Sunday, December 09, 2012


Many words being spilt in UC's logo-gate. Here's an example:

The newly designed monogram of the University of California, while attempting to be modern, loses the prestige and elegance of the current seal.

Have a gander;

Let's give this kerfuffle the KPC breakdown:

(1)  there is nothing elegant about the original seal. A star, a book, and a plagiarized quote that makes no sense in this context.

(2) The second seal (sounds like we're discussing a Bergman movie) isn't "attempting" to be modern. It is modern and pretty cool at that.

(3) Most importantly, the seal doesn't give prestige to the institution, the quality of the institution gives prestige (or recognition) to the seal! Harvard isn't Harvard because of the prestige of their seal. It's the other way around.


Dave said...

(1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The costs alone of switching makes a good case for sticking with the old one, even if it were butt ugly, which it isn't. Just interpret the "Let there be light" as meaning the light of truth.

(2) I always thought you should be able to produce a black and white version of one's logo, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what that would be with the new one given how the C slowly fades away.

(3) True. See point 1 about the costs.

Tom said...

It's a "seal". I understand: important, expensive, insecure organizations have seals. If UC were a business, it would have logo. It would look just the same, but we wouldn't be nearly as impressed, would we?

Hasdrubal said...

Why would they want to represent their organization with the back-side of a kitty?

sb said...

What's the significance of the "C" fading away at the bottom? It looks like a graphics/printing error.