Opinion BY Christian Palino

Whose Sucker is it?

The mission of The Cornell Lab of Ornithology is “to interpret and conserve the earth’s biological diversity through research, education, and citizen science focused on birds.” Supporting that mission with publications and conservation initiatives, the lab has grown into an internationally respected organization of over 250 employees worldwide. To support this growth, the lab has commissioned a new identity which has been adapted by Michael Bierut and Katie Barcelona of Pentagram from the work of Charley Harper.

The previous identity was certainly feeling a bit dated and perhaps even a bit stuffy with its all-caps serif wordmark. The new wordmark brings a more modern feeling with its use of a slightly modified Avenir. The use of camelCase in TheCornellLab seems a peculiar choice and creates an odd rhythm that is accentuated in the longest edition of the wordmark. Though the most interesting part of the rebranding is the lab’s new icon. Over on Pentagram’s blog they explain that Bierut took “stylistic inspiration” from the work of Charley Harper — whose work Bierut has previously expressed admiration for — “adapting” one of Harper’s Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers, a bird local to the Lab’s original home in Ithaca, New York.

It’s clear that the lab has had a long relationship with Mr. Harper during his life, having much of his work featured in their building, including a painting made specifically for the lab. One could assume that the family or individuals that now steward the legacy and work of Charley Harper were involved during this redesign initiative — likely a back-story that Pentagram or the lab could provide for further clarity. However, all that being said, one would still ask: can a designer just pick up an illustration from another artist and turn it into a logo?

The credits listed on Pentagram’s blog read “Project Team: Michael Bierut, partner-in-charge; Katie Barcelona, designer”. For my part, if nothing else, I’d like to see the inclusion of something like “Creative Direction: Charley Harper.”

DATE: Jul.28.2009CATEGORY: Environment 92 COMMENTS

Plamen’s comment is:

The icon is certainly better and much friendlier as opposed to the old bird, which would suit some sports team more.

But the typography in the full version of the logo is too busy.

On Jul.28.2009 at 06:01 AM

Joshua’s comment is:

i think the original is actually quite classy. they really made a mess of the spacing and the logo is, well maybe pushing 'inspiration' to far.

On Jul.28.2009 at 06:36 AM

jonathan’s comment is:

Much improved (though I am a sucker for Avenir). I don't understand their use and then no use of spacing, its confusing and causes a weird balance, especially for Ornithology.

I prefer the Cornell with the bird at the end, and I would keep it consistent with all other variations of the brand. As for the copying of the bird, for the history blah, blah, all I'm saying is Fairey copies photo its a crime, Pentagram copies illustration its a masterpiece? Mark me down for dubious.

On Jul.28.2009 at 06:39 AM

Rob O.’s comment is:

They might've been served better by adhering to the spirit of the bird icon and giving it a refresh rather than adopting a whole new design.

Perhaps they should've simply updated the lettering and left the icon?

On Jul.28.2009 at 06:42 AM

Chris Thorpe’s comment is:

I really like the 'Cornell' symbol, with just the bird at the end, and even 'TheCornellLab' is somewhat successful, but the full length one doesn't really do it for me. It may be to do with the kerning on some of the letters, but it feels uneven and could probably do with racking 'of ornithology' underneath the whole thing.

Having said that, the bird is really great and this looks very stylish and not at all trendy, which I think is really quite a good thing in this case. At least it doesn't have any gradients, swooshes or globes.

Overall, I think this is a good update to a dated brand.

On Jul.28.2009 at 07:15 AM

dan’s comment is:

The earlier version is much more cohesive and elegant to me - classy, as Joshua put it. I thought the earlier logo worked well with the wordmark.

The placement of the logo in the new version seems awkward and ruins the flow for me, though it works a little better in the alternate configurations. But even so, I have some difficulty with the overall combination & placement of so these chunky elements.

As for 'stylistic inspiration' ... it seems a bit more than that.

On Jul.28.2009 at 07:19 AM

Thomas Breure’s comment is:

I have to agree with Dan's comments..

