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.
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.
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.
Using Gill Sans in white on a blue background seems a pretty safe, modern-ish option for this logo, but it’s then accompanied by a particularly awkward gold ‘S’ curve on a pale blue square. It’s not immediately obvious what (if anything) the shape is alluding to which only makes the random nature of the curve worse. It certainly isn’t a graceful shape, not helped by the way that it protrudes out of the top of the box.
The brand guidelines do a valiant job of defending the space around the logo to make it work, but I’m not sure the idea of an abstract shape that can be used to provide some suggestion of dynamism or energy works when the shape is so distracting and puzzling.
Simple Helvetica in a square. Making the most of the London location in a similar way to Imperial College.
A Case Study on the Kingston brand describes how the overall strategy is to ‘tell the university’s story’ and as a consequence the logo seems to be a less important element in the overall approach. Overall not a great deal to like or dislike.
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.
A shape that reminds me of pictures of an eclipse combined with curious shaped serifs on a three letter abbreviation which puts me in mind of a nineties Corporate Document Wallet and a profitable but dull business.
The aforementioned serifs are very exaggerrated in what seems to be an attempt to give a modern, dyanmic feel to the text but doesn’t really work for me. The nicest part of the whole wordmark is the simple Glasgow Caledonian University text. I think it works in contrast to the unresolved other elements of the logo.
Strangely, the logo works much better on the website where all the elements are more unified by being on the same line.
I think the shape itself is a pretty appealing, with now jarring sharp angles or edges. It’s a prototypical unthreatening shape. Vaguely dynamic in a clincal way. The typography contained within is a nice contrast. Very specifically, Helvetica Neue LT Pro is the typeface – adding to the medical feel.
The most interesting information gleaned from the guidelines is the system of specific graphic devices designed to use the logo in an illustrative capacity.
Called the ‘river lockup’ the plectrum is combined with a representation of the River Thames made up of multiple coloured circles. Apparently reprsenting a journey of transformation, there are detailed explanations and variations for many different combinations.
I think the idea of a system of graphic devices to support the brand is an innovative one. In addition to the River device, there is the stream and the orbs, which combine with the logo to give designers tasked with creating interesting brand compliant work a solid set of tools. How they put these elements together is the challenge.
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’.
Not entirely sure which is the definitive logo, since I’ve seen a a few variations in colour in print and on the web.In a similar fashion to the university of Nottingham, an iconic building associated with the locality has been chosen and drawn in a simple style. It provides a solid counterpoint to the very traditional, almost formulaic uppercase serif chosen here.