The Library of Congress Gets its Wings

It’s quite uplifting, in an Internet kind of way, that one of the most progressive, enriching and engaging content-driven web sites belongs to a 200-year-old American Government institution, the Library of Congress (LOC). In case you have never been, start at the Digital Collections landing page and click, just click — see you back here tomorrow. The LOC, founded in 1800, “is the largest library in the world, with nearly 142 million items on approximately 650 miles of bookshelves. The collections include more than 32 million books and other print materials, 3 million recordings, 12.5 million photographs, 5.3 million maps, 5.6 million pieces of sheet music and 62 million manuscripts.” Housed in Washington, D.C. across three buildings, the LOC is open to the public — 1.6 million annually — making its books available for reading on site only. Needless to say, the LOC is an important cultural institution, and its old logo, depicting the dome of the Thomas Jefferson Building barely did it justice.

Since its founding in 1800 the Library had developed numerous graphic depictions of itself (usually centered around images of the building that houses it) that emphasized its historical nature but did not convey its essential meaning, nor make it seem relevant today. Chermayeff & Geismar’s solution had to accomplish all three.

The logo was designed by Principal partner Sagi Haviv and project managed by Tom Geismar who has a long standing relationship with the LOC, having designed the Freud, Thomas Jefferson Library and Lewis and Clark exhibitions for them. Haviv’s design solved this complex problem with a simple depiction of a book that takes the form of a waving flag. The bold modern form coupled with the timeless concept is a startlingly poetic illustration of what it means to be the official library of the United States.
— Chermayeff & Geismar Press Release

Designed by Chermayeff & Geismar, the new logo is simple and, well, American: An open book with the flag’s recognizable stripes. (I wouldn’t doubt that at some point a version was presented with stars on the left page.) More than the simplicity and effectiveness of this new logo, what I most appreciate is what it represents. That logos don’t have to be literal and uninspired, like the previous one, and with a little bit of thinking, they can be conceptual, evocative and memorable. It’s also nice to be reminded that a good icon can still be created in the second decade of the 2000s. My only complaint about it is the typography. Trajan. Why? It’s overused, it’s not that pretty and any sense of typographic history or tradition it may have once had has been diluted by dozens of bad movie posters. The only reason I can think it was selected is that it’s a bundled font, more easily accessible to most LOC staffers than some obscure typeface. Yet, it was a missed opportunity to introduce a typeface as elegant and well thought out as the icon. A few applications of the logo below, and an animation that gives the logo yet another layer of meaning.

Jonathan Carnehl’s comment is:

When I saw the icon on its own I thought it was very plain and dated, but seeing it in its many applications, especially the book spines, I really like it. It is certainly more recognizable and unique than the first.

On Jan.07.2010 at 08:42 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

I once told myself that I would never have a problem with anything Ivan Chermayeff ever touched.

And that is still true.

I think its totally awesome and appropriate.

On Jan.07.2010 at 08:42 AM

Scott Sullivan’s comment is:

dig it!

On Jan.07.2010 at 08:44 AM

Kyle’s comment is:

I like the simplicity of the Icon and I agree with Armin on the typography. The kerning seems awkward to me maybe it’s just me?

On Jan.07.2010 at 08:49 AM

EnergonCube’s comment is:

It’s a nice mark, but Trajan? You couldn’t think of anything better than Trajan? ReallY?

On Jan.07.2010 at 08:56 AM

John McCollum’s comment is:

Yeah. Don’t like the Trajan. As far as the mark goes, there’s a fine line between “timeless” and “dated.” I still haven’t figured out where this one falls for me.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:02 AM

Trey Porter’s comment is:

The mark is great … perhaps even awesome. The type is just a little unerwhelming to say the least. The kerning is unattractive and the letter-spacing of CONGRESS just looks unfinished. Perhaps it would’ve been better to just pull that word’s spaces closer together and leave the entire block centered.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:03 AM

Desert Eagle’s comment is:

Typo in title ‘The Librabry’.

Otherwise, a nice identity. Like it.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:09 AM

Plamen’s comment is:

It does look as if designed by Stefan Kanchev - www.stefankanchev.com

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:12 AM

ck’s comment is:

The mark is lovely. A simple, effective design.

But Trajan. Sigh. Typography continues to be the neglected bastard child of graphic design, and it’s even worse when you see people who ought to have a sense for typography do this. Instead of leading the way, they legitimize the continued poor use of typography that keeps getting worse and worse.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:12 AM

Efren’s comment is:

Its nice. I like it. The logo and the applications.

But I don’t know why I have the funny feeling that I have seen the this logo before.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:14 AM

ck’s comment is:

That said, I should add that the use here isn’t bad by any means, it certainly works for LOC, but it’s such a missed opportunity and really just very lazy as there are any number of just as classy, timeless fonts to pick from that haven’t been used to death.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:16 AM

Lukas Podhola’s comment is:

Poor execution..

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:20 AM

Eric’s comment is:

Yes, the type seems clunky. It’s not just Trajan, but Trajan Bold. Maybe they wanted something heavier to go with the heavy icon? And the justified type seems unfinished. The spacing difference between the “O-F” and “O-N” is too obvious.