I also think the "serious and elegant look" of this company is totally gone by introducing the new logo

On Jul.28.2009 at 07:29 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

Are you serious? NOTHING about Cornell says sans serif font.
http://www.cornell.edu/

The icon I can digest and appreciate. The type treatment (particularly the long edition) is not pleasing to the eye, and nearing an "unprofessional" look, IMO. Ubiquity, defined.

Pentagram's addiction to all things sans serif is borderline absurd.

On Jul.28.2009 at 07:51 AM

emily’s comment is:

the yellow is really difficult to distinguish on screen. hopefully it looks better in print. i did not understand what sort of icon i was looking at until i saw it large.

On Jul.28.2009 at 07:52 AM

Chad Kaufman’s comment is:

@Thomas Breure : "I also think the 'serious and elegant look' of this company is totally gone by introducing the new logo"

This was lost long ago with the use of their website applying drop shadows to their previous logo, which can still be seen.

***

I love the new bird. I think there are many times when an element is introduced to a wordmark and it breaks the flow, but I think this sits nicely with the tail and beak hovering over the letters.

For the inspiration, I am sure many comments will follow about, "How can your rip that off" etc. For this project, Mr. Bierut was lucky enough to have amazing graphic material to reference for the identity. As mentioned by Armin, it seemed the lab had a great relationship with Harper, whose work adorned the building. It seems as though the Lab identified with the work already, and using it as a model for the new identity was the most appropriate direction.

This is not an introduction of a new logo, but a redesign of a symbol that the Lab related to more than their old logo.

On Jul.28.2009 at 07:53 AM

Jacob’s comment is:

I don't dislike it, but on first glance--and on a few subsequent glances, as well--I saw an old-school early 2000s flip cell phone instead of a bird. Maybe that was due to the smaller size of the preview.

On Jul.28.2009 at 07:59 AM

nathan mckinney’s comment is:

I'm sorry, but not being familiar with the original illustration, I had to look several times and in several ways at the icon to even discern it was a bird. I think it's because the icon is buried in all that type, and isn't given any space to "fly".

I was trying to see some sort of Salvador Dali computer mouse dripping off the edge of a table instead, and was so distracted by it, that I didn't even bother to read the type at first.

Looking at the context of the original bird in it's original environment, it's impossible to miss the bird, but in this context with this font, I not only miss that it's a bird, but that the organization is all about birds. What a miss.

On Jul.28.2009 at 07:59 AM

jarrod’s comment is:

Sans? check.
No spaces between words? check.
Alternating bold and regular weight words? check.

logo done.

On Jul.28.2009 at 08:03 AM

Fish’s comment is:

I love the new bird icon. Guess the question is who can actually take credit for it? I do not understand the typography execution at all. I miss the previous type treatment, something is missing in this one with the new sans-serif typeface. I do not think making something more modern and contemporary means absolutely no serif typography. Overall it seems like the authenticity of the lab is gone with this jumbled execution.

On Jul.28.2009 at 08:03 AM

Chad Kaufman’s comment is:

Deja vu: This was posted by Leigh McKolay last month and linked from Draplin 2 days ago: Harper illustrations

On Jul.28.2009 at 08:05 AM

Joe Bloggs’s comment is:

The weight and balance of the wing is good in Harper's Illustration, completely wrong and bothersome in the logo. Better luck next time

On Jul.28.2009 at 08:21 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

Geez, the typography on the new logo is anxiety-inducing.

Seriously.

Information overload.

I don't quite understand why the text on the new one is all jammed together, yet there's a space after "of".

The icon, as most every single icon Pentagram does or improves upon, is awesome.

Keep well,
Dale

On Jul.28.2009 at 08:39 AM

Ryan Adair’s comment is:

Alot of Pentagram work seems to just slap type on at the end, like an afterthought. It looks lazy to me.

I quite like the little bird, but the type is really annoying and predictable. No more Avenir, no more Gotham please.

On Jul.28.2009 at 08:44 AM

Jeffry Pilcher’s comment is:

The bird icon looks like a Northwest Indian glyph or something that belongs on a totem pole.

I'm quite surprised that a lab at a university needs its own Pentagram-level identity. I wonder what it cost? Unless it was a gift from Pentagram, Cornell paid too much. Any kid with basic graphics skills could have turned the Harper bird into clip art.

