One Element too Many?

[Ed.’s Note: This redesign is from early 2009, so I realize I am breaking one of our rules, but I thought this was a very intriguing solution that deserves discussion. — Armin]

Aarhus University (AU), established in 1928, is Denmark’s second largest educational institution and ranked in the top 100 universities worldwide. AU is a lively, modern university, which collaborates with the business community, cultural centres and other universities throughout the world. At the end of 2008, AU underwent a visual identity change in response to a consolidation of the Danish higher education system and to strengthen the University’s international competitiveness, shifting the visual identifier of the University from the traditional seal to a more modern logo as well as updating the design of all paper and web materials and creating a new typographic element.

The design is anchored in modernism, resulting in a distinctly modern, clean and simple design based on the geometric forms square, triangle and circle and identifying with the period in which the University was built. The new visual identity also takes the fundamental meaning of AU’s motto, “solidum petit in profundis”, (“seeking in the depths of the solid ground”) and combines it with a distinct graphical element. The graphical element, called “The Fifth Element” is comprised of a simple geometric, abstract alphabet that also derives its origin from modernism. The new visual identity was developed in cooperation with design agency 1508 A/S and has won silver at the Creative Circle Awards 2009 in the category “Corporate Identity”.
— Paraphrased and translated from AU’s Design Manual

The Fifth Element.

While I am not denying that the University needed a visual update in order to unify the merged institutions, is this design really appropriate for an educational institution? At the time of the makeover, an unofficial poll was taken of 800 people associated with the University including students, staff and lecturers which resulted in 7 out of 10 people showing dislike (PDF, page 2) toward the new visual identity. These negative reactions focused mainly on the new logo and fifth element which people simply did not understand in relation to the university. Other aspects of the redesign such as the new website and updated informational materials were not criticized but praised. The circulation of jokes (about the logo, you figure it out!) and negative comments aimed at this visual identity have reduced in the past year, however, I will not assume this is a reflection of public opinion, but rather a general acceptance that this design will not change.

Without a doubt the University was in need of an updated visual identity, but was the addition of the “fifth element” necessary? Does the new logo represent an educational institution with history and culture? In case these questions can’t be answered there is at least >a great site with all the details on the identity and various other examples of the identity in action.

Luke’s comment is:

It’s becoming more evident that people are becoming less creative as the days go by…

On Mar.16.2010 at 06:39 AM

Safa’s comment is:

I really like the approach here. We see identities that are saturated with meaningless graphic patterns and shapes by default, and here, the graphical element has a sense to it. It can be even read.

As the logo itself is constructed using the Fifth Element alphabet, it really makes a great visual system as a whole. Of course, words set with the alphabet aren’t supposed to be easily read or understood, they add a recognisable quality to the identity.

It’s also a plus, that new graphical elements can be built on demand by just using the alphabet! The element is a code the meaning of which you’d probably want to find out. Makes you feel happy when you’ve tracked all the letters from the alphabet and can then read the words the element depicts.

Is it appropriate for a university? I think so. The identity has such a powerful functionalist drive which, in my mind, gets associated with the 1920’s and 30’s when AU was apparently established.

I read from the website that previously the university used Futura as their main typeface. The typeface in this new identity isn’t Futura but a modernised version called Passata.

On Mar.16.2010 at 07:00 AM

Verdelimon’s comment is:

The link to the manual is not working!
I’d like to see how the fifth element use (not the meaning) is explained…

On Mar.16.2010 at 07:16 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

I like it very much.

A very bold concept and it probably took balls to develop this and present it to the college as what they thought should be their visual identity system.

The one thing that did cross my mind is that most of us here at Brand New who comment on these identities are designers in one way or another. So what appeals to us, might not appeal to the non-design student or student-to-be.

To your average student, it probably looks like a bunch of jumbled trash quickly thrown together. When in actuality, if you look at it as from a designer’s perspective, it’s clear that a lot of effort went into the creation of each individual letterform.

That said, I agree with most of Safa’s comments above - EXCEPT for the “Is it appropriate for a university?”. The 7 out of 10 students polled is evidence that the design is not appealing to the average student for this identity at this college.

So while I think the identity system as a whole is modern, clean and visually appealing - I do not think that its appropriate for a college as it doesn’t connect with its audience.

On Mar.16.2010 at 07:17 AM

Safa’s comment is:

Here’s the link: http://www.designmanual.au.dk/omdesignet/femteelement

On Mar.16.2010 at 07:18 AM

sam’s comment is:

love it!