The logo looks better in a formal composition. It’s very nice on the book spines. When composed asymmetrically, like on their website, it looks a little generic and less impressive. It’s pretty blotchy on the website.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:24 AM

Manfredi Pumo’s comment is:

(“Librabry” in post title!)

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:35 AM

Dan Drinkard’s comment is:

The mark is nice, but the kerning in Library is horrendous.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:35 AM

col_corcoran’s comment is:

The mark is almost perfect. I love the simplicity and dualities of it’s presentation. You don’t see logos like this too much anymore, the flatness and simplicity is a trait of the old school designers but I still love and appreciate it. It screams Paul Rand style, kudos to C&G on their solution.

Also, Trajan is such a horrid typeface, I can appreciate the craft and delicacy of the letters as individuals but when this typeface forms words… it just makes me cringe. The terminal on the “R” has always bugged me, its just stretches too far and encroaches into the next letters space. So frustrating.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:57 AM

Chantyce’s comment is:

I like it, but the execution on the animation is clunky.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:58 AM

col_corcoran’s comment is:

It just hit me, the mark is strikingly similar to the old windows logo… Or perhaps a 8-bit Nintendo underwater squid from Mario Bros.

Regardless I still like it.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:01 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

Chermayeff & Geismar must be chuckling away at all these designers, myself included, who are nowhere near as good as they are, and never will be, yet come on and spout what is essentially storm-in-a-teacup nonsense.

Seriously, you don’t think an agency with a track record such as Chermayeff & Geismar’s hadn’t explored dozens, if not hundreds, of different typographic routes and typeface suggestions? Trajan is getting a hard time just now but if people take their heads out of the sand, out of their own little world, and see the bigger picture, this beautiful typeface will long outlast the current trend in movie posters. It was around a long time before…

And whilst we’re on the subject, to all those who criticise Trajan as the choice of typeface here: what would you use? And why would it be better?

I personally think this marque is lovely; timeless. Armin, where you mention the inclusion of stars, I’d be willing to bet it was more likely a client request that, for legibility reasons amongst others, Chermayeff & Geismar probably politely declined. And to Plamen: that is indeed a huge compliment to any logo.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:02 AM

Cory ’s comment is:

I don’t actually mind the use of Trajan here, since on the whole i think the identity’s implementation is fairly effective.

What I do mind is the horrible spacing of the letters. I feel like even if i wasn’t necessarily too fazed by poor kerning, the job done here would still stand out.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:23 AM

John McCollum’s comment is:

[QUOTE]Seriously, you don’t think an agency with a track record such as Chermayeff & Geismar’s hadn’t explored dozens, if not hundreds, of different typographic routes and typeface suggestions? Trajan is getting a hard time just now but if people take their heads out of the sand, out of their own little world, and see the bigger picture, this beautiful typeface will long outlast the current trend in movie posters. It was around a long time before…

And whilst we’re on the subject, to all those who criticise Trajan as the choice of typeface here: what would you use? And why would it be better?[/QUOTE]

Sycophantic attitudes like this — and the “appeal to authority” fallacies they engender — threaten, rather than produce innovation.

C&G got paid a shitload of money to pick the right typeface. It’s absurd to demand anyone else produce an alternative for free. One doesn’t have to proffer a correct solution to observe that another is incorrect. Otherwise, this website and its million analogues would have no reason to exist.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:24 AM

Nate Maggio’s comment is:

Although I do like taking out “the” from the title, I do prefer the old type.
That being said, I think the new symbol is great. So simple and it shows to much. Really great job.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:28 AM

MarcusVss’s comment is:

Great icon, but I think the name is much better when placed horizontaly

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:34 AM

Chad Kaufman’s comment is:

Nice Icon = Done
Nice Collateral Images = Done
Red Bull Slogan (change first word to books) = Done

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:34 AM

Nicholas Ceron’s comment is:

mmm. I agree with the font critique.
Although I think that, after seeing the -success- of the logo together with other materials, the “poor” font choice might respond less to logo design and more to the possible typographic context the font will have to deal with, once printed on other covers, leaflets, or library material. I am not saying that this -had- to be a conscious choice by the designer… but it might explain the exemplary -averageness- of the font.
An “exceptionally average” font for an average typographic universe?.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:35 AM

grubedoo’s comment is:

I love the simple, symbolic icon but the type? This ain’t no movie poster.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:35 AM

g-sppud’s comment is:

I would hope that the Library of Congress would inspire a little more creativity than a mild modification of a reading area symbol. For one of the most extensive and prestigious libraries in the world, it would seem a disservice to create a logo that was akin to laserprinted clip-art reminiscent of any small town book fair.

And the notion that this must be good simply because it came out of C&G is both absurd and disturbing. The idea that a designer reaches a level where everything they do is phenomenal is just plain stupid.

Would this be praised so highly if a student did it? I think not.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:37 AM

Von K’s comment is:

I’m loving the mark. I love how the stripes can also be read as lines of type. So glad there are no stars! Perfect.