While there may be a larger debate over whether designers can reinterpret another artist's work to create a logo, I don't think this situation serves as a great example to stimulate that debate. Cornell clearly has a close relationship with the artist, who I'm sure would be perfectly fine having his work serve as the inspiration for the lab's logo. Given the circumstances, it's a logical design direction that I think most designers would have explored.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:03 AM

Michael’s comment is:

I wouldn't know a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker if it landed on my hand, but ... at first glance I saw a welder's mask.

The white diagonal section (which is the biggest departure from Harper's original illustration) has the effect of drawing the eye away from the head, which is what makes the icon a bird.

Obviously some of the detail needed to be discarded for use as a logo. But the fine detail around the head was left almost untouched, and it would be interesting to be able to see Pentagram's working drawings and see some variations which retained some detail in the lower half of the wing.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:06 AM

a guy named Patrick’s comment is:

Leave the bird as a Harper illustration. It loses it's beauty as a logo.
Hate the thick/thin space/no space iconinthe mid dle execution.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:07 AM

Brooke Novak’s comment is:

Wow. How does this logo tie into the core brand (Cornell)? This center has obviously violated Cornell's visual identity guidelines and ultimately weakens the core brand.

http://cornelllogo.cornell.edu/
http://cornelllogo.cornell.edu/web/

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:12 AM

Glen Hawkins’s comment is:

I am usually a huge fan of Michael's work but yikes... the type is inconsistent and the mark is pretty close to a rip off of Charlie's bird.. I think Bierut was on summer vacation for this one.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:24 AM

EnergonCube’s comment is:

When I see the icon as a larger, stand-alone piece, I like it. But seen smaller in the lock-up, it's not as easy to distinguish that it's a bird. It's almost too abstract.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:26 AM

Josev’s comment is:

The letter spacing/kerning on the type is way too tight. Ornithology looks like Omitholigy. I love Charlie Harper's work but the bird illustration is too complicated to function as a logo. The yellow body of the bird creates a tension point.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:37 AM

i2h’s comment is:

i'm not a fan of the icon, but i don't dislike it either. i think its an improvement on the original. the type however isn't really my cup of tea. being an alumni, i do lean towards the classic serif typography...it's definitively "cornell". it can be perceived as stuffy or old-fashioned, but the least beirut could've done was to work off the original type, instead of just tossing avenir at it.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:37 AM

Doug’s comment is:

I've liked Harper's illustration style since I first saw a print in my friend's house. I think the bird icon is a great tribute to him and his connection to the lab. The typography is fairly uninspired, though - it diminishes the impact of the icon itself.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:44 AM

Violet’s comment is:

The original logo was more fitting imo. Institutes, Universities, and anything "scholar-wise" looks WAY better using Serifs. It has a time encapsulating effect and elegance that san serifs do not. It is clean yes, but it just doesn't fit very well. at all.

I like the old logo better.

On Jul.28.2009 at 10:12 AM

M.’s comment is:

It's nice, and now it just needs some space to breathe (or spread its wings, as it were). Way too horizontally cramped, but that can be fixed. Enjoying the logo & typeface very much.

On Jul.28.2009 at 10:15 AM

tn’s comment is:

type clunky, bird seems so heavy and un-airborne. Who decided to flip the wings around? Very not aerodynamic at all.

On Jul.28.2009 at 10:26 AM

Nate B’s comment is:

The new icon looks like a penguin trying to take a dump due to the near non-existent yellow. Because of this the posture of the "bird" appears awkward and forced. I prefer the old, sleek logo much more. The new type treatment is crammed and doesn't work well in the long version. The best use of the new logo is "The Cornell Lab *bird*"

On Jul.28.2009 at 10:36 AM

Camryn Brown’s comment is:

@nathan mckinney re: old bird - I agree the old bird doesn't look like a bird at all... unless a tuna fish is a bird.

On Jul.28.2009 at 10:41 AM

Derek Stewart’s comment is:

When i first saw this was convinced the 'Before' was the 'After' - no really....

