My old university’s identity has recently been redesigned by one of my favourite studios, Spin, and my initial reaction wasn’t positive (not that it isn’t an improvement on the previous logo). Firstly out of some small jelousy that current students have that slither of an introduction to Tony Brooks et al. Secondly because on the printed material it looks a little clunky and outdated.
I love the modernist school of design, but as much as we look back at artifacts from the 60’s and 70’s and gaze in wonder at how fresh, dynamic and vibrant they still appear, there is a multitude of work from the same era that has dated horribly. There you have the risk of working within that modernist vernacular, and I feel that has happened with the primary mark.
As the broader strokes of the identity are revealed it becomes more interesting. I find the idea they anticipate the system quickly changing from this starting point really exciting, hopefully Spin and the UCA will evolve it every year and build something really interesting. However, those evolving elements like the wavy lines and gradiated strokes can feel like they’ve been lifted from the hipster playbook at times, and in the static versions make the identity feel clunky to me.
However, then I watched the video below which works beautifully and completely sells the identity system. It’s fluid, dynamic and every element has been thought out as single units and as encompassing system. Watch.
I still have doubts about the static identity, but the way it looks in the video convinces me that the mark has a future, and is going to grow into something really special.
Warning, I’m about to get psuedo-philosophical.
Beyond the visual identity, one thing I have issue with is the tagline “We create extraordinary”. On the first instance of reading it appears conceited, but then you see the intention, that it is about drawing in the prospective student to be part of the university; the institution alone is nothing, but with the student it becomes a we and that we can then create. My problem is what that intention lacks, that the student can create on their own and doesn’t need the university. Here the true message is revealed, that the institution is scarred to death that it’s customer will realise what it is selling is superfluous, and that in today’s marketplace they can buy a shinier educational package for the same money elsewhere. This is where we find ourselves with a monetised higher education system, as stated on Creative Review’s blog piece on the rebrand
with rising fees making students more selective in their choice of course, universities like UCA are facing real pressure to present themselves as exciting, dynamic places to study – particularly if they want to attract the attention of bright young minds from overseas – Rachael Steven (CR Blog)
The tagline is the university’s reaction to an imagined student-consumer that holds the institution responsible for their future creative expertise: “I will pay you to make me a professional creative”, “I am upgrading myself”. But higher education should not, and cannot, function as a prosthetic add-on. It is a period of growth dependent on the subject (as in the student-subject).
This is where I like the UCA’s web address ucreative (which it had before the rebrand), suddenly it challenges the individual interacting with the organisation. It gives them the responsibility to be creative, recognising that as an institution it has no power to create itself, all it can do is act as a guardian, providing the space to create.
And on a side note, neon is awesome.
