Click to expand
Artist unknown by me.
[UPDATE: Hello FaceBookers. Leave a comment if you want – tell me if I got anything wrong…]
My dad used to fly these. I’ve never been so close to one in flight.
Here it is, low and slow over Golden Gate Park heading southwest:
Click to expand
One assumes it’s an HC-130H out of CGAS Sacramento.
You know, these people:
So, sure, as an athlete at Sochi you got offered a free Note 3 phone, but the fine print on the deal says you have to cover over the Apple logo on your iPhone if you want to use it to take some snaps at the Opening Ceremony.
“Olympic sponsor Samsung wants to see the opening ceremony no competition items in your TV picture. Those who want to attend the ceremony on Friday at the invasion photos or videos with a competing product which has to cover for example the Apple logo.”
Sounds like a fair deal to me, as my 2012-era Note 2 is getting long in the tooth these days.*
Oh Apple, will you ever win?
In closing, please enjoy this German to English translation from the same graf:
“As a welcome gift to get the Swiss athletes not only beer tankard (from one of the sponsors), Swiss Olympic laid it on the pillow chocolate balls ready.”
That says it all, huh?
USA! USA! USA!
I’m sorry, sAmSUng! sAmSUng! sAmSUng!
Leaving you with the Beirut Boat Show:
*(Oh that’s right, I have no skillz with which to become an Olympian, oh well. At least I have my Android Phone Name Generator)
Remember, if your purple isn’t RGB 123, 0, 153, then it’s not Yahoo Purple.
Click to expand
|Yahoo Gray||PMS Cool Gray 11||0,2,0,68||84,84,84||0x545454|
That way, you’ll ease the transition period.
From the Hater’s Herald:
Click to expand
[UPDATE: The peanut gallery reacts.]
Check it, BEFORE (Trademark serial number 75868216 from 1999) and AFTER:
And here’s the livery:
“My fascination with the Muni logo started a long time ago. It’s an iconic piece of San Francisco’s heritage and probably the most recognized SF symbol after the SF Giants. Because of my obsessive compulsions, I’ve been itching to rework the main mark without compromising its longstanding aesthetic quality.
I collaborated with Mirtho Prepont to come up with a new approach for the Muni brand, ranging from the original logo, to additional extensions such as sign systems, apparel, interactive applications, among others.
This is an exercise of civic engagement and it is a fictional effort for personal and educational purposes. This exercise isn’t meant as a rhetorical call to action for SFMTA. That would be unwise of the agency to spend money on such a thing rather than improving their service. However, I think these are things to be considered if they do decide to work on it later on in the future when they have solved the rest of their issues.”
I’m sold. Make it so.
Here it is, from just last week:
“We walked away from the logo itself in part because we knew that our broader communications strategy and the other elements of the visual identity system could advance without it. Being able to move on with other elements of our work and the rest of the visual system is actually a tribute to the symbol’s success and our overall strategy.”
To review, this was the reaction at the time.
Anyway, since the new logo got ashcanned, its proponents have gone on the road to sing its praises. Why? I don’t know. How does this sort of thing benefit UC?
Now, here’s the reaction from the designerly community. First from CCullen:
I don’t buy the false narrative. This was a brand exercise that overreached and was as a result a complete failure. The notion that this design can be celebrated when not embraced has no understanding of the goal of branding in the university ecosphere–engagement is the sine qua non of a university brand, and in this case a university system brand. This is an Oscar nomination for a film that has never been released. The video was perfectly prescriptive–the traditional seal was doomed, and the rest is back tracking and hindsight. When it lives, celebrate it, until then just know it was an epic failure and a waste of scarce public funds.
I agree with CCullen. I attended the UC affinity session at the AIGA conference in Minneapolis and it was one of the most uncomfortable experiences I have had in the design world. What should have been a presentation about why the logo works for what their goals were turned into an hour long passive-aggressive temper tantrum that only fueled the fire of controversy. I will admit that the identity system as a whole is certainly successful. The promotional materials and such that went along with it were beautiful but I simply cannot get past the ridiculous logo.
AIGA stands for American Institute of Graphic Arts. But not officially. Officially, AIGA is AIGA. Anyway, they have a big trade convention every couple of years.
And this was the talk of the town last weekend in Minneapolis, Minnesota, The Little Apple:
“THE UC LOGO CONTROVERSY: HOW 54,000 PEOPLE, THE MAINSTREAM PRESS AND VIRTUALLY EVERY DESIGNER GOT IT WRONG.
And here’s an early review:
But who is to blame? That’s right, The Media:
Few design engagements capture the public’s interest like an identity redesign, and few redesigns have been more publicly controversial than the recent effort by the University of California. In this facilitated session with UC Creative Director Vanessa Corrêa and Designer Kirill Mazin, Christopher Simmons examines the good, the bad and the ugly of the logo controversy, including the process, the rollout strategy, and the discourse it created amongst the public, the media and the profession. What lessons can we learn from this controversy? What has it taught us about the relationship between design and society at large? What cautions does it offer for the next big redesign? This is an interactive session. Bring your questions, opinions and an open mind.