On Jul.28.2009 at 10:45 AM

Sharon’s comment is:

I agree with Brooke Novak. I went to Cornell and have seen a ton of university-related department logos over the years. I don't feel like this new logo does anything to enhance the Ornithology Lab and it doesn't gel with Cornell's other branding in a cohesive way.

On Jul.28.2009 at 10:50 AM

Stefano Picco’s comment is:

First impression: Oh no.

Second impression, I try it objective ... I don't understand this construct of symbol and typography. The "bird" looks like an mechanic thing and no more dynamic natural like an animal.

On Jul.28.2009 at 10:51 AM

Brandon Wade Oxendine’s comment is:

@jarrod Totally right. Generic, boring. A shame.

@Derek Stewart I saw that too, before is definitely way better type. Definite improvement on the bird though, as I'm somewhat sure is the consensus.

The type looks like something a high school student would do.
Really Pentagram? Really? I'm very surprised.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:02 AM

jcburns’s comment is:

Um, not camelCase, at least not the first three words. You'd need the 'T' in 'The' to be lower case for it to qualify. (as in theCornellLab ofOrnithology)

I believe the technical term for this instead is "capitalized words smushed together."

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:03 AM

AAaron’s comment is:

At first glance I thought the bird was a melting ink bottle and quill...
just saying.

I (like everyone) love Charley Harper's work, though I feel re- purposing one of his illustrations as a logo, is kind of tacky.

Unless Mr Harper wanted this, or infact designed the symbol, it is bad form, for Cornell to get a free ride on his coat tails.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:07 AM

TR’s comment is:

The proper term is actually "proper case".

Does anyone else getting the feeling that ten years from now we are going to look back and wonder why every logo was created with Avenir or Gotham? I think that type is hitting its breaking point if it hasn't already.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:08 AM

J.B. Chaykowsky’s comment is:

I have no problem finding inspiration for work from other artists... however, "reinterpretation" means you put enough spin on it that its becomes a distant relative. I created an outline drawing of the new logo and placed it over the Harper image. Switching a wing direction and changing some of the markings are pretty much all the changes they made. Proportionally they are almost exact, and the division of some of the colors are spot on.

Pentagram, of course, recognizes this - why else would they put it on their site in such detail?

I ask myself - if Harper had been living now and created this artwork what would it look like?... he might have used illustrator... and a similar work been created. But this is not for Pentagram to ask unless done so by the Harper estate in conjunction with the Cornell Lab.

Another Pentagram project that seemed to take older work and repurpose it for identity:

http://pentagram.com/en/new/2009/03/new-work-lexington-kentucky.php

I actually kind of liked that one...

I know two identities does not necessarily create a trend... but outlining a previous work in vector format, changing it slightly, and placing text next to it? If it happens a third time... I'll start worrying.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:13 AM

joel’s comment is:

I'm with Jacob. The first thing I saw was an old flip phone, and even though I was thinking ornithological thoughts, I didn't even realize that was a bird until I saw Harper's sapsucker. Part of that was the yellow body showing up as negative space, part of that was the sans serif type, I'm guessing.

Not a quick enough read for me.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:17 AM

erica frye’s comment is:

Being a huge fan of Charley Harper's work, I love the bird. I, too, think the word inspiration is a stretch; I'd probably say adaptation.

However, the bird feels lost in the sea of type, which I agree is badly kerned -- it's cluttered on the left, loose on the right. It's almost like they had the whole thing laid out, and then at the last minute they bolded Cornell without adjusting the space to accommodate it.

And it's all too close to the bird. As has been mentioned, the bird has no room to breathe much less fly! I'd really like to hear the designer's thinking behind it because I'm baffled. The mark feels the most balanced (weight, proportion) when it's only Cornell and the Sapsucker, but that usage is the most problematic from an overall Cornell branding standpoint.

Coming one day after Pentagram twittered about being on a short list of top CID firms for its typography, this discussion is interestingly timed. I'm a big fan of much of what they've done over the years, but this type is truly problematic.

I will defend the sans serif, though. It may feel inappropriate to some, but Harper's graphic, curvilinear style largely dictated that choice. Certainly we could debate if that concept should have been executed if the resulting identity ends up off-brand, however.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:18 AM

austyn’s comment is:

When I first looked at this, I thought the after was the before.