The Trajan left me cold at first glance, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that Trajan adds to the timelessness. This logo needed type that’s pretty much guaranteed to not look dated for decades (maybe even centuries) to come, which narrows the available choices considerably. Still, it’d be cool to see how something like Fell Types would work.

Overall, though, really good stuff.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:38 AM

Camryn Brown’s comment is:

I like the new icon, but it tells me we’re right back around to the 70’s and 80’s again. At least, that’s the period I associate with icons as monotone simplified representations of previously more complex icons such as flags and crests.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:40 AM

arnoldP’s comment is:

No 3D effects, no stupid shadows. See? Good design is not dead

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:46 AM

Alex P.’s comment is:

I must have missed the memo that Trajan is never ever, under any circumstance, to be used by a professional designer. This logo is fabulous, and the way I see it, the decision to use Trajan was a selfless and confident one.

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:04 AM

e|v|l’s comment is:

I really love the mark and I agree with Armin on how simple the solution is, it isn’t easy to get such a clean and creative solution. This is definitely a timeless mark in my opinion.

I do wish there had been a custom typeface created but I think Trajan does do a nice job. It is classic and a bit contemporary at the same time.

Great job!

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:05 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

John McCollum, I’m not demanding anyone produce anything for free – I’d suggest neither you nor I could provide anything better, regardless of the cost. What I’m merely pointing out is that it is easy for the masses to sit and criticise when they a) have a fraction of the ability of Chermayeff & Geismar b) don’t have anything like the experience or track record of working on a project as high profile as this and c) could offer no better solution.

Admiring what is clearly a fantastic design agency is in no way threatening innovation; I don’t think I’ve heard anything so absurd in all my life. Maybe you have rebellious tendencies that prevent you from giving praise to good work by large agencies that get paid “a shitload of money”. Possibly because you’ll never be at that level yourself? Whatever, to label it sycophantic is bordering on petty jealousy.

Just because millions of people have a voice on the internet doesn’t mean their opinions need to be heard. And I include myself in that.

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:06 AM

Dor Shai’s comment is:

I agree with rnoldP. It seems that “3D effects and stupid shadows” have, over the past decade or so, come to replace great concepts and relieve logo designers from taking on the true challenge of logo design which is: reduction. When I look at this icon, having designed a few logos myself, I can see the levels of subtraction and abstraction that it must have gone through to bring it to its final form. Only a super simple yet distinctive icon like this can stand the test of time. Spectacular work.

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:09 AM

vuxes’s comment is:

disappointing, uninspiring, dime a dozen logo, loses the “congress” attachment, and, in small print, looks like a cheap postage stamp…

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:16 AM

Jonathan Hughes’s comment is:

I like it (although I agree that the kerning could be better).

I’m embarrassed to admit, that I didn’t think of the stripes as the stripes of the flag until I started reading. When I first saw it, I saw left half of the book as analog, and the right half as digital, and assumed it was implying that the LOC is moving towards a digital future.

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:38 AM

JMB’s comment is:

The symbol is excellent, nicely resolved and perfectly appropriate.

The type and applications look awful.
There are so many new serif fonts that could have been chosen over ‘the same old Trajan’, this would have introduced a more contemporary touch that I think is sorely missing.

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:41 AM

Joseph’s comment is:

I really like the mark, especially seeing it in play on the collateral. Using Trajan doesn’t bother me, but good LORD. Who approved the kerning?!?! It’s like they had a blind chimpanzee bang his hand on the keyboard to adjust the kerning and then just said “Screw it! It’s perfect!”

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:43 AM

John McCollum’s comment is:

[Quote]Admiring what is clearly a fantastic design agency is in no way threatening innovation; I don’t think I’ve heard anything so absurd in all my life. Maybe you have rebellious tendencies that prevent you from giving praise to good work by large agencies that get paid “a shitload of money”. Possibly because you’ll never be at that level yourself? Whatever, to label it sycophantic is bordering on petty jealousy.[/Quote]

Hey, I like a lot of what C&G does. I also reserve the right to criticize them.

I’m a huge Bob Dylan fan. I’m also happy to admit that I think his latest album sucks, and provide salient points as to why I think it sucks. Some other smart people think it’s great, and have legitimate reasons for thinking so.

But I have no patience for someone who appears to advance the argument that “Bob Dylan is one of the greatest musicians of our time. What hits have you produced? Who are you to express the opinion that his latest album is complete crap? You tell ME what instrumentation you’d have used on track five!”

It’s kinda the same way with graphic design.

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:44 AM

g-sppud’s comment is:

Martin:

Admiring a fantastic firm (which C&G surely is) is one thing, but automatically putting every design that they produce on a pedestal is disingenuous. The fact that this is a C&G design does not in any way make it off limits to criticism. Again, if this was a student’s work would you defend it so vehemently?

It is also unfortunate that you feel the need to state that no one will ever be at their level. Really? That you include yourself in the “will never be worthy” category does not make it any less insulting. Big names didn’t jump onto the scene as big names. Everybody starts off as nobody - even Chermayoff and Geismar. This forum is full of many talented professionals, and it sad to see you so quickly piss on their credentials as unqualified to say anything about this work.

