I am thankful that the University shares the process of choosing of the logo
with us. And I think the open letter gave a feeling that if there is a need for
it, the change of the logo will be discussable.
But showing us how the process went down does not excuse the results. The matter
of distributing information in the University is a subject for its own
discussion. Indeed also a necessary one. Myself and other students and teachers
in the school feel strongly against this new identity and feel like we are being
branded the institution.
To explain my view more precisely:
In the letter you write: "The planning has been steered by the strategy basis
for the University of the Arts Helsinki. One of the objectives of the strategy
basis is that by 2017, the University of the Arts Helsinki will be the most
interesting university in Finland and will have a significant role in the
development of Finnish society."
I have nothing against the university being interesting, but to make us have an
impact on the Finnish society is a whole other thing. These are Art academies
you are talking about. Filled with people who come to study themselves and
their relation to the outside world. They usually question their own position
thousands, millions of time throughout the study process, but with saying that
this will be an University that will have an impact on society is pushing your
students towards a goal created by the institution.
On the other hand, if you did not mean the students and the teachers when
saying that the University will have an impact, you must have thought the
administration. And if this is the case, then I think that the administration
has forgotten what they are supposed to do. The administration is supposed to
run the University so that the students will have the ability and resources to
study. And not to direct them in their progress. That is an issue for the
professors
and the students themselves. Especially in art Academies.
In the letter you say that it is impossible to condense art into one symbol and
I totally agree. But why would you want to do that? You are not supposed to
create art, you are supposed to create a symbol for the institution. You
wouldn't even have to recap the three art lines you are joining. But then you
decided that the visual identity should suit different purposes. Why is that?
Logos and visual identities have a specific purpose. They represent the party
behind them. And this party is three art academies, not marketing corporations.
Marketing corporations would try to sell their products through different ways,
like making T-shirts and pasting logos all around the place. Just like you did.
I don't see why we need that. I always thought that the art university is a
place where the individual chooses his own identity and his own standpoint
towards the world. But by creating such a strong symbol, with such strong
connections to the contemporary imagery you will brand some students with a
predefined character and the others will become the "angry opposition".
Instead you could have just created a far more silent symbol and left the
creating of the University identity to the students.
Now to your description of the symbol:
The letter describes how it is made out of two elements. To comment this I will
translate the words of Dusan Jovanovic an acclaimed designer in Finland, who I
asked for his opinion on the new symbol of the University: "…Personally i
think they both compete with each other and belong to different pairs, neither
do they supplement each other or have any synthesis, but are rather two
completely different symbols and sooner or later one of them will prevail and
exclude the other from usage. In short, they are not a proper match and the
animation that follows with them just highlights the difference. The symbol X
in the visual language communicates a kind of warning, aggression, prohibition,
danger, a-sociality, cross-over and meeting point. The perspective deformation
of the written logo part communicates a kind of perspective, space, crumpled
surface… Both elements communicate
visually the same message in two completely different ways, as if one is not
enough The color scale is unbalanced, mostly pastel and not alerting, which
would fit it much better.
Then you go on calling the X to be a peephole. I believe this is a very very
strange way to see it and nobody, and I mean truly nobody I have talked to
thought it was a peeping hole. Quoting Dusan Jovanovic: "The function of the
symbol is that it immediately makes a good impression, every other explanation
does not recover the original impression." And more or less nobody would see it
as a peephole. I think the main contesters are the XX band and the sign for
irritants. If you wanted a peephole, then why not a keyhole. Nothing symbolizes
peeking as much as a keyhole.
"It leaves space for the artistic content of our university without forcing
certain colors or a limited selection of images." NO it does not. It forces
specific visual imagery in the heads of people watching the logo. That is what
logos and symbols do. It is the purpose of them. It forces all kind of images
into our head, from before mentioned xx-band, irritants, the new logo of the
Open-Checkpoint to cartoon eyes on dead characters and plaster strippers put on
their breasts.
"If necessary, the identity can also be loud." And yet it symbolizes silence,
and tells us to shut up. Let me also point out a movement that was started in
Holland regarding their budget cuts on art and culture:
http://www.sonicacts.com/A_new_Dark_Age_for_Dutch_Culture.html
As you can see they also used a cross. In a very negative way. Very.
I believe that the visual identity of the University of Arts Helsinki should be
whatever the students make it.
The way this matter was treated gives me the impression that the people in
charge have done this quickly and without thinking it through. I hope the other
aspects of the merger were not done sin such a superficial manner.
Regards
P.S.: Through the process I have tried to reach out to my soon to be soon to be
colleagues at SibA and TeaK. I feel like I have failed. It is extremely
difficult to share thoughts or ideas through the three schools so I ask the
people in the Administration to forward this to the other schools (just as I
hope that the mail from the rectors was sent to them) so that the students
actually see what we stand for and that they become a part of discussion. Most
people still don't know that this is the chosen logo for the University of Arts
Helsinki.
romaincrisis
yousharknotpass
ellievsbear
vaporwave
blakekathryn