I agree that the original logo could have been more "friendly", but the new logo looks unfinished and busy. It does not feel like a cohesive logo.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:29 AM

dg’s comment is:

i agree with all the spacing issues. i only really understood the bird after i saw it without the text crammed right on top of it. plus, at full size i like the bird, but once it's scaled down it's hard to follow.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:44 AM

Kabir’s comment is:

I really like the original actually. More intellectual, better spaced. The text in the new one looks messy, and agree with previous comments that it looks too much like a totem pole figure.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:48 AM

RyanS’s comment is:

The best part about the new logo is the bird icon, which seems more like a case of "copy and paste" than a case of “stylistic inspiration”.

The treatment of the type in the extended logo is also questionable.

I don't think the spacing and rhythm of -

TheCornellLab (icon) of Ornithology

- works very well.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:53 AM

Fur’s comment is:

Pentagram cites "Charley Harper" as an inspiration all over the place on their website:

http://pentagram.com/en/new/2009/07/new-work-cornell-lab-of-ornith.php

... so it's not like they did not cite Charley Harper at all as a source --

however, the logo is not an original work just inspired by Charley Harper; it is a re-interpretation of an existing work: Charley Harper's Yellow Bellied Sapsucker. It is true that without the permission of the Charley Harper design studio, the work should probably NOT be taken, modified and used as a logo by someone outside of Charley Harper's design studio (Pentagram), even though he and the Lab of O had a close relationship.

I bet that Charley Harper would have enjoyed designing a logo for Cornell - but since Charley's is no longer around to do it (and may his soul rest in peace), I wonder why didn't they hire his son (or another maintainer of his design studio, if any exist) to direct the creation of the new logo.

Instead, they picked a very expensive design powerhouse to do it on Charley's behalf. In regards to what kind of permission they had to do that, I am really not sure.

On Jul.28.2009 at 12:16 PM

JP So’s comment is:

I like the old logo; I especially like how the old one has the optical illusion of a bird pruning its wing. The new one will look good on a letterhead but it is less interesting.

On Jul.28.2009 at 12:18 PM

keith’s comment is:

This was way, way better before they decided to freshen it. I see nothing out-of-date with the original design. But I see a lot wrong with the new design.

On Jul.28.2009 at 12:22 PM

Chris Risdon’s comment is:

The new full logo really suffers with the camelCase and 'burying' the bird icon in the middle. It becomes a busy array of black lines - which I think eliminates the legibility benefit of going from all caps to u&lc. While I get they camelCased the Cornell name, and didn't feel it applied to the 'of Orni...", it feels inconsistently applied by not having it all one way or all the the other.

You do lose the bird in the logo and just see a black chunk shape (the bird's wing) in the middle - reinforcing the dark 'ink-up' of lines.

The two executions with the bird at the end are better (though the camelCase again takes away) and I think the bird could have just a bit more space from the letters. I keep thinking the two l's of 'Cornell' are about to be jammed right into the bird's ass.

I'm also not 100% convinced that the letter spacing in Ornithology is as good as it can be.

Lastly, if they ARE going to camelCase, I think they need to bring the "L" in Lab closer to the the "ll" in Cornell, as it almost looks like there is a word space there relative to the rest of the letters/words.

Very possible this looks better in print, or various executions. Just my thoughts.

Chris

On Jul.28.2009 at 01:00 PM

Koyo’s comment is:

Okey, let's separate two things. The bird is well executed but the type/execution is not well done.
The bird is a good synthesis and works good alone.

On Jul.28.2009 at 01:48 PM

S. Ahenkora’s comment is:

Hm... poor bird, all caged up in a lab. They couldve drawn more inspiration from the original illustration of the bird, as i'm still in favor of the original illustration. The wing of the icon looks like a train coming out of corners of the oh-so many times mentioned typesetting.

On Jul.28.2009 at 01:58 PM

jay’s comment is:

At first glance of the icon, I immediately thought it was an icon for a hockey team. The lack of attention to the micro type is really a shame, not expected from Pentagram. Although I agree that Avenir was a good choice as it contours nicely with the icon.