This space was designed to be an open source for the discussion and critique of identities. Comments range from very lean to very lengthy, and from constructive to snarky. All comments have the right to be heard, as much as you may not want to hear them.

On Jan.07.2010 at 12:17 PM

Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:

Regarding the use of Trajan — it was released in 1989, hardly the classic font some commenters are inferring. In fact, I would argue that the face been heavily abused for the majority of its existence.

Conceptually, I suppose one could suggest that Trajan and what it was intended to represent recall the architecture of the library buildings (engraved marble and columns and such). But its hard to argue that, within our cultural zeitgeist, Trajan represents anything close to what Carol Twombly intended when designing it.

With a entity like the LoC, I would personally feel more comfortable honoring the content more than the physical place. I would have loved to see what the mark looks like when paired with fine book-style typography — maybe a Jenson or Caslon. Something ancient, with clout and history. The icon is a book, after all, and it seems like a more apt typographic foundation.

Not saying that the designers at C&G didn’t explore that route (I’m sure that they did) — I’d just be curious to see the results.

On Jan.07.2010 at 12:17 PM

Ivan’s comment is:

don’t mind Trajan…but for such a huge agency, they could’ve spent a bit more time for the kerning, especially the utterly annoying “RA”

On Jan.07.2010 at 12:43 PM

Robert’s comment is:

Absolutely timeless mark. Yeah we the Trajan typography isn’t the best but for me, with a mark like that it doesn’t really matter.

On Jan.07.2010 at 12:58 PM

Chip O'Toole’s comment is:

@col_corcoran

You mean this guy?

On Jan.07.2010 at 01:09 PM

Mary C’s comment is:

Von K wrote:
“The Trajan left me cold at first glance, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that Trajan adds to the timelessness. This logo needed type that’s pretty much guaranteed to not look dated for decades (maybe even centuries) to come, which narrows the available choices considerably.”

For me, Trajan is the opposite of timeless.
It is so tied to a period of American design in the late 1980s, early 90s (particularly coming out of NY) where every financial, government and public institution used justified, spaced out Trajan. Basically anyone who wanted to look serious and traditional, Trajan (and blue and grey) was the answer.

The symbol is excellent.

On Jan.07.2010 at 01:17 PM

BlueEyedPeas’s comment is:

Underwhelming, looks like it’s paying homage to the postage stamp.

On Jan.07.2010 at 01:27 PM

Austin bankruptcy lawyer’s comment is:

Love the new one, much better than the old.

On Jan.07.2010 at 01:32 PM

Alessandro Mingione’s comment is:

Beautiful mark.
About the kerning, i’m much more worried on the “lib” part than the “rar”.

On Jan.07.2010 at 01:35 PM

Katie’s comment is:

I think it’s great. Goddamn I love this country.

On Jan.07.2010 at 01:48 PM

MSGDS’s comment is:

Beautiful and very appropriate icon. Trajan is a nice typeface, but when it comes to kerning, it’s really difficult to work with. That’s the only thing that bothers me, so I would have selected a different font.

On Jan.07.2010 at 01:50 PM

jonathan’s comment is:

This is one of those marks that makes you wonder why it wasn’t like this before. Genius mark. Decent execution, terrible kerning tho.

On Jan.07.2010 at 01:51 PM

Kenny Eicher’s comment is:

I like it, but it reduces so poorly. They should consider making a separate mark for reduced applications like the website.

On Jan.07.2010 at 02:03 PM

Von K’s comment is:

A Mary C: I know what you mean about Trajan being tied to the 80s and 90s, since that’s when the digital font was used so heavily. The timelessness I was referring to is the font’s relation to the carved letters on the Trajan column.

On Jan.07.2010 at 02:42 PM

Jason Laughlin’s comment is:

The simple fact that anything of value survived what I would think is an absolutely brutal committee process is something to be commended on its own. The fact that it is a fantastic piece of design makes it astounding. I think it is completely appropriate to point out the kind of expertise Mr. Geismar must have in navigating the shark infested waters of large clients. For that alone they earn what Mr. McCollum’s aforementioned “shit-pile of money.”

On Jan.07.2010 at 03:02 PM

maybe’s comment is:

im sorry but to me, you could pretty much flip the new one with the old one, and be calling it a redesign. at no point does the the new logo add anything better than the old one.

Not better or worse…
It is merely different.

just another piece of work adding to the mass of pointless design that exists in world today.

On Jan.07.2010 at 03:04 PM

christina’s comment is:

the mark looks very similar to one designed by a Dallas firm for the George W. Bush library.

http://www.georgewbushcenter.com/site/c.rvI2IaNVJyE/b.5572463/k.BE02/Home.htm

On Jan.07.2010 at 03:27 PM

Steven Hoober’s comment is:

I don’t love the mark. Maybe I have been seeing too much book-related stuff lately, but so will a lot of people in the space. The spine treatments are great when you see a zillion together, for example. But how will it stand out from others.