On Mar.16.2010 at 07:48 AM

Alex Dima’s comment is:

Besides the obvious phallic implications I really don’t see a problem with it, I actually quite like it.

On Mar.16.2010 at 07:50 AM

Iulian’s comment is:

A typeface where you have to learn the meaning of all the symbols first? I thought we were talking about the alphabet here, not the Morse code.

I wonder how well this will go with newcomers to the university, to potential students and collaborators. They have no idea about the cryptic system, they will perceive all the headlines as pure graphic elements, not as words, messages.

“Modern, clean and simple design based on the geometric forms square, triangle and circle”… I think this is a case of “simple” gone “simplistic”. It’s one thing to simplify, it’s a totally different thing to overdo that until the meaning is completely lost.
That’s why good typography requires a bit more than bits and pieces of triangles, circles and squares.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:09 AM

Phil’s comment is:

Love the logo, hate the ‘alphabet’. Illegible and unmemorable. Blurs the line between a university and Ikea.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:11 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

Interesting (and accurate) comment, Phil.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:16 AM

Mike’s comment is:

“A typeface where you have to learn the meaning of all the symbols first? I thought we were talking about the alphabet here, not the Morse code.”

Yeah, really! Assuming most of these materials will be used to attract prospective students I can’t see how this will help. Only those familiar with the system will be able to decipher it so the meaning will initially be lost on the very people the brand is targeting.

That said, I love the AU as a standalone logo.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:17 AM

Jason Laughlin’s comment is:

I have a feeling that this will grow on people as things move along. The idea of the obscured alphabet in this situation is intriguing. It serves as a great visual identifier and does contain meaning. I’m not sure it matters whether anyone picks up on the meaning immediately or ever. It’s a little unfortunate that the alphabet creates a logo that’s a little, how should we say, flaccid. But overall, in terms of branding a university this is a pretty good leap forward.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:31 AM

JBIII’s comment is:

1. Lose the alphabet, it is only visual clutter.
2. Extend the “A” up and over then connect with the “U” to make one shape, this will make the “A” more legible and create a very nice tight lockup between the two letterforms.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:31 AM

Barclay D’s comment is:

I want to go to this college, and I have no other information about this school other then the blurb I just read, and the design. It’s refreshing, and steps away from norm. The brochures, collateral material seems a bit overwhelmed with so many graphics. Unfortunately it was all ruined after figuring out the phallic reference… which didn’t take much time. I’ll take it either way. It’s clean, simply, and I think an overall solid mark.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:35 AM

kuratowa’s comment is:

Sorry, Phil and Dave, I don’t see how Illegible relates to Ikea design. If Ikea’s typography design is anything, it’s not cryptic - it’s as straightforward as they come.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:47 AM

Sean Sedgwick’s comment is:

Reminds me of the Bell-ements.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:49 AM

Ryan Adair’s comment is:

I can really really appreciate what is being done here. The fact that the alphabet is illegible is not important, it is forming a strong personality! This would be a very fun identity to work with.

Even with all the ‘clutter’, there is a very minimal cleanliness about that that I really enjoy.

Very nice.

On Mar.16.2010 at 08:50 AM

JonSel’s comment is:

So a University has an identity that invites further inquiry and even questioning? Sounds absolutely appropriate and perfect. Looks pretty cool too.

On Mar.16.2010 at 09:10 AM

John McCollum’s comment is:

Aarhus is a very, very fine hus.

On Mar.16.2010 at 09:12 AM

Joe Lamour’s comment is:

I feel like I’m watching Stargate SG-1. It is pretty, however.

On Mar.16.2010 at 09:15 AM

Cory ’s comment is:

I think the logo is strong, but I can see how the alphabet would lose people. With the arrangements and overlapping and whatnot, the aesthetic is kind of obscuring the meaning and message.

On Mar.16.2010 at 09:27 AM

Garrot’s comment is:

Font: www.designmanual.au.dk/hentfiler/skrifttyper/fonte.zip

On Mar.16.2010 at 09:47 AM

obse.’s comment is:

@ Luke
Less creative? The only non-creative thing I see here is your comment…

This is creativeness at it best.
And it’s executed with finesse.

On Mar.16.2010 at 09:48 AM

WilhelmR’s comment is:

You don’t see this logos this memorable and simple everyday. The whole identity simply works from there, and doesn’t try to include any of those lame campus photos or heraldic elements other universities rely on.