On Jul.28.2009 at 02:03 PM

KingMu’s comment is:

Gosh, when I first looked at the new logo, I thought it was a toaster.

On Jul.28.2009 at 02:15 PM

James’s comment is:

When the page loaded i thought the old one was the new one... i was happier that way. Seems to have taken all the personality and shaved off the bumps and distinctions that make things interesting and created a boring dumbed down safe piece of work... sorry guys...

On Jul.28.2009 at 02:51 PM

Angie’s comment is:

Call me crazy, but I didn't recognize the mark as a bird at first. What confused me is the white shape on the wing. It is at such an angle that it makes it seem as though there is a bend -- I know this is weird, but I saw an apron shape draped over a table. Upon further inspection, I see it is a cooler bird than before, but I also think that it is a little too close to its inspiration.

On Jul.28.2009 at 03:32 PM

Ivan’s comment is:

So, most of you out there are fine with "modified Avenir", which looks almost exactly like Gotham? Just because Armin pointed that it's actually Avenir, noone rants about how generic it looks? To me, something as fragile & delicate as a bird doesn't relate well to the chosen typeface.

On Jul.28.2009 at 04:33 PM

felix sockwell’s comment is:

not huge into it but i love C Harper. as it applies here? well, if nothing else it'll help sell some merch (and thus boost awareness). most impressive to me is the name change. (Katie Rapine to Katie Barcelona). Congrats Katie! you now sound incredibly sexy.

On Jul.28.2009 at 04:38 PM

Gardiner’s comment is:

The choice of yellow for the underbelly is holding this mark back and confusing everyone from initially recognizing the shape as a bird. I understand the need to be biologically accurate, but a quick change to a darker hue will do the trick.

You'll also notice how in the original, the color is picked up on the wing, making connections to the body. Would do good to reduce the mass of the wing in the revised version.

Also, it's clearly a rip off. Not an inspiration. This could be a mark for a Charley Harper museum. And unless he's given some kind of consent to Pentagram (which I doubt because he's dead), he deserves some kind of mention in their credits.

On Jul.28.2009 at 05:04 PM

Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:

It feels a bit odd to critique the work of Pentagram. It's one of those hallowed institutions in the Religion of Graphic Design. What I'm inclined to say feels like blasphemy or heresy (I have trouble telling those two apart). But at the risk of excommunication, here goes...

The old brandmark is vastly superior to the new one. The bird symbol is dynamic and elegant where the new one is static and heavy. The choice of Goudy in the first solution is wonderfully appropriate; organic and lyrical. Arial is a beautiful typeface by another master typographer; but here it is abused and just plain wrong. I'd never heard the term "camelCase" before- love it. The gestalt of the new symbol and type is something of a brick that would require an "Up" scale collection of helium balloons to get it off the ground.

Charlie Harper homage/controversy aside, the new mark just doesn't work. It feels corporate and mechanical, where it should feel erudite and organic.

...

It's and odd coincidene that on Pentagram's own blog this logo appears adjacent an announcement of their inclusion in the fantastic new book Graphic Design, Referenced. No one could accuse you guys of pulling punches.

On Jul.28.2009 at 06:24 PM

Kit Grose’s comment is:

One day, everyone in the world is going to wake up and be as bored of geometric sans like Avenir and Gotham and 90% of the logos designed after 2004 will need redesigns.

On Jul.28.2009 at 06:35 PM

EnergonCube’s comment is:

@Kit Grose:

And I'll bet somebody said the same thing about Helvetica when it was new. Time will tell, I suppose.

On Jul.28.2009 at 08:33 PM

t-bone’s comment is:

I'd like to know what the minimum size for this logo is… I don't think the bird is going to be recognisable when it's smaller than 20mm wide, which would make the overall logo need to be, um 130mm wide? pretty disappointing stuff.

On Jul.28.2009 at 08:51 PM

Design Pain’s comment is:

The kerning in the 'Ornithology' is absolutely shocking. Back to type school friend.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:24 PM

Sean’s comment is:

Oh - it's a bird!

I was wondering what a welding mask had to do with ornithology.

On Jul.28.2009 at 09:42 PM

ScottyM’s comment is:

I'll be darned, "JP So" is right ... there IS an optical illusion of a bird pruning its wing in the original. Fantastic.