And I liked the dome. That building is iconic, and I think it represented “library” better than the new mark which just represents “books” to me.

On Jan.07.2010 at 03:32 PM

maya worth’s comment is:

I loathe designers — even though I love good design — almost as much as I loathe actors. I am not crazy about the new ID. I see hair care. To me it’s a punch in the eye.

On Jan.07.2010 at 03:33 PM

Alphonse’s comment is:

Does this look like a book being shredded to anyone else?

On Jan.07.2010 at 03:38 PM

eli’s comment is:

reminds me of another one: http://www.brooklinelibrary.org/, though without the flag reference necessarily. otherwise, what a huge improvement! i don’t love the trajan choice, but it doesn’t bother me as much here as it has in other instances.

On Jan.07.2010 at 03:50 PM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

John McCollum, this will be my last post as this ‘discussion’ is beyond tedious. I’m sure you’ll be delighted as you have “no patience” for me. Seriously, what is with the aggression? However, should you wish to respond, I’m sure there will be another large chunk of my argument that you can re-quote and twist to however you want…

Or you can post an irrelevant analogy too if you like. I haven’t listened to Bob Dylan’s latest album so I can’t say one way or another if it’s good or not. But people who know what they’re talking about will tell you if it’s good, bad or indifferent. That’s why albums win awards and so forth. The charts however, that’s where poor music can get to number one purely because it’s personal opinion. I hope you see what I’m getting at here. Of course there’s opinion. But to misquote George Orwell, whilst all opinion is equal, some is more equal than others. And again, I’m not raising my own opinion over yours but I suggest that this logo will be around for a long time. We can only see but it has the timeless qualities (not ‘dated’ as you ignorantly suggest) to give it a chance.

Tell me one thing: do you have clients who think they know design better than you? Some that suggest they can do better than you in PowerPoint or Corel Draw? Do you value their opinion on design, on your work? Simply replace ‘you’ with ‘C&G’ and ‘your clients’ with some of the ignorant comments on here.

Have a great day.

g-sppud – at no point am I ‘putting every design that they produce on a pedestal’; I am commenting on this logo and some of the comments on the logo. And whilst there are, I’m sure, lots of talented people who contribute to this forum I’d suggest that there’s a difference between ‘talented’ and ‘truly great’. Maybe I was a little harsh in my assumptions but if you think comments like “Poor execution..” “mild modification of a reading area symbol” “disappointing, uninspiring, dime a dozen logo” are the sort of comments that deserve respect then we’ll agree to disagree. Even the more common comments about the font are betraying a certain ignorance. Darrin Crescenzi commenting on Trajan being released in 1989 beggars belief.

And on your point on if a student created this? I’d mark that student down as borderline genius. There is nothing so great about a logo when it’s simplicity makes you think “I could have done that”. Then you look at your own portfolio and see you haven’t. Not even close.

On Jan.07.2010 at 03:53 PM

forenoon’s comment is:

@maybe:disagree.

the new logo makes a statement, saying it’s THE american library.
that’s something you can probably think of subconsciously while only looking at it and having no background knowledge. it seems pretty “universal” (and i’m not talking about the graphic style).

the old logo only seems to show off the library building. it doesn’t say anything. while the architecture it shows may convey a sense of grandness, the logo design itself has no real idea. it doesn’t communicate.

well, imho.

On Jan.07.2010 at 03:56 PM

John L Hoh Jr’s comment is:

It does have 13 stripes….

On Jan.07.2010 at 04:21 PM

Christopher’s comment is:

I’m sorry but the Typography is absolutely shocking, it looks to have been done by a junior and no one has bothered to correct the mistakes in the kerning.

As for the icon, yeah it works OK on the different applications but I find it pretty ordinary, uninspiring and very very ‘Clip Arty’.

The only positives I can give it is that it is simple and hasn’t got a gradient or gloss effect on it.

On Jan.07.2010 at 04:21 PM

Clinton’s comment is:

I like the icon - it works particularly well on the book spines. I like the ‘books give us wings’ thought, and I also like the allusion to digitizing/sharing the knowledge through digital platforms. Perhaps one less stripe? On some of those images when the mark reduces down, the stripes merge together and the idea is lost.

I think trajan was a weak choice - perhaps a more robust serif would have better complemented the quite bulky icon. For such a client you’d also expect bespoke type, not something off the shelf!

From the images above it seems the printed system is a little rushed. I’d be hoping to see more evocative/emotive images, talking about this idea of ‘books give us wings’ rather than moody detail shots of the architecture. This aspect of the identity scheme drags it back from being a progressive, forward looking pioneer to being just another library with a beautiful, old building.

On Jan.07.2010 at 04:33 PM

Kári Emil’s comment is:

It’s *like* and I *nice* it. The animation is beautiful and the overprint effects on the brochures are very cool.

On Jan.07.2010 at 04:41 PM

John McCollum’s comment is:

Martin,

You’ve spelled it out. And now you’ve made explicit the implicit tone that provoked my original response.

