Rally around the new logo
I was very excited to see the new logo that has been developed for GW. It was disappointing, however, to see the rather negative coverage by The Hatchet on the introduction of the University’s new visual identity. A design project, such as the rebranding of a major university, is a complicated effort.
No task is ever more subjective than a design project, and even though everyone might not agree on some details, the University should at least be supported in its attempt to create a distinctive, updated and attractive visual identity.
The new brand features a unique yet accurate image of our namesake. It ties the new logo to the historical heart of the Foggy Bottom Campus and University Yard, as it was inspired by the statue there. The new visual identity also restores the use of the school colors, buff and blue, and uses a bold font that is eye-catching and also stands out from lettering styles used by other institutions.
Change is not always embraced by all, but as a university community, let’s celebrate the “new look” of GW and continue to work together to help our university reach its great potential. Hail to the buff and blue.
Michael La Place is an alumnus of the Class of 1985 and a member of the George Washington Alumni Association’s board of directors.
Rebranding doesn't prioritize students
After much hype, GW unveiled a new logo Sunday.
Let me state this simply: It’s awful.
The University decided to do away with the portrait of George Washington and replaced it with a cartoonish picture and a bland font. It’s a downgrade, to say the least.
But what is most frustrating is that the rebranding campaign was likely very expensive. This is irritating not only because the uninspiring visuals are undeserving of that expense, but also because of all the other ways that the money could have been spent.
Over the past four years, I have heard the same complaints from students. Dining continues to be a major problem, despite efforts to remedy it. And what about Gelman Library? The first floor improvements that are underway barely address the overcrowding on all the other floors. How about academic advising? Or the Lerner Health and Wellness Center, with limited hours of operation?
Is our logo really more important than the happiness of our student body?
It seems that way. It’s downright disappointing to see the University prioritize its image over its students’ wants and needs. Of all the complaints I’ve heard over the years, the logo looking outdated was not one of them.
If GW really wants to change its look, it should start paying attention to the real problems at hand.
Corey Lewin is a 2012 GW alumnus and graduate student in the Graduate School of Political Management.
Corey,
Last time I checked:
-HelWell is open 17 hours a day and its def not crowded all 17 of those hours
-Even though J street has been a problem, there have been changes every year in options and dining to try to improve it according to student suggestions, also most students have a kitchen in their rooms a luxury that students in other school DO NOT have
-At least there are plans to improve Gelman little by little rather than just let it stay stagnant, its not like foggy bottom has the space to build a whole new library; plus their efforts to make study space available during times of high volume have increased year to year.
I’m also a 2012 alumnus.
I think the University is really missing an opportunity with Gelman to bring it into the second decade of this century. Unfortunately, it requires a top to bottom gut and rearrangement of the space and infrastructure. When built, it was designed to be a forbidding bunker (why) that sought to conserve energy with tiny slit windows. The inside is a disaster, still lit with fluorescent bulbs mostly, with little warm, natural light. The library was designed for a print media era, which makes it highly dated in this environment of digital media.
Sow hat should GW do? Re-design an energy efficient, inviting, warm space that mixes print with digital media, allows for collaborative study and work, and is a place where students want to go.
Trebuchet is neither “bold” nor “eye catching.” it is a boring and unprofessional font (available in every standard font suite) that does not pay tribute to the esteemed institution we all know GW is. It’s lazy, nondistinctive, and gives off an incredibly unprofessional, and unscholarly, vibe.
If you are going to make fun of the new font choice, at least pick the correct font. It’s not Trebuchet.
I think the new logo is fine and I hope the University uses the University Seal more in the future as well. For example, on buildings, monuments, signa and plaques – more permanent or long-lasting locations, the Seal is more appropriate than a logo. In the new visual identity system, it would be nice to also see the University Seal on official stationary too.