A search of logos with wings turns up a pretty wide variety, but not many universities. Apparently a Griffin wing, this treatment is angular and sanitised and along with the silver and blue gives it a feel of a generic corporate entity. I think the wing has been abstracted so much it doesn’t really read convincingly as a wing.
The serif typeface chosen to ccompliment the graphic is a solid enough uppercase but doesn’t support the graphic as much as fight against it. I think a slab serif might have worked more sympathetically here.
Known as ‘the spark’ in the brand guidelines this a bold graphic device. It reminds of a volcano and such an obviously dynamic thing wouldn’t look out of place in a vorticist publication.
I found it vaguely reminiscent of the Illuminati Pyramid (which btw, is an entertaining 10 mins of crazy).
Whatever it suggests to me it’s certainly energetic, though quite a tricky shape to get text to work with. I don’t think the choice of a very heavy Futura provides any much needed variety to the logo. The overall feel is very dense and it would have been nice to see the typeface compliment the strength of the spark.
I couldn’t see anything in the guidelines explaining what the graphic element of this logo is all about. It looks like a scribbled starburst – perhaps signifying energy and dynamism in that oblique and abstract way that logos often claim to.
It certainly is lively and bold and as such a good a mark as any. More problematic for me is the combination of a Garamond-esque Uppercase ‘Solent’ in between some Gills Sans-ish ‘Southampton’ and “University’. The larger serifed S jars against the clean and confident nature of the rest of the logo. Strangely the uppercase serif seems a timid conservative choice in an otherwise sprightly idea.
Interesting use of Clerkenwell Regular – with a very curious extended serif of the descender of the lowercase p.
The wordmark reminds me of the Guardian identity with the different tints knocking back certain words, though it’s a good solution to a problem of differentiation that many former polytechnics face. The location and name are grouped and University is emphasised.
I like the modern and solid feel of the typeface, and the intention seems to be to take a lot of care with how the logo is used, as evidenced by the extensive guidelines were there is a lot of guidance on how to implement the university’s messages and tone of voice.
With a solid base underpinned by authority and heritage, they can be free to express their creativity and innovative nature.
From the development of the existing brand that has been undertaken by Neville Brody’s research studios.
The rollout of the new brand hasn’t made it to the main site at the time of writing, but the changes aren’t huge. With such a big reputation the RCA doesn’t need to try too hard with it’s identity, instead using it’s visual capital simply. A nicely drawn crest and some modern serifs is a pretty neutral understated treatmment that says ‘we are the Royal College, and we don’t need to shout about it’.
The use of an ornate rendering of a compass style pattern makes reference to the thing that Grennwich (the place) is most famous for – GMT. Drawing on the local resource in this way lets the relatively modern university align itself with the ricjh history of the place.
The Typography is neatly executed upper case reminiscent of more established universities. The lower case ‘of’ provided a nice linkage with the ornate compass face, which makes the the text around the circumference pretty redundant.
Puzzling little abstract logo that I presume is meant to be an abstraction of an ‘E’. The checkerboard pattern in two colours ends up looking like decorative edging rather than the focus that a logo should be. Allied to the very plain text the overall effect is pretty bland. A bit more adventure in the choice of typeface might have paid off here.
An unfortunate association when viewing the on the web is that purple is the colour of a visited link, making it something that one registers as something to pay less attention to.
The original, flat logo is an elegant combination of the letters creating a versatile and lasting brand. As covered on Daivid Airey’s logo love there is also a subtle nod to the historical use of shields in other university branding. I’m not sure what the addition of the gradients and shadow to the logo are meant to achieve. For me. they are just modish distractions from a basic classic.
Also worth mentioning is the University’s misson for distance learning meant that there was a very strong motion graphics component to the brand. Generations grew up with the Open University idents on day time and late night television as seen in this youtube video
Finally, I can’t mention the Open University without linking to this Fry and Laurie sketch.
Very simple and clear. Perhaps that’s why there is a reasonably comprehensive ‘Graphic Identity Toolkit’ explaining the correct and incorrect uses of this plain wordmark. In fact the rationale is explained in the toolkit. In answer to the question ‘Isn’t the logo a bit boring?
The logo is part of our graphic identity system, and is intended as a ‘stamp’ of identity. A simple design was chosen to maximise legibility and recognition across all applications. The burden is placed on other elements (content, tone of voice, photography, etc.) to convey our personality.
Also interesting is that having London as an integral part of the wordmark draws on the huge brand recognition of London, making it less important to create one’s own identity. The college being in London is a huge part if it’s identity.
Awarded University status in 1992, the University has used the trusty combination of a modern sans-serif combined with a nicely simplified crest. The typeface looks like a Univers – Futura combination, all kicked off with a very pointed ‘A’.