By suggesting that the members of this community — many of whom are talented, respected and accomplished designers — are far enough beneath C&G’s level as to be comparable to clients who think they can do better in Corel Draw, you’ve come off as insulting and sycophantic.

At least to me.

As soon as we decide that one firm’s work is beyond critique simply because of the reputation, status or even talent of the firm’s designers or principals, we’ve conceded that this web site is irrelevant.

I’m not going to make this a pissing match, but I just find the idea that we should cede the discussion to experts (especially given the relative expertise of many of the designers and firms represented here) is ridiculous.

Every project must stand on its own. What I did last year — or even over the last 10, 20, 30 or 40 years — shouldn’t be brought into the discussion over THIS year’s project.

On Jan.07.2010 at 04:44 PM

Kári Emil’s comment is:

The layers of meaning just keep piling up, don’t they? Digital vs. Analog, United States stripes, thoughts with wings, books… Now that is what makes this a great logo.

On Jan.07.2010 at 04:48 PM

Juliana’s comment is:

Definitely a great logo (agree with the kerning issue).
It is so simple but it says so much. That is why I like it and why I think it works.

On Jan.07.2010 at 05:24 PM

Kev’s comment is:

I’m with Josh M on this one. Martin needs to realize that his attitude is just hero worship.

First of all, I guarantee you that Ivan Chermayeff himself had very little to do with this logo. It was probably the work of Sagi Haviv or Tom Geismar or even one of their designers. And C&G is actually a very small studio.

And trust me, I’ve worked with “legendary” designers and they all lay eggs once in a while. And they’re very often overrated or outdated and just living off of their reputation.

Saying that most of us cannot do better then them is absolutely absurd.

On Jan.07.2010 at 06:08 PM

Rx’s comment is:

I swear, this is something maritime.

On Jan.07.2010 at 08:01 PM

JohnD’s comment is:

Is it me or is Martin Boath the sanest person in this forum??

John McCollum you gotta stop you are really exposing your insecurities.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:06 PM

Kyle ’s comment is:

Logo is nice. Original, clean, appropriate. Isn’t extraordinary, by any means, but still nice.

Type choice is boring, uninspired.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:13 PM

Jung’s comment is:

totally timeless…

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:21 PM

manichaeus’s comment is:

Sad, sad times for graphic design. Of course Alphonse is right, that is a quite regular pictogram for paper/book shredding. Today we don´t burn books, like ridiculous tyrants of old did. We shred them. Destroying books is a very strong symbol for the fear of ideas. The slightest association to the destruction of books should be avoided by this project like bookworms are on a library. Instances like this reckless identity project make me believe that ad agencies are capable of a far better understanding of the responsabilities of the communication process than the average design agency is. And c’mon, C&G is pretty average.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:35 PM

slg’s comment is:

The new logo is obviously based on/inspired by the old American Memory logo, which can be seen at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/homeimages/ammemicon.gif and is still used throughout the American Memory section of LC’s site (http://memory.loc.gov) in areas not yet updated from their 1990’s look and feel. I suspect there’s an LC employee somewhere who is not getting credit for the original idea of superimposing the American flag on an open book.

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:06 PM

Name required’s comment is:

IBM Anyone?

On Jan.07.2010 at 10:54 PM

Manny’s comment is:

Sig that’s not a logo it’s clip art.

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:19 PM

Eli’s comment is:

Quite loving the new type treatment, but uh, not sure about the icon.

Just wondering how important the original icon was, and why they didn’t just try to improve on it.

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:28 PM

Christopher’s comment is:

@ Eli

Seriously, you actually like the Typography, bad Kerning and all?

On Jan.07.2010 at 11:44 PM

valentines day’s comment is:

Pretty cool logo of library of congress.I would like to say the Library’s mission is to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations.

On Jan.08.2010 at 12:55 AM

Mane’s comment is:

I think its a bit dull for such an institute. The icon could be more refined and better executed and the font is just not the right choice in this case - its a good start, but not a great identity (yet). With a little more attention to detail this would be a much better logo.

For example, the new identity for the New York Public Library surely wins compared to this one. That really is a timeless icon!

On Jan.08.2010 at 02:07 AM

Stephanie’s comment is:

@Plamen, thank you so much for that link. I didn’t know Stefan Kanechev and immediately got absorbed! :D

As for the Library of Congress: i really like the symbol and it doesn’t matter to me that it’s trajan, but i think going sans-serif (customized type, perhaps?) would have given it that little “extra”.

On Jan.08.2010 at 03:19 AM

Doug Bartow’s comment is:

Trajan (both weights) should be retired, like a baseball jersey number of a former great that is no longer worn out of respect.

On Jan.08.2010 at 06:55 AM

Neil’s comment is:

It very nearly gets there - I’d like to have seen a more sophisticated and less ubiquitous serif face and I really can’t get my head around the reasoning for proper dodgy kerning just so two lines of type end up the same length.

On the application side of things I really like how the icon works on the book spines and on the printed material - not too keen on the mug and bag though. Looks a little ‘plonked on’ for my liking, maybe they are just prototypes.

