Guest Opinion by Kosal Sen posted BY Brand New

The Hue Center

Based in Philadelphia, the Pew Center for Arts & Heritage is a collective of seven grant-making initiatives dedicated to supporting local artists and heritage organizations. Originally, each initiative had its own logo, lacking any consistency with the others. Because of that, there was no indication that it was part of a greater entity. Another problem was the absence of an umbrella logo for the Pew Center. The challenge for London-based johnson banks was to solve a rather specific client brief.

Although they wanted at one level to present themselves as a unified “Pew Center,” they still wanted to show that they worked across dance, exhibitions, arts fellowships, theatre, management, heritage and music, all within the Philadelphia area.
— johnsonbanks case study

Glancing at the Pew Center’s web site — as its civilian audience will experience it, and not presented in a case study — you might think the logo to be the white square, and that the other words and colors were designed purely for the website’s navigation. Checking johnsonbanks’ project description proves otherwise. This megalith of a logo includes the organization’s full name, the seven initiatives, the word “Philadelphia”, and a mammoth palette of eight colors. Designed to adapt to different situations, the primary logo system has three forms, each with varying scale and detail. The largest holds a record-breaking 25 words.

Deeper in the system are treatments designed to push individual initiatives. Each maintains the typeface, 8-color standard, the word “Philadelphia”, and a tiny “The Pew Center for Arts & Heritage.” It’s unclear whether these are meant to be the official logos for the initiative. If so, they certainly won’t work at small sizes. Other than that, the designs show just how recognizeable and flexible the “colored cards” concept can be.

A minimal sans-in-square logo isn’t particularly groundbreaking for an art institution. What makes these logos worth noting is the ironic use of that solution — where the bombardment of simplicity creates a clutter that’s hard to miss. Aesthetically, it isn’t the most beautiful, nor the most interesting thing. A family of icons representing the initiatives would’ve been simpler to manage than type. Accusations of bad design decisions about scalability and printability are certainly expected and valid. In the end, though, it’s those risky decisions that make the logo stand out. Most importantly, the design tends to the client’s need of a flexible system that reflects the relationship of an organization and its constituents.

Christian’s comment is:

Imagine the pain it’ll be to acquire and enforce trademark rights to all that, should you even try. But I reckon the same goes for the new Aol identity and a lot of other recent ‘flexible’ identities.

On Jan.29.2010 at 07:26 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

Love it. It has balls. A brave identity, one that works and has probably had hundreds of hours of thought and consideration and even more design/layout connotations considered before reaching this final solution.

This is a fine example of what adaptable identities should be like in 2010.

On Jan.29.2010 at 07:39 AM

Dennis’s comment is:

Too bad it reminds me of Bravo’s current onscreen graphics and identity. No one needs to be reminded of the channel that gives us Real Housewives of New Jersey and that awful voice over guy.

On Jan.29.2010 at 07:45 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

I like it and can appreciate the effort to resolve a very complex problem.

The one negative is the ‘tattoo’ tactic … why would an organization like Pew need to exemplify temporary tattoos?! So gratuitous. That implementation is all pomp and circumstance by the design team.

On Jan.29.2010 at 07:53 AM

Ralph’s comment is:

Wonderful! It is a great solution to a very complex problem. I enjoy the idea that the form can change to identify an individual and maintain a group image. Great Idea.

On Jan.29.2010 at 07:53 AM

Larry W’s comment is:

Why my city is home to some mediocre designs that don’t work, I will never know.

More than anything, the problem I have with this isn’t the concept or even part of the execution, but the fact that the colors are showing through the letters and its too annoying to read.

Its daring, bold, different… but too much of the same at the same time. There’s actually a few logos in Philadelphia with this same idea and style, and it looks like something leftover from 1997.

On Jan.29.2010 at 07:55 AM

DCos’s comment is:

Not really sure why “Philadelphia” has been given treatment identical to other initiatives in the full logo. It isn’t the same as “Dance” or the “Music Project,” so why has it be rendered equal visually?

On Jan.29.2010 at 08:06 AM

buruno’s comment is:

I like it. However, as Larry pointed out, I think they should have used color (or white, perhaps?) in the words, instead of making them transparent, or maybe planned more carefully the color palette so that transparency wouldn’t affect legibility at all.

