Hacker News Reader

Perceived loss of individuality is frequently just an outcome of a design epoch change. Most logos that we thought were unique and had lots of individuality came from an era when that particular graphic design style was en vogue. Then later the logos were updated to better follow new trends (a vary fair desire for a business). Yes, Art Nouveau logos were pretty but the vast majority of logos in that era were designed in that style (so not some amazing level of individuality). Same with the sci-fi logos in the 80s (which I still think were ugly). Same with any other trend. Not really a question of individuality.

> Not everything needs to be redesigned, not everything needs a modern sans-serif font.

If the new typeface reads better then why not use it? If the new logo fits a wider variety of placements or prompts a better response from this generation then why not use it?

Hard, hard disagree. This good article has been discussed before on HN: https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-...

It's not just a "perceived" loss of individuality. The new logos discussed in that linked article, especially the fashion ones, suck in my opinion because they're boring and they all look the same. They at least used to have some good degree of variability.

Design is of course a fashion business like most things.

That said, a lot of traditional logos had a huge amount of fine detail that doesn't work well on mobile. While not the only factor, it's at least one motivator for a lot of the rebranding/logo redesigns that you're seeing.

I don't really buy that. I mean, maybe with older phones. But I guarantee 98% of people buying Balenciaga or YSL or Diane von Fürstenberg have an iPhone that is more than capable of displaying extremely fine detail very well.

That screens are (in many cases) very high res these days doesn't mean that the eyes looking at a small screen are. The irony is that many of the same designers who are coming up with simple unadorned logos are also fond of tiny grey text.

Hm, the first example - Revolut. The fact that the author thinks the original logo was recognizable or had any character is very questionable.

Revolut was founded in 2015, the time when a huge number of startups (including my own) had blue logos with a light gradient. This is such a cliche logo that it's almost laughable to even take seriously. Do you not remember 2015 and the wave of blue tech logos?

The point isn’t that the old logo was good, they include a similar AirBnb one on that list, the point is pure black is even less distinctive.

The new logo is objectively less distinctive as a shorter sentence can completely describe it.

Less distinctive than what? The original logo was a trend with thousands of logos looking like generic versions of each other. Was Revolut's logo distinctive back then? No. Then years later many logos followed a new trend and became another flavor of "not distinctive". I am not saying that old or new logo is better: they are all pretty generic. Always have been. We only recognize them as having character when we look at past iterations because we are so used to the current ones. Saying that, in my view the old logo was really ugly. The new one is just really generic.

Both logos include the same word in a uniform font which cancels out in the comparison.

However, there are objectively millions of ways to setup a blue color gradient around white letters that all look the same. There is exactly one way to have a pure black font.

Therefore the second logo is objectively less distinctive.

There is no objective way to evaluate this. It’s always in relation to something else. If we take 1000 blue logos (with different gradients and letter arrangement) and compare them to this single black logo: the black logo will be _objectively_ more distinctive.

There is nothing objective in picking some specific subset of logos for comparison vs all possible logos

You created a subjective measurement.

Variation does not equal distinction. You can have millions of gradients around white letters which will not be perceived by anyone as distinctive. On the other hand you can have black letters arranged in a million ways that will look distinctive. It's all a subjective selection.

There is an infinite number of ways to design a black logo. There is an infinite number of ways to design a blue logo. So which infinity has more distinctive logos?

Not all infinites are the same size, but that’s irrelevant as there are only a finite number of perceivably distinct logos.

Anyway, for any distinct set of black logos you can map them to a larger set of blue gradient labels therefore the number of distinct blue logos with gradients is larger.

You seem to be discussing individuality in style choice, while totally ignoring capacity for individuality within the style that is en vogue. Brutalist/minimalist logos with modern san serif fonts don't leave much room to explore for individuality. Meanwhile art nouveau or 80s sci-fi for example had a LOT of overhead for flexing individuality.

I agree with this argument to a degree. However, we are not comparing coats of arms, or Art Nouveau logos. We are clinging to this particular coat of arms, saying that it has much more individuality than the updated logo. Of course it does: the level of detail is different, it feels old and pompous. It has crowns. Three of them. It has Latin words. In all caps. Lots of character. Though probably looked completely generic when it was introduced in the 16-th century.

We overestimate the individuality and even the capacity for individuality of old things. Yes, anyone could add different squiggles and different Latin words -- but I doubt this is what you mean by "capacity for individuality within the style".

Modern logos are very minimalist, which I agree leaves less space for expressive individuality (basically by definition). But great modern logos are still possible, and they still often convey a deeper, more individual meaning.

For a positive example of a modernist logo that is distinctive and characterful (that someone down thread was showing as another example of a generic logo, so YMMV), the Royal Astronomical Society has a quite beautiful one [0].

[0] https://www.creativebloq.com/news/royal-astronomical-society...

Minimalism is also a tradition in logos. A logo needs to serve many purposes, one of which is being recognizable even under poor visibility. Many national flags are the height of minimal design, because one key goal for them was to be seen in battle so you knew where your side was.

Modern technology has different reasons for a similar purpose. Resolution may be poor because of your screen or network rather than battle smoke, but the idea is similar.

The OUP logo isn't a battle flag, and could afford more detail than this logo. But OUP is a living entity. Its history is important, but so are its ongoing contributions. They don't want people looking at their books and thinking, "This logo is very old-fashioned; maybe the book is also out of date."

Were it me, I'd have at least hinted at its prior logo. To me, the problem with the new one isn't its minimalism, but its lack of personality. You don't need a lot to have personality; the Twitter logo is very much theirs. Even the Facebook "f" logo, dull as it is, at least has a letter linking to them. (A circle isn't an O; it might even have worked better if it were an O with the same theme.)

Flag design can be too minimalistic.