Frankly, I agree with most comments about how poor the new icon looks in a small format. It could be any number of the comments from above ... and in most cases I'd say that's a success (for an icon to be thought-provoking). But not if it gets mistaken for a computer mouse.

I'll stick to a thought from my original comment ... which in the context of this logo redesign seems to fit.

Absurd.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:03 PM

katja bak’s comment is:

the bird has no dynamism.
the type i find unsettling. and while cornell should be bolded, i think it's too bolded.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:25 PM

Jhon Cadena’s comment is:

I feel it something loaded.

On Jul.28.2009 at 11:58 PM

Dominik Turek’s comment is:

WTF!? Weak sign, unreadable, with tragic typo :(

On Jul.29.2009 at 03:38 AM

Von Glitschka’s comment is:

I guess what surprises me is that such a big firm doesn't spend the time to refine the detailing. It's just a bit clunky as if no one went back in after the final comp was approved and refined the details?

Whether or not they are deriving the mark from an established illustration or not, they can still improve upon the graphic interpretation while still retaining some of it's inherent well established equity. Part of Harpers charm was achieving the illusion of texture with simple shapes. Pentagram neutered this type of detailing in their approach.

- The yellow just looks too stark. Needs to be more organic.
- Visual tension in how shape details interact with each other.
- Added detailing on wing makes mark look less generic.
- Wing could go either way IMO. (I don't mind the new direction)

Wouldn't take much to improve this mark.

On Jul.29.2009 at 04:41 AM

adam gf’s comment is:

I think this is an example of a brand needing tweeking rather than a complete overhall. The formation of the text in the old logo is really good. It is legible and classy. OK, maybe it needed to be updated to a 'friendlier' typeface to make it more accessible, but I think the Pentagram version is badly produced and overcrowded.
The icon needed changing, it has been modernised but it is not iconic and very hard to see what the shape is. I feel like I am looking for something hidden in it, but there is nothing. I also question the placement of the icon... in the centre of the type? Not sure about that.

On Jul.29.2009 at 06:04 AM

hyun’s comment is:

kinda disappointing. Seems a bit messy. I wish the bird wasn't so lost within the type. I can barely tell that it's a bird.

On Jul.29.2009 at 09:05 AM

Mark’s comment is:

It looks pretty good, the bird looks nice.

The old logo definitely had to go, this is a pretty good replacement, perfect no, but pretty good.

On Jul.29.2009 at 12:22 PM

TobiasMik’s comment is:

I'm with VonGlitschka all the way on the much needed tightening of the bird and re-introduction of selected details.
The remake doesn't do the Harper illustration justice at all.
I'm aware that the remake has to be simplified in order to work as a logo/icon, but in my opinion it's the wrong details that's been left out!
The bad attention to detail on the icon is in my opinion much worse than the type-treatment.

On Jul.29.2009 at 03:13 PM

Tyler’s comment is:

Seems eerily similar to a past proposed illustration for the lab done by Eleanor Grosch. Also based on a yellow-bellie sapsucker.

http://pushmepullyoudesign.com/cornell.php

On Jul.29.2009 at 06:53 PM

Tony Goff’s comment is:

I like the bird but the mix of font weights is a bit unbalanced in my opinion. At first I wasn't quite sure what the bird was as well (being stuck in the middle).

It might just be the new font but I quite like the simplicity of the original.

On Jul.30.2009 at 02:29 AM

Truth’s comment is:

The new design is a big step backwards. It is clunky and, well, kind of amateurish looking. It might pass as a good logo for toy manufacturer, to be used with toys for under 6's.

While the original wasn't great, it does have a refinement that is lacking in the new logo.

On Jul.30.2009 at 03:19 AM

Bobachu’s comment is:

KingMu, you are not alone! Toaster at first glance for me too
http://th03.deviantart.net/fs13/300W/i/2007/106/7/5/toaster_by_rasscion.jpg

On Jul.30.2009 at 08:09 AM

Skythe’s comment is:

1. Why no space between the first 3 words?
Inconsistent and not very readable.

2. The new bird looks strange. While the head is very well executed, the rest is weird. (the old one is too martial, makes me think of the Airforce or some Middle-East airline)

On Jul.30.2009 at 08:21 AM

Luke’s comment is:

Sans-serif type is more modern. Title case makes more legible sense than all capitals.

