>>260470
Shlitver
>>260470
not a designer, but I like it.
>>260470
I don't know, just looks like some serif font to me. a lot of serif logos have been getting rid of the thin lines but I don't think it would work with your's, but maybe.
>>260505
This isn't OP's logo. this is the actual logo for the met museum.
>>260506
oh, I don't research.
I don't think it's shit, but I wouldn't say it's "clever". It's a well-executed wordmark. No cleverness to be found (nor is cleverness always necessary), just a nice approach.
It would look better if it felt more contained. If it's a mark, then I'd put it in an outline or solid box or something. Push the words closer together.
>>260470
I usually hate blended letters like this, but that's not too bad.
They fulfilled their purpose:
>something unique and simple,
>but without reinventing the wheel tying itself to some kind of symbol
In comparison the old one is a mess (for a world-famous museum rehashing its own name is fine...)
talking of logos...
your opinions about mit media lab's new logo?
>>260757
here you can see the rest of the identity
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_and_identity_for_mit_media_lab_by_pentagram.php
bonus: an intersting read on "logo bashing"
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3056993/the-precarious-state-of-logo-design/1
>>260470
That Met logo sucks.
>>260470
I don't think it's as bad as some people claim it to be. The execution is done well, but the problem is that it's a bit too hollow. Conceptually it's very poor in my opinion.
For an institution of such caliber as the MET, I expect something that is a bit more functional and refined. This seems like an attempt to blend with the current wave of brooklyn-style gentrification while appealing to a more "professional" style of graphic design. It just feels very mindless.
The Whitney on the other hand, really got it right imo
>>260756
BS...
>>260776
>>260759
this is like ancient runes
i love the concept but i don't know how effective/useful it will be