On Jan.08.2010 at 07:12 AM

D_tails_d_tails’s comment is:

Wow, the application is envying. LOC how about a million dollar idea without the million dollar consultant’s fee (but how about helping balance my checkbook with a few more zeros in my qualified tax deductions, blink blink)? Put yourselves on the Nook and Kindle and………

On Jan.08.2010 at 07:53 AM

felix sockwell’s comment is:

nice work, especially in context.
animation gets an A+.

the curve in the middle of the book
seems to level out unexpectedly.
takes a while to get used to. what i like
most about it is that it doesn’t hit
you over the head with stars. bravo, C+G

ps- where the hell is “design maven” these days? i miss the old bugger

On Jan.08.2010 at 09:10 AM

Cam Spilman’s comment is:

“one of the most progressive, enriching and engaging content-driven web sites”

I’m not sure I agree with the above. The website is dated, crowded and unfocused.

Better examples of museum / library websites are:

The V&A
http://www.vam.ac.uk/

The Guggenheim
http://www.guggenheim.org/

and

The British Library
http://www.bl.uk/

All of them demonstrate much more progressive, enriching and engaging web design, information architecture and content.

Anyway, sorry I know this is off topic. The new brand looks ok :)

On Jan.08.2010 at 09:54 AM

Huntley Brinkley’s comment is:

Epic failure. They’re going to be stuck with this tired postage stamp logo for a century.

On Jan.08.2010 at 10:15 AM

Kaj Winje’s comment is:

Icon critiques and typeface tiffs aside, thanks for the link to the Digital Collections landing page. With great irony, I have ‘bookmarked’ the site.

On Jan.08.2010 at 10:28 AM

Kaj Winje’s comment is:

Icon critiques and typeface tiffs aside, thanks for the link to the Digital Collections landing page. With great irony, I have ‘bookmarked’ the site.

On Jan.08.2010 at 10:29 AM

Josh’s comment is:

Oddly similar to

http://tw0.us/5vP

Different, but similar.

On Jan.08.2010 at 11:44 AM

oak’s comment is:

the libraries on our campus (i work at Notre Dame) are hyper sensitive to being associated with books and print. they’re quick to point out that they’re so much more then just books and they have a very good point in saying it.

the truth is that a book as a pure symbol is so old and so well branded and so perfectly representational of all forms of learning and knowledge and research and on and on and on that it’s hard to sell to such clients. Ours want technical references, and digital looks and forward thinking futurism to prove that they are not simply a collection of dusty old books on a shelf.

my point is that i think this mark is stunning in it’s perfection and appropriateness and I applaud the very real courage to stand up for the use of a perfect symbol.

On Jan.08.2010 at 02:00 PM

slg’s comment is:

I found a larger version of the old American Memory logo posted above, through the Internet Archive, at http://web.archive.org/web/20000824123927/lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amtitle.gif. Here is an apparently older or alternatve version, toward the bottom of the page at http://www.loc.gov/iug/html/32image.html. In fact, a Google image search on “American Memory logo” brings up some other variations.

On Jan.08.2010 at 03:04 PM

slg’s comment is:

“Books Give Us Wings,” LC Center for the Book, 1999 (via Internet Archive): http://web.archive.org/web/19990224182831/http://www.loc.gov/loc/cfbook/

On Jan.08.2010 at 03:20 PM

Chermeismargate’s comment is:

So what Sig, many logos are similar. It happens when you reduce an idea down to single, declarative form.

On Jan.08.2010 at 03:35 PM

orangetiki’s comment is:

Simple and yet very effective. I know you mentioned that at some time you could have seen someone trying to sneak stars into the full page on the left. Yes that would have been bad, but what I think that would be much, MUCH worse would have been to make the stripes on the right side red. I know that kind of customer, and I am glad that that thought never caught.

And something HAS to be done about those R’s . Trajan? sure why not but just don’t type it out. Convert to shape and clean those bad boys up.

On Jan.08.2010 at 05:58 PM

Stephanie’s comment is:

With regards to previous discussions about how brilliant this logo is and how any student who might have produced it would be a borderline genius, I have to disagree. This is a very simple solution, and one that I would probably have come up with in my original sketches if I were given this project.

The genius, I would say, is being able to sell such a simple and elegant solution to a powerful client such as this. It’s the ability to get good design like this actually pushed through the door that makes a firm like C&G so great.

On Jan.08.2010 at 06:55 PM

Ziggy’s comment is:

Mssrs. Havlv and Gesimar have put on a clinic for the young grasshoppers in this crowd.

While signatures / logos / primary identifiers are the most important element in any visual identity system, the environments in which they appear are often equally or more important. This signature will enhance every environment in which it appears, from buildings to lapel pins to the those like the illustrated above. It could also carry a simple 3’ x 4’ poster with only the signature.

Personally, I really like how the base of the spine anchors the whole thing. Beautiful.

On Jan.08.2010 at 08:20 PM

OakRidge’s comment is:

I actually quite like Trajan. That it has been used on film posters is of no consequence.

