stop making jokes
about toilets and elephant asses and start talking about strategy.
Let’s remember that real
people work really hard on these projects, and keep our criticisms civil and
professional. And let’s make sure we’re informed before we offer that criticism
to the press, our peers and our social networks.
Let’s consider supporting our
fellow designers rather than tearing them down (whether or not we happen to “like”
the work they do).
Let’s have some faith in the
leadership of organizations like the University of California and the talent of
the communications team in whom their faith is placed.
And let’s, as Scher implores,
“Have real discourse, not tweets, about the goals, purpose and
functionality of identity design in the 21st century.”
About the Author:
Christopher Simmons is a Canadian-born, San Francisco-based designer,
writer, educator and design advocate, and principal/creative director of the
San Francisco Design office, MINE™. He is a former AIGA chapter president (San Francisco, 2004-2006) and an adjunct professor of design
at the California College of the Arts.
This post was submitted by an individual AIGA member and may have been published without review. It does not necessarily reflect the views of AIGA as an organization. Please
notify an editor if you notice information that is incorrect or in violation of any copyright or trademark. AIGA members may
submit posts here.