On Jan.29.2010 at 08:13 AM

G*’s comment is:

Initially I was a little surprised at the complexity but after seeing the application I have to say I really like this. I think that if the designer used a solid color for the type the layered effect would be lost. I realize that a logo like this can’t get too small.

The signage is nice, I’ve never seen anything like that and that stationary is CLEAN!

Two thumbs up, best logo we’ve seen in the new year.

On Jan.29.2010 at 08:45 AM

Derek’s comment is:

I love this. It’s very clever and well thought out. Judging by the rub on tattoo it can hold up at smaller sizes as well.

My one complaint is for the initiative logos. I don’t think they should be stuck out at angles from the rest of the colour cards. I would rather they all come out at 90 degree angles. Actually, I have another complaint. Again, very minor. Can we start putting spaces in our sentences and stop with the CamelCasing. I know, I do it as well, but it just needs to stop.

But, all in all, I really enjoy this. The 3D signage is really quite something. I hope it’s just polished steel with the type sand blasted in. That would be awesome.

On Jan.29.2010 at 08:48 AM

jonathan’s comment is:

Watch the video, it really brings and explains the whole thing together. Very nice, organized way of communicating the depth of the brand. I’ll agree with Larry, the different colors showing thru the type is a little annoying, but overall, this concept is pretty solid.

Nice transition from motion to print too.

On Jan.29.2010 at 09:05 AM

Nick Irwin’s comment is:

good news client it looks good on a tattoo…wheew!

I would agree very bold, I would hate to be the poor soul in charge of trapping this logo for a print job, he might just got postal!

On Jan.29.2010 at 09:13 AM

Soda and Candy’s comment is:

I really dislike the see through letters but apart from that I think it’s an interesting way to include so much in one logo.

On Jan.29.2010 at 09:14 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

This is good stuff! I love it!

Any dim wit can lock up a logo and say that it must always appear in a corner, but not many designers know how to bring an identity to life without being so academic.

On Jan.29.2010 at 09:51 AM

Nate’s comment is:

It says everything and nothing all at the same time.

On Jan.29.2010 at 10:17 AM

christina’s comment is:

i’m very surprised to see this getting so much love. the concept could be great, but the execution is just plain hideous. the colors look like someone picked them out of ms paint, and they don’t work well together. the text is overall tight and definitely needs kerning in some specific places (not to mention legibility factors that could perhaps have been solved through better color choices).

it’s a nice concept with a very ugly, inelegant execution.

On Jan.29.2010 at 10:47 AM

Austin’s comment is:

Call me 85 years old, but the logo is a bit busy for me.

I really like the inside of the envelope, though.

On Jan.29.2010 at 10:47 AM

Aaron Smith’s comment is:

Flawless. This will be in every identity book for the next decade.

On Jan.29.2010 at 10:53 AM

Eric’s comment is:

Overall gutsy, unique and full of potential. The 45-degree angled variations seems a little out of place with the rest of the system, but this is an exciting solution for a complex problem. The signage is great.

On Jan.29.2010 at 11:32 AM

Steven Hoober’s comment is:

The only thing I like is the 3D signage. If they could represent the printed logo as something more like that, with the layers acting dimension, I might like that better.

On Jan.29.2010 at 12:17 PM

Darrel’s comment is:

I really like this. But, no, it does not work as a tattoo.

On Jan.29.2010 at 12:25 PM

Andrea’s comment is:

Love it. Though I wonder why the client HAD to have the name of every branch of the initiative in there, PLUS the city name. I would love to have seen the look on the designer’s face when they heard that! *Everything* does not need to be spelled out to the audience/consumers.

I too, don’t like the see-through letters. Perhaps a better solution would be to make all the “side” words white and the main text in the square could be made up of all the different colors.

On Jan.29.2010 at 12:40 PM

Alex P.’s comment is:

If a designer were to explain this idea to me, I don’t know if I’d be convinced it would work &/or look good. It seems this is one of those concepts that only works because the execution is spot-on perfect. Really amazing work.

On Jan.29.2010 at 01:04 PM

francisco torres’s comment is:

nice one!