On Jan.09.2010 at 11:00 AM

pichu’s comment is:

i don’t love it at all, it looks like and icon you could find in a dingbat combo, at least the old one has more history (but it does not make it better)

On Jan.09.2010 at 06:47 PM

Alexander Greyling’s comment is:

Good brand symbol design although the promiscuous positioning of the type (in different positions and in one or two lines in relation to the symbol) and the use of colour do not add up to really good brand identity practice.

I do prefer the type in two lines followed by the symbol. That way it is more practical and could even be placed vertically on a book spine.

The identity rollout and the treatment prove how effective the brandmark is (even when significantly reduced) and I think Trajan as a classic type is not a bad choice. Seen in context, it reflects the Library of Congress’ history well.

In contrast the UN baby blue is insipid and lacks the punch that should convey the Library of Congress’ noble pedigree.

Overall not bad and certainly 100% better than the recent New York Public Library’s poor effort that resulted in a devolution instead of an intended evolution of its brandmark.

Author of
Face your brand!
The language of visual branding explained

On Jan.10.2010 at 03:06 AM

leoklein’s comment is:

Kind of boring and generic to my mind. I think almost every library on the planet has a similar logo.

Far more visionary would have been to get over the obvious and work on what’s specific to LOC. Actually I think the earlier logo works much better.

On Jan.10.2010 at 03:37 AM

Joe Moran’s comment is:

Just curious why this in on Brand New now? The logo has been in use since at least Feb. of 2009. (See photos above of the brochures for “Thomas Jefferson’s Library,” “Creating the United States” and the “Bible Collection.”)

As for the type… what other choice could there have been? Totally appropriate for the institution and their location.

To those who *don’t* like the mark…

VR/

On Jan.10.2010 at 12:47 PM

Shannon’s comment is:

I thought RedBull gave you wings…

Otherwise I think the logo is very well done.

On Jan.10.2010 at 05:09 PM

Anne’s comment is:

I like the movement in this mark, especially when compared to their former logo that is so static featuring the building. The new mark has an energy in the pages, which is such an important and smart choice for a library, implying the act of reading while simultaneously hinting at the flag, as mentioned in previous comments. As for the color, I like the gold version that appears on the mug and the book spines best, but think it is successful in all the colors shown.

On Jan.10.2010 at 07:23 PM

Florian’s comment is:

Horrible. The icon couldnt have been any more generic. The typo went from “nice and readable” to “bulky and uninspired”.

First time I really disagree with what Armin has to say here.

On Jan.11.2010 at 05:35 AM

Peter Esko’s comment is:

I have to say my favorite part of the mark is the subtle nod to the American flag, 13 stripes and all. It’s a particularly appropriate touch.

On Jan.11.2010 at 11:40 AM

Michael Harvey’s comment is:

Too many stripes.

You can’t have both the magic 13 AND timeless simplicity.

Other variations on the logo linked in earlier comments (for instance, the LOC American Memory logo) tend to have fewer stripes.

This one comes to feel, well, fluttery.

On Jan.11.2010 at 12:54 PM

bike locks’s comment is:

Love the new one, not to mention that I’m wasn’t aware that they had such an extensive online category. Great to know and great to see a fresh face on something that should never feel, seem, or look antiquated to the public.

On Jan.11.2010 at 03:24 PM

Matthew Moore’s comment is:

Yeah Trajan’s long tailed R’s ruins the kerning in the type. It’s unfortunate. The mark is beautifully simple though.

On Jan.12.2010 at 06:49 AM

Jeffery Wright’s comment is:

The new logo is a clever symbol, very modern. The traditional serif’d font seems a bit awkward next to it, but still, nice job.

On Jan.12.2010 at 08:16 AM

Kevin M. Scarbrough’s comment is:

The Library of Congress is one of the federal institutions that make me proud to be an American, and this logo makes me proud to be a designer. While I do not personally care for Trajan as a typeface, I do find it’s use here to be appropriate for the reason it was drawn (ergo it is not the fault of this logo that Trajan is overused).

The Library of Congress, in a move that makes me feel warm and fuzzy, also publishes their content on Flickr ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/ ). This makes me proud to be an internet user.

On Jan.12.2010 at 09:41 PM

Peter Romich’s comment is:

The new mark is very modern - in the historical sense as there is an undeniable late international style feel to it. Welcome to 1970. Not a negative but nothing groundbreaking.

The real point is that the old mark was effective and perfectly acceptable. I could easily imagine the two switching places and the praise being equally strong. Very much a change for the sake of change “update”-which isn’t necessary a bad thing. Kudos to the client reps/sales people at Chermayeff & Geismar.

On Jan.15.2010 at 06:42 PM

Dyggyr’s comment is:

@Efren - I had deja vu about the Impega logo - http://www.lyreco.com.au/images/7.15_impega_logo.jpg - but Impega’s just been merged into the Lyreco brand so it’s all good!

On Jan.21.2010 at 08:40 AM

Chuck’s comment is:

It looks great on that mug for some reason

On Jan.26.2010 at 12:24 PM