The kerning is uneven. It is distracting how "The," "Cornell," and "Lab" have been kerned within a point of their life, while "of" and "Ornithology" are given extra room to breathe.

The Charley Harper bird has been stylized into a cellphone (Sprint?). The white shape on its wing draws the eye away from any of the bird's other details.

On Jul.30.2009 at 09:08 AM

Kate’s comment is:

Like everyone else, I hate the new typography.

Once I realized the bird was a bird, and looked at the Charley Harper version, I wondered, why did they switch the direction of the "tail" of the bird?

It was substatially more elegant the way Charley Harper did it. It was so nice how the "S" shape appeared along the right edge of the body and negative space of the white line on the bird head.

On Jul.30.2009 at 11:45 AM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

I love the work of Michael Bierut. He has more talent in one thumb than I have in my whole body.

However, this new mark is for the birds. From the tight letter spacing to the bold-thin contrast and the awkward placement of the Charley Harper bird, it looks forced and not very well thought out.

Now the MAD (Museum of Art and Design) logo designed by Beirut. Now THAT is a classic.

On Jul.30.2009 at 12:11 PM

Ray’s comment is:

The 1970's called. They want their logo back.

On Jul.31.2009 at 05:57 PM

isabelle’s comment is:

Friendlier, maybe, but to me a little too cool for a lab. I've been annoyed by the coolifying of each and every logo. I don't get the bolding.

On Jul.31.2009 at 06:46 PM

Courtney Darling’s comment is:

The previous logo was much cleaner. there is too much going on with the no-spacing between TheCornellLab and then the bolded Cornell, then the icon which I feel is too similar to Harper's work (unless Harper's family insisted on that). Overall, it looks too busy.

On Jul.31.2009 at 07:26 PM

Karen’s comment is:

I'm a strategist, but branding aside, I wanted to post as a member of the target audience (Cornell alum, I heart Ithaca, wannabe birder who loves Sapsucker Woods- Goldsworthy cistern and all).

The new identity really, truly captures the brand. Charley Harper is a big part of the place (his Sapsucker poster is worth googling); his prints are all over the amazing facility and have influenced the interiors. Perhaps more importantly the spirit of his work is palpable. Cornell Ornithology is the global authority, but instead of feeling snooty or stilted, it's an incredibly inclusive, approachable, fun place.

My only question is how if at all this fits into the larger Cornell brand. Thank goodness Cornell abandoned the embarrassing JC Penny-like logo mis-step (made circa 2003) and returned to a system that draws from its heritage, but the Sapsucker/Ornithology system is completely unconnected to the rest of Cornell. But, you know, it's probably OK because the lab is physically apart from the campus, and does feel like a separate but affiliated entity.

On Aug.03.2009 at 12:50 PM

Lluis’s comment is:

Is better the beforel design, clear and easy to remember.
Is notorious the goal to original il.lustration but is not enoguh the final result.
I think that Avenir isn't apropiate fot the logo.

On Aug.03.2009 at 03:53 PM

PCARTER’s comment is:

It seems like the team got too immersed in the project and lost site of the intended goal.

I looked at it for quite a while and didn't realize it was a bird until I clicked through to read the article.

The type is not great.

On Aug.04.2009 at 09:22 AM

trip’s comment is:

the first one is much better. The inconsistent use of font weight, kerning and color in the new version is too much dissonance for the eye.

On Aug.18.2009 at 01:43 PM

Milkrow’s comment is:

BIRDLAB would have been a more appropriate name and worked better with the type treatment.

On Aug.18.2009 at 09:40 PM

Carlos Montalvan’s comment is:

At a small size I totally read it as something Native American, specifically Pacific Northwest art. But I actually didn't even see it as a bird until I saw it larger.

On Aug.26.2009 at 06:13 PM

wisconsin motorcycle accident’s comment is:

I for no other reason than disliking the former very much enjoy the current incarnation.

On Jan.06.2010 at 02:48 PM