On Jan.29.2010 at 01:33 PM

Tevi Hirschhorn’s comment is:

The ridiculous complexity and clutter shows, not flexibility, but laziness. This isn’t the first time an organization needed a mark to fit into multiple sectors. I think there was a good idea here, to have layers of the different areas, but the job was never completed. The result is messy, makes my eyeballs bleed and head spin.

The first thing that comes to mind is, “Pee yew Center.”

On Jan.29.2010 at 01:51 PM

Samuel Sutanto’s comment is:

This is New! I love this.
It’s ground breaking.

On Jan.29.2010 at 02:28 PM

Huntley Brinkley’s comment is:

This design is a real surprise. But that color pallet is awful and feels a bit dated. I give this two thumbs up for concept but two thumbs down for execution.

On Jan.29.2010 at 02:50 PM

Ben Peck | Utah Web Designer’s comment is:

This is a very good concept. Initially the differing colors inside the text of “The PewCenter for Arts & Heritage” bothered me a little. Mostly the red. But the over execution across the different mediums has a very intriguing feel.

Its simple but complex is both regards.

Ben | www.bentdesignstudio.com

On Jan.29.2010 at 02:52 PM

Jay Sabicer’s comment is:

I hope I’m not the only one who finds the irony in an organization that supports the arts in Philly, but when it comes to it’s own identity, they outsource it to a London agency. Couldn’t they have had an open call to designers in Philadelphia proper (there must be a couple of them) and most likely would’ve paid less for an identity that most likely been just as effective? Foundation syndrome: too much money, too little brains.

On Jan.29.2010 at 03:09 PM

francisco besa’s comment is:

I don’t find this new or exciting at all. It’s very poorly executed, especially the see-through in the letters (which are more of an afterthought than anything). The logo doesn’t say much about the insitution and it´s a very cluttered, undecided message. The signage is probably the weakest application of all, and I wouldn´t be surprised if they at least tweak the logo after a while.

On Jan.29.2010 at 03:14 PM

Brian Son’s comment is:

Awesome solution for something very problematic. It works and keeps a consistent branding –– not to mention the executions and collateral look great. (The signage kicks ass.)

How do make a logo that has to have 7 categories with a location? It could have gone horrible wrong.

On Jan.29.2010 at 04:31 PM

Fiona Flowers’s comment is:

My eyes and mind hurt, this is not a solution to a complexed problem. Anyway, why create the problem of having an identity that needs to incorporate everything you do…please don’t let Microsoft thing of this. Execution seems to be piled, literally, and simple yet complexed in clutter. Right about the print, yuk, too busy for other important stuff on letters and brochures, and too condensed for the message to get through. Boring, seen it, and I don’t want to see it again.

On Jan.29.2010 at 04:59 PM

Erwin’s comment is:

I’m sorry, but I’m not feeling this one at all…

It’s just too messy, it’s not clear at all. The see-through trick creates terrible readability, the colors are just plain bad and indeed, feel outdated. The shapes themselves are boring and the type treatment is nothing spectacular.

In the end, this “logo” is just a big heap of nothing…

I have to admit, it really comes alive in 3D and animations, but let’s face it, that won’t be the case 90% of the times you will see it. It can’t be converted to grayscales and can’t be scaled to, let’s say, a square inch and still be readable. This logo will ruin many otherwise cool flyer- and posterdesigns for the art sector. It just sucks up all the attention with it’s decadent abundance of colors…

This logo should be redone or forgotten as soon as possible.

On Jan.29.2010 at 06:05 PM

StockLogos’s comment is:

It’s true it will be hard to trademark this one. But, I love the different variations. The tattoo isn’t cool though.

On Jan.29.2010 at 06:51 PM

Ryan’s comment is:

I love the willingness of any organization to get away from a static, monolithic identity… this is weird, but unique and worthwhile.

On Jan.29.2010 at 07:14 PM

Aaron Beall’s comment is:

Wow, caught me off guard. I was skeptical when I saw the first before|after image, but the more I continued down the article the more impressed I was. The animation is awesome, there’s tons of creative interactivity potential with this as well.

On Jan.29.2010 at 09:38 PM

=David’s comment is:

I think that this is a fairly strong logo; well-executed, very versatile, visually appealing and unique. But the following sentence threw me for a loop:

“In the end, though, it’s those risky decisions that make the logo stand out.”

