Someone thought “THIS” was a good idea?

January 29, 2006

Sometimes new is not always better…

Category Posted in Random

22 Responses to “Someone thought “THIS” was a good idea?”

kyledawn said:

January 29th, 2006 at 5:35 pm

i agree
Josh said:

January 29th, 2006 at 6:13 pm

bro. i heard you created it. you don’t have to lie.
Traci Marie said:

January 29th, 2006 at 8:05 pm

http://typophile.com/node/17572
Adam said:

January 29th, 2006 at 8:13 pm

I do like the logo part itself, I just think the text of Princeton Theological Seminary is not good…drop shadow, spacing, font and it’s blurry to me. But the actual logo part is much better and stands out. It could be good, but as of right now…I don’t think it is.
Lindsay said:

January 29th, 2006 at 8:23 pm

I think it’s kind of funny the change in the emphasis of the words - in the second one Princeton is the largest word. In the first one, Theological is. Maybe this indicates change in how the school views itself - more focused on the name than on theology?
- kp - said:

January 29th, 2006 at 9:01 pm

I think it looks good.
Existential Punk said:

January 29th, 2006 at 9:12 pm

i don’t really care one way or the other.
JennySmith said:

January 29th, 2006 at 9:34 pm

I think it’s a step-up from what they had. This one looks more assertive than the other one, and a little bit more hip. I think you’re right about the drop shadow…I don’t think the font is blurry, but I think the drop shadow makes it appear blurry. And perhaps the red line is a little too close to the mark part of the logo.
Brian said:

January 29th, 2006 at 10:52 pm

I never really liked the old one, to be honest. But seeing the change, I’m struck by the statement that the old one made, and the new one does not: “Theological” was what it said Princeton was about. Now PTS is about, well, itself, I guess.
Joshua M said:

January 30th, 2006 at 1:06 am

Personally, I like the new logo.
Dave - The Cubicle Reverend said:

January 30th, 2006 at 9:15 am

Actually, I like it, the other was too busy.
Vlad said:

January 30th, 2006 at 11:02 am

The old one emphasized theology, but the new one emphasizes Princeton. It’s a gimmick. They’re capitalizing on the name ‘Princeton’ hoping people will think it’s part of Princeton University.
Andrew said:

January 30th, 2006 at 2:52 pm

As someone who has worked professionally in graphic design for both a large print shop and for a newspaper, my personal opinion is the logo sucks in a variety of ways. First, while white space is of a value in design, the large amount of space between the letters creates disunity and disruptions. Second, a “logo” is not a graphic attached to words, it is a unified design. This looks like someone with Corel Draw attached the old icon to new words and called it good. Third, the contrast between the large black letters and the smaller red letters creates visual competition between “Princeton” and “Theological Seminary.” In the end, the viewer sees nothing. Fourth, the vertical line between the icon and the words is sloppy work. Is it supposed to be part of the icon? I assume not, but it’s extra “garbage” added to the design. It’s superfluous, and the color contrast (red next to the black) makes it stand out as if it is of utmost importance. Fifth, the font choice is poor, and completely flies in the face of current design trends. The serif isn‚Äôt the issue ‚Äì that‚Äôs probably a good thing ‚Äì but the use of a serif that has the flourishes of calligraphy looks oddly 1950s. (On the other hand, there are a lot of people who argue that PTS is stuck in the 1950s, so maybe this logo is at least being honest.)

With all the nice design that comes out of Princeton Seminary in the form of posters and signage, it’s a shame that THIS is what we’re handed for a logo.

Two thumbs down.
Don said:

January 30th, 2006 at 11:34 pm

Although I don’t hate it…I can’t help but notice that instead of THEOLOGY being the highlighted word, now PRINCETON is highlighted. Is this a statement? I wonder…
KC said:

January 31st, 2006 at 1:39 am

That logo looks like something out of my youth groupy clipart books and cds here at my church.
thelonebarista said:

January 31st, 2006 at 9:22 am

I don’t have anything to add to critique the design because it’s already been said.

However, I will add that I’ve noticed that PTS’s webdesign past and current is honestly about 8 years behind the times. I don’t know anything about webdesign programs (outside of the basic ones like Dreamweaver) but Princeton front page looks just how Calvin College’s front page looked from at least as early at 1997 (I don’t know if we had a website in 1995 when I was a freshman because we didn’t even have access to Internet Explorer then) :-)
RNDaniel said:

January 31st, 2006 at 10:37 am

Why is the word “this” in quotation marks in your title?
Adam said:

January 31st, 2006 at 10:40 am

“This” places the emphasis on the new design - as in “this lame new logo.” Does that make sense?
steven said:

January 31st, 2006 at 3:55 pm

Andrew pretty much said it all…
santos said:

January 31st, 2006 at 10:06 pm

While I agree that the new logo lacks in many regards… it seems like it lends itself to what many students want to emphasize about their studies at PTS; namely, PRINCETON. So many of our students wear Princeton University gear. Why? Because many of them would rather be associated with the University over the seminary. Perhaps the new logo’s emphasis on Princeton is more indicative of the student body’s wishful identification than some would like to admit. In that regard, I’m surprised that more aren’t in favor of it, despite its poor design.
Andrew said:

February 1st, 2006 at 12:56 am

I’m in favor of the logo proclaiming Princeton. I just don’t like it when the logo says:

P R I N C E T O N

I’m tempted to circle it like the word search from the Sunday paper!
Katie said:

February 4th, 2006 at 10:51 am

Hmmmm…Why did they have to change the logo after I got accepted. I wouldn’t have even considered sending my $100 deposit and letter of confirmation if I had known how terrible the new logo was going to be.