Typographic Redesign for MoMA

Joe Pemberton's picture

Jared posted this to News and Events. Discuss it here.



Why is the logo on top "digital," "soulless" and downright
"hideous," while the logo on bottom shows "character,"
"warmth" and a "profound respect for the past?"

Read The Modern's Other Renovation by Andrew Blum.
(The New York Times)

tidchris's picture

The Jpeg process has been unkind to both, but to my eyes, the one on top's fuzzy around the edges. It was probably screenshotted from a nice scan and sampled down.

The one on the bottom shows a *great* sharp cleaving to the pixel, looking a lot more like print to my eye. If "soulless" means ignoring subtleties on the altar of Speed and Progress, sure, the above sucks more. The only other difference I can see is the spacing.

difference filter between old and new logos
The upper one was a tad bigger so I scaled it down - still - I can't really see the different cut to Franklin onscreen. The only difference besides the fuzzy edges is the obvious letterspacing. No comment on that though I'm reading Stop Stealing Sheep (great stuff).

'Hideous' means shockingly ugly. Both designs are competent and have similar 'boumas'. The difference seems more of a gnat's whisker/RCH. Please, someone scan the new and old ones and REALLY compare the difference.

Syndicate content Syndicate content