Sounds like you’re saying it’s good because it’s bad. Surely I misunderstand.

On Jan.29.2010 at 10:10 PM

b.r.o.o.d.y.’s comment is:

As a logo, this is a hideous abomination. As the concept for an identity system, however, it is totally brilliant.

Concept overtakes form. This logo does well in not trying to hide its aesthetic “issues” but instead spousing them.

On Jan.30.2010 at 09:06 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

Very difficult system to design for, but the solution is well executed. The only problem I have is that the background colors are showing through the letters. It makes it too busy.

On Jan.30.2010 at 10:28 AM

Katie’s comment is:

I think it’s AWESOME. I love it. The logo is clearly designed with the understanding that the web has to start having a bigger influence than physical paper, because that is how most people will experience it now.

On Jan.30.2010 at 01:11 PM

Noddy Fletcher’s comment is:

It’s a mess people, at a glance it just looks like white noise.

Tough problem, not fully resolved.

On Jan.30.2010 at 09:07 PM

Sigmund’s comment is:

Love it. Smart simple solutions, this is what this new Modernism brings. More of that, less visual noise please..

On Jan.31.2010 at 07:40 AM

Ryan Paul’s comment is:

This is a branding failure and a production nightmare. The complexity of the organization comes across, but clarity has been sacrificed. Our role as designers is to make the complex appear simple – In this regard, the mark is a complete failure. The solution is trying too hard to be all things to all people. Some of the comments here have argued that this mark is memorable, but I remember it only because it’s such a mess.

Merrill Lynch used a similar approach for their Total Merrill offering. In my opinion, Merrill nailed it. Pew Center (and a particular London-based design firm) have a lot to learn:

On Jan.31.2010 at 11:58 AM

t-bone’s comment is:

great idea, not-quite-there execution. someone will probably copy this and do a better job…

On Jan.31.2010 at 06:54 PM

DG’s comment is:

I love this identity. The infinite amount of play that can potentially happen overtime works well for a performing arts organization.

To Ryan:
Why would you want something stagnant to represent something that is based in time, space and movement. Merril Lynch = The Bull, Total Merril = The Bullshit

On Jan.31.2010 at 09:44 PM

DG’s comment is:

Ryan,
My Conscience caught up to me. Grumpy Weekend. Sorry for the pointed remark.
Peace.
DG

On Jan.31.2010 at 10:15 PM

Ryan Paul’s comment is:

DG – Thanks for your second post. I was about to go off on a rant, but then I saw your follow-up.

Back on topic: All I see is visual clutter. Call me traditional, but I prefer simple solutions with just one or two strong ideas that communicate clearly. I have always subscribed to the “less is more” philosophy. I think the “idea” of a multi-layered mark is great, but to me this doesn’t feel resolved at all. I will admit, though, I like the sculptural quality of the wall sign.

I suspect this is the result of “design by committee.” Unfortunately, from time to time, we all have to deal with The Committee.

On Jan.31.2010 at 10:32 PM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

First - So nice to see positive comments and appreciation for once on here!

Difficult, brief to say the least - what a challenge to incorporate so much history and legacy into an evolving brand. At first I wasn’t convinced but having seen the fluidity of the brand through the use of the pop-out card system - I feel it’s a brave move that works - I love the stationery and the 3 dimensional sculpture piece.

I wonder whether they explored the use of solid type for clarity - the transparency does accentuate the ‘layered’ quality, but would it have grabbed your attention?

On Feb.01.2010 at 04:32 AM

Jason Laughlin’s comment is:

This is quite a clever solution. I’m intrigued that so many folks are inkling that the role of the designer is to make things simple. In some situations the complexity is what can make something iconic. Visually this is a perfect way of indicating that these institutions are part of a larger whole. The legibility feels like much less of an issue in this case. It’s like the illegibility is almost a badge of honor for the Pew Center to show its reach of influence.

I would be interested to see what the guidelines of usage on something like this would be. Once it gets into the hands of other designers this could go downhill in a hurry.

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:44 AM

Stefan’s comment is:

Why isn’t the text knocked out of the signage? I agree that the cut-out type makes the whole thing difficult to read, but shouldn’t the signage include that? Especially if it’s such a defining aspect to the logo?