The alien alphabet.. yes, not many will like it obviously, but it takes the whole identity to another level, it’s concise and strong.

Including alternate (readable) text might solve the issue and get those 7 out of 10 to embrace the identity :)

On Mar.16.2010 at 10:31 AM

Robert’s comment is:

I don’t care if 7 out of 10 people disliked this visual identity - it’s gorgeous! Those are great looking magazines, the alphabet is very creative and visually appealing - the whole thing just works.

On Mar.16.2010 at 10:36 AM

grubedoo’s comment is:

7 out of 10 people will dislike most anything when it’s changed b/c people generally dislike change.

The logo is very nice and the 5th element is a great addition to the brand language. I love the texture and mood it creates in the various applications.

It’s refreshing to see a group commit to it’s rebrand regardless of popular opinion.

On Mar.16.2010 at 10:55 AM

Eric’s comment is:

The fifth element offers the school a unique system for adding texture to their communication. Is it necessary? No, but so what? This feels appropriately modern, Scandinavian and playful.

I don’t see any examples where the abstracted letterforms are being used for crucial communication, such as a directional signage or event details. If you can’t read it or choose not to try, it doesn’t matter. If you do read it, you’re having fun.

The 7 out of 10 poll doesn’t surprise me. When asked to critique something new or unfamiliar, most people will respond negatively. If polled 50 years ago, most people would have rejected IBM.

Since it’s been over a year, it would be great to hear what the students and faculty say about the system now.

On Mar.16.2010 at 11:06 AM

ilovetype’s comment is:

Love that this challenges the standard University seal-as-logo. Does every University have to convey HISTORY in its mark? I think this mark does exceedingly well conveying something more: a lively, MODERN AU. Love it.

On Mar.16.2010 at 11:36 AM

doozie’s comment is:

I think it’s somewhat overly conceptualized, but I do like the aesthetic. Clean, bold and modern design. Nice step away from what you’d expect from a university. Maybe they could send along a “secret decoder ring” when they get inquiries about their school. By not taking it so seriously, it might be more accessible.

On Mar.16.2010 at 12:16 PM

jayparry’s comment is:

Whats phallic about it? Its a nice mark. Do ya’ll think everything with a straight line in it is phallic?

On Mar.16.2010 at 12:22 PM

dwight schruter’s comment is:

PENIS!!!

On Mar.16.2010 at 12:29 PM

buruno’s comment is:

It’s difficult to see a solid grid system nowadays. And this one has a contemporary feel, rather than simply copying Müller-Brockmann. Very pleasing!

On Mar.16.2010 at 01:17 PM

Mongoose’s comment is:

As folks have mentioned, it seems the university has a handle on what they’re doing with the “Fifth Element”: it’s for graphic elements, and not for anything mean to be truly legible. Students might catch echoes of meaning, but otherwise, it’ll be geometric prettiness.. and for their materials as shown, they’ve worked very well with that I feel.

As for the logo… the smaller it’s rendered, the more I like it. At tiny appearances it stops becoming an ‘AU’ and becomes a unified ‘A’, and as that, it’s rather snappy. highly stark/simplistic, but I think it’s decent, and certainly bold for a university. The blue’s a solid color for it as well, and having the ‘Aahrus University’ in that long lockup is pleasant. Still. the short ‘u’ is kinda.. strange. It looks lower-case, not truncated.

I give it a B+. Good style, doesn’t blow me away.

—Mongoose

On Mar.16.2010 at 01:18 PM

Emma’s comment is:

ALIENS!

On Mar.16.2010 at 01:48 PM

qwertyale’s comment is:

it’s succesful as a puzzle thing to revigorate mental stressed teachers and students.
kudos for not using helveticologies.

On Mar.16.2010 at 03:00 PM

Anthony Hawkins’s comment is:

If you need a translation sheet in order to read the text then the identity fails in my opinion. One or two abstractions of the letters are ok as used in the logo but a whole alphabet?

As designers, sure we may like the concept and the creativity but as to its audience, it is just a bunch of shapes.

When you have that many shapes that appear to be random then the logo itself loses its identity and uniqueness.

On Mar.16.2010 at 03:17 PM

dwight schruter’s comment is:

PENIS!!!

On Mar.16.2010 at 03:17 PM

John Mindiola III’s comment is:

I can see this sort of neue typography becoming a perceived practical joke toward the incoming freshman.

“It’s an alphabet. You know, like a new font.”

“Yeah right guys.”

“No, seriously, it’s kind of like a puzzle. It’s pretty cool actually.”