Indonesia is Poland distressed (and vice versa).

(See: <https://www.wikihow.com/Know-if-a-Union-Jack-Has-Been-Hung-U...> for general concept.)

There are near-identical flags as well, including Chad and Romania, Indonesia (again) and Morocco, New Zealand and Australia, Ireland and Cote d'Ivoire, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, Senegal and Mali, and clusters such as the Nordics (blue/red cross/field), Latin America (yellow, blue, red), and Slavic states (white, blue, and red).

<https://www.britannica.com/list/flags-that-look-alike>

There's the challenge between readily identified and readily distinguished.

My undergrad university went with too much minimalism. It replaced an stylized crest (anachronistic for a university founded in 1965) with a "red brick". Note that The Concrete University has no bricks to which this might be a reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Fraser_University

While your points are technically valid, there is a balance that needs to be struct without losing its core value and purpose. I think this is the cliche explanation for making logos that do not serve their core purpose: To differentiate and iconify an identity.

I am kind of in GP's camp, design culture has gone to shit in last 20 years. It's not even Brutalism/Minimalism in the true sense of the word, those movements were post-modern starting from 1950's triggered by the zeitgeist of Bauhause in 1930's. What you're seeing today is deep lack of understanding and following each other like a mad mob. It is to nullify identity, doing exactly what it is not intended to.

Hell, even macOS and Windows look similar today. They're converging on a singular global monoculture.

It reminds me of an old Digitiser article, called ‘Modern Game Logos are Rubbish’. It was written in 2016 and discussed the burgeoning trend of using a distressed Impact font for game titles and logos, but more generally a shift away from ‘fun’ looking logos.

https://www.digitiser2000.com/main-page/modern-game-logos-ar...

From my simplistic outsider perspective, sometimes I think that designers read “perfection is not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away,” and take it so literally that logos and brands start to converge on a single style (simple coloured shapes, sans-serif font).

Is it really 'neglect', when ornamentation is deliberately attacked and avoided [1,2]? When this [3] is what modern architecture thinks a church should look like? They'll give excuses that it's due to cost cutting, then build things like [4] when funding isn't an issue.

Not that we should be surprised by lies - all war is waged by deception.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime

[2] https://theculturetrip.com/europe/articles/ornament-is-crime...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Wilhelm_Memorial_Church... - The initial design included the demolition of the spire of the old church but following pressure from the public, it was decided to incorporate it into the new design.

[4] https://www.format.com/magazine/galleries/design/best-contem...

Demoralisation

Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4 look breathtaking. They inspire a sense of awe and wonder in me - they don't look real or plausible in some way, but yet there they are, in the large. Having lots of ornamentation would very much detract from the un-real-ness of the surfaces.

The church from 3 really does look atrocious though - though even there, the interior where you are surrounded by stained glass seems like it would be quite impressive to experience directly.

Note that I also think other styles of monumental buildings are breathtaking. I was recently in Florence and could barely take my eyes off of the Santa Maria del Fiore cathedral (with its 19th century Gothic Revival facade), and similarly when I saw the Duomo in Milan or the San Pietro cathedral in Rome. But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different styles. Another stunning building was the Pantheon in Rome - which is extremely minimalistic when compared to medieval cathedrals, but still outstanding in its design (knowing you're walking into a >2000 year old building also adds to the feeling).

I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with brutalism and invent something new after it, and there will also be beautfiul examples of that new thing, and horrible examples as well.

> Frankly, I think all of the buildings from your link 4 look breathtaking. [..] But part of the beauty of architecture is seeing different styles.

And if there was a multitude of styles being built, I would be inclined to agree to disagree, subjective opinions will differ, and leave it at that. But they are not - 90%, if not more, of new buildings, especially large ones, all strive for that minimalist, steel & glass, unpleasant sterile aesthetic. It is not 30% modernist monstrosities, 30% art deco skycrapers, 30% art noveau, 10% classical revival.

> I'm sure architects will eventually have their fill with brutalism

Ironically I am quite fond of some brutalist buildings. They can be quite pleasant. But if any of those count as brutalist, they are far too 'cold' for my taste. Again, that would not be a problem if it wasn't all of architecture striving for that same 'cold' aesthetic.

Well, there were a good few hundred years of classicism, and then a good few hundred years of gothic architecture, and then another hundred or so of baroque and so on. It's not that uncommon for whole periods to be dominated by a single architectural style.

I am with you in bemoaning the fact that there are so few art deco and art nouveau buildings, though - those styles passed by far too quickly.

What's more depressing is the examples you point out could be located in literally any large city in the entire world, such is the utter banality and dislocation of the modernist aesthetic.

Having them covered with graffiti would actually be an improvement in this respect.

In recent years I've noticed an acute shift to brutalism, minimalism and a loss of individuality in all facets of life.

Is there really evidence of this? Those stylistic developments are 100+ old and have been part of everyday life for much of the last century. There's definitely been a much more recent uptick of commentary that's uncomfortably (and occasionally deliberately) close to some classic complaints about 'degenerate art'.

Well, you can thank Jony Ive for taking over the UI as well as the hardware, and rebranding the entire iOS experience in his minimalistic image.

Looks like a bunch of people went to do the same thing in OUP. They probably launched a campaign labeling the thing on the left “skeumorphism” or its equivalent.

I remember when Apple’s interfaces were iconic and user friendly. Then in iOS 7 I couldn’t figure out where the chrome ended and the webpage/document began anymore. The search bar in Google Chrome on iOS was literally a blank white space. I had to tap there to discover search.

Apple… known the world over as a UX leader for its UX guidelines since 1980s … became a follower … of Microsoft’s new mobile interface. Which was later totally discontinued by Microsoft. Well, at least Wozniak liked it.

https://magarshak.com/blog/?p=234