On Feb.01.2010 at 12:38 PM

Dallas Criminal lawyer’s comment is:

Great new logo. Not entirely sure where it came from, but enjoyable none the less.

On Feb.01.2010 at 01:51 PM

Chris Rugen’s comment is:

There’s a lot to like with this logo. However, I’m concerned about some of those lockups (or whatever you’d like to call them) where the transparent type is cut into by a background color. Some of them are very disruptive to reading.

But like I said, there’s a lot to like. And i think the flexibility will help designers step around the issues of a few configurations.

On Feb.01.2010 at 04:05 PM

elisa’s comment is:

I like the top left logo in the case study. I don’t think it was necessary to show even snippets of the type on the final mark. Just my opinion, but overall I like the concept.

On Feb.01.2010 at 06:05 PM

Christian’s comment is:

All particular opinions on colour choice and the legibility of the typography in any one instance of this system aside, I rather think that discussing this as if it were a ‘logo’ misses the mark, somehow.

A lot of the comments adress the fact that legibility of the type suffers from the cut-out effect. I reckon that that’s a valid point provided this is (1) a logo and (2) one’s point of observation is ‘graphic design’ with special weight placed on legibility. But this isn’t a logo (or rather, ‘logo’ is but one of its guises) and I can certainly appreciate that you’d sacrifice legibility in order to obtain the other qualities this has. Personally, I wouldn’t expect the overall recognizability of this system to be affected negatively by the reduced legibility. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the opposite was the case.

And since I’m already on a rant: I suppose that various different professions (e.g. IPR, branding and design) all have different functionally motivated takes on what is essentially the same object (a logo). But this is an example of something new for which none of the above specialist professions yet have any analytical concepts. However, It seems to me that those for whom the ‘identity’ aspect of this thing is foregrounded are really excited whereas those who judge it by its visual qualities alone have difficulties seeing past its flaws. What the hell is an ‘adaptable’ identity anyway? Not a logo, so it shouldn’t be judged as if it were. It’s not an identity programme either, it’s too logoey for that, and there’d be auxhiliary design elements anyway (such as the inside of the envelope here) to complement it. It is a new strain of graphic DNA and we ought to call it something new and define new criterions for appraising it … Shouldn’t we?

Cheers,
Chris

On Feb.02.2010 at 04:48 AM

rylee’s comment is:

I think the visual organization of showing ‘Philadelphia’ exactly as the 7 initiatives is an error, and if this and the central title were set without the overlay effect I would consider this a much better execution. I find the text hard to read, with no real justification, and believe a much improved identity is within this structure - just not fully realized with clarity and final execution.

On Feb.02.2010 at 09:34 PM

sjurecka’s comment is:

I’m attracted to it graphically, but to me it almost seems like bad client management—i can almost see the team conceding to the “throw in everything but the kitchen sink” philosophy of some anxious clients.
But It does make an attractive animation.

On Feb.03.2010 at 09:58 AM

jen’s comment is:

I think I would be much more okay with these logos without the weird colour show-throughs that affect readability and (for me) are distracting. The logo would improve several hundred percent for me if the type was just white. Or even mostly white and a shade of the box it’s in so the main title read best. But as it is, it’s just weird.

On Feb.03.2010 at 01:52 PM

Cara’s comment is:

I just can’t get past the fact that the new mark/logo/cardstack/whatever is just totally visually unappealing as a mark. As the editor noted above, a sans-in-square motif is nothing groundbreaking, and while I can applaud their attempt to tackle the challenge of fitting so much under one identity umbrella, I think they could have pushed refinement so much further. Regardless of whether this is a logo or not, it will still have to stand as such on various collateral, and would still be held to the major charge of a logo - to give the audience a clear and quick statement of who they are. And this mark/logo/cardstack/whatever strikes me on first glance as chaotic, disorganized, and unsure of itself - something a charitable organization never wants to communicate to its funding audience.

On Feb.08.2010 at 12:13 PM

overseas property investments’s comment is:

Remember, You can make yourself a bundle by choosing an Overseas Property Investment. They come with all the backing that you would otherwise be looking for.

On May.17.2010 at 10:17 AM