“Yeah, okay, whatever. You guys are just trying to get me to waste three hours trying to ‘crack the code.’ “

“I’m telling you man, it’s words. Look, this here is an S, this here is a O, this here is … “

“Uh, wow. Um, yeah, I have to get to class now … “

On Mar.16.2010 at 03:27 PM

Colin Parks’s comment is:

I think this is a rather nice system.

Sure, the mark could be seen as a little phallic, but overall I think it’s a great identity and a refreshing direction for an educational establishment. (Is anybody else as tired of the crests and symbolic animals as I am?) I say congrats for flipping the bird to the typical approach. Whether you can decipher the fifth element (I don’t know about the name) or not, it adds a nice graphic element that certainly pleases my eye.

On Mar.16.2010 at 04:07 PM

Luke’s comment is:

I like the logo, it feels like a fresh take on a solid idea.

As for the alphabet, I feel like I’m on the verge of opening a stargate the more I stare at it.

On Mar.16.2010 at 06:16 PM

Kris Robinson’s comment is:

It’s German right? You can get away with anything in Germany.

On Mar.16.2010 at 06:28 PM

David G’s comment is:

Badass!!

On Mar.16.2010 at 07:08 PM

Cameron Adams’s comment is:

As an aside to the actual identity presented here:

Armin, although it may let you post more “reviews” of brands, I’d love to see all these invited reviewers actually *review* the brands, rather than recite a few factual lines from someone’s press release/blog post.

I always love when you personally do a review of a brand, as it always contains some exploration of the design motivations, behind the scenes info or some historical perspective. However it seems like some of these 3rd party reviews are simply a couple of paragraphs boiling down to “I just don’t like it”.

On Mar.16.2010 at 07:26 PM

Tez’s comment is:

Its one thing to make type a design element and use it in creative ways but another thing completely to make it so unreadable that the average Joe cannot understand the massive glowing neon sign screaming in front of him. Graphically I do like the fifth element however I don’t like the way it has been utilised in this case. To me its like putting up a headline in Japanese or other foreign language in English only speaking place and not providing and elaboration of what the Japanese text says. From a communication stand point this brand is a n EPIC FAIL!

(Sorry no racism intended to Japanese people here I was just trying to highlight the use of contrasting typographic glyphs in various languages.)

On Mar.16.2010 at 07:26 PM

Grant’s comment is:

This would actually be pretty great if you could read half of the letters in the typeface…

On Mar.16.2010 at 11:58 PM

Mondayne’s comment is:

@ Kris Robinson
It’s German right? You can get away with anything in Germany.

It’s Danish.

On Mar.17.2010 at 12:16 AM

Robin’s comment is:

I’ve found that if you’re selling something, you shouldn’t give the prospective customer a reason to turn away. This might be great as a design exercise but it stinks at conveying a message (unless that message is “If you think this makes no sense, wait until you use our product”).

On Mar.17.2010 at 12:21 AM

Sanjay’s comment is:

@JBIII: In response to your suggestion no. 2, if you join A with U, it will look like a mirror image of United Artists.

There are some comments which say that it is bold and gutsy. The identity being bold doesn’t mean that it communicates what it intends to. The applications are eye-catching.

On Mar.17.2010 at 02:31 AM

Prigix’s comment is:

huh, I didn’t know it’s from 2008. I’ve seen it a thousand times on the streets and promo materials. I really liked it from the start. It’s a very fresh and modern breeze in a very traditional environment, and sets the university apart from the rest.

I study at another university from the same city, and they changed their logo as well this year, but they went from a pine cone to 3 circles, lol.

old logo: http://www.aabc.dk/
new logo: http://www.akademiaarhus.dk/

On Mar.17.2010 at 04:30 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

At last, a modernist, simplistic but thoughtful beautiful European identity on Brand New! One that has a sizeable amount of the Americans posting on here running for the hills with their heads spinning in confusion, citing ‘a lack of creativity’ (Luke, are you kidding?)

No logos for American football. No logos for McCain. No logos for university football teams. No logos for sandwich restaurants.

Beautiful. Well done Armin for pulling this from the archives. Well worth it.

On Mar.17.2010 at 06:20 AM

G.’s comment is:

I live in Aarhus and our company is working together with the university on various projects. I can testify to the fact that the logo caused quite an uproar and almost everyone disliked it.

Personally I think it’s great use of geometric font-like shapes (unlike London 2012 Olypmics) and I think people will learn to appreciate it over time. Great designs are sometimes perceived as controversial when first launched - just like the 1941 municipal hall in Aarhus!

On Mar.17.2010 at 06:48 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

I like this logo, excellent approach.

On Mar.17.2010 at 09:23 AM

Zanda’s comment is:

This should be a brand identity system for MENSA applicants with erectile dysfunction. It is a contradiction of what branding is all about. I quote my hero:

“Design, good or bad, is a vehicle of memory. Good design adds value of some kind and, incidentally, could be sheer pleasure; it respects the viewer – his sensibilities – and rewards the entrepreneur. It is easier to remember a well-designed image than one that is muddled. A well designed logo (brandmark), in the end, is a reflection of the business it symbolises. It connotes a thoughtful and purposeful enterprise, and mirrors the quality of its products and services. It is good public relations – a harbinger of goodwill. It says we care.”
– Paul Rand

On Mar.17.2010 at 09:46 AM

J. Murdoch’s comment is:

Aarhus is a big place for Semiotics (a field that seems to be gaining popularity on its own rather than an offshoot of Philosophy or Linguistics). This logo calls to mind a very semiotic nature, which is cool and very much appropriate for them.

On Mar.17.2010 at 12:41 PM

Katie’s comment is:

Love it. What the hell?

On Mar.22.2010 at 01:31 PM

Marin Santic’s comment is:

Very nice logo, very clean. But, here is also one logo from Slovenia, made for Nova Ljubljanska Banka or NLB, and it’s actually the same, but with little bit longer second line:

http://www.dossierkorupcija.com/slike/DK_NLB.jpg

On Mar.23.2010 at 02:38 AM

Stina Sanchez’s comment is:

I attend the university and I am one of those terribly backwards people who can’t see the creative genius employed in the design.

Graphical identities become problematic when they conflict with the real world identities of the organisation they should represent. Projects like the new AU identity might be good as theoretical exercises but they do not work in practice because they don’t respect their subjects.

The University of Aarhus (as it was named previously - they changed the name so that international partners would not be totally confused by the new logo) already has a strong identity formed by decades of research, studies and campus life and the previous seal with it’s latin text, dolphins and anchor played a huge part in this. Changing that into a generic “your initials in a fancy font” type logo is disrespecting the identity of the institution.

That the dolphins and anchor were popular and effective symbols for the university can be demonstrated by the fact that they led to several spin-offs in the logos of student organisations - the main student magazine is even named “The Dolphin”. When so many people copy a design it must have some quality to it.

The new logo could be the logo of any kind of institution; a bank, a cardboard box factory, an interest group for erectile dysfunction or whatever you would like. Nowhere does it convey the idea that we are speaking of a university. The beautiful old seal which was redesigned in a simple and beautiful way in the 90’s on the other hand clearly gave the message that it was an educational institution.

The old seal might not have been that modern but iconic brands are not built by adopting completely new fashionable logos every five years. The Coca-Cola brand would not have been as known and recognised as it is if it had been kept up to date.

Making a completely new logo is a good idea if the organisation has a bad reputation or if the old logo is really poor. Neither were the case with AU so the creative destruction employed by the design agency has been mainly destructive.

The fifth element is simply terrible. It looks like something out of a bad science fiction series. If you want to do ornaments then do ornaments, but if you want to do text then do text - the very essence of writing is legibility and you should not venture out in something ridiculous like an illegible typeface. Good academic work brings clarity - the graphical identity of a university should reflect this.

I’m not all against the new identity. I like the website and the print media very much. But they would be better without the alien invasion from the fifth element and with a logo that truly represents the organisation.

And finally - if they had to make a phallic logo couldn’t it at least have been a bit more potent?

On Mar.25.2010 at 12:07 PM

enrolled agent classes’s comment is:

The addition of the “fifth element” is definitely a unique addition. Very original concept.

2 thumbs up!

On Mar.26.2010 at 10:47 PM

Guilherme Appolinário’s comment is:

What a resemblance to CAU’s logo, the Architecture and Urbanism Academic Group from UFPR (Federal University of Parana), in Curitiba, Brasil:

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/9388/imagem4lw.png

On Mar.29.2010 at 09:16 PM

Charles’s comment is:

Does anyone know where the Fifth Element font can be found?

On Mar.31.2010 at 07:35 AM

Welcher-Hans von Euchgefurzt’s comment is:

Interesting

So will it be Aarhus again, not Århus anymore?

On Apr.09.2010 at 10:41 AM