(107 votes, average: 1.61 out of 5)
Logo Of The Day Award Winner:

2010-10-21 | MPA

MPA’s redesign.

“The turned–up corner in the MPA’s former logo was about print,” says Pentagram partner Paula Scher. “The notion of publishing now covers everything. The new identity plays with the two forms–the vertical and the horizontal, the page and the screen.” See in use.

Credits: Pentagram

Related Logos:

6 Comments to “2010-10-21 | MPA”

Oct 21, 2010 at 5:38 pm

i like the way the eye is moved about. the silhouette of the screen and page isn’t immediately recognized as such(to me)until the explanation, but that’s how a lot of logo’s are, right? Plus it’s tough to tell Pentagram they “got it wrong” =)

Mike Watters
Oct 21, 2010 at 6:36 pm

Not sure what I think. I want to love it because it’s Pentagram, and I understand and appreciate the concept, but I have one nagging question: Doesn’t it kind of look like a paper clip?

Oct 22, 2010 at 8:28 am

Like Mike said, I “want” to like it, but I really don’t think it works. They were aiming for modern and missed that mark, I think.

The text feels too small in relation to the frame, and the odd juxtaposition of the full name just doesn’t work for me. It feels more old school than cutting edge, and while it’s slightly better in use, I just don’t think it achieves all the things laid out in their explanation.

Sorry Pentagram, but you did get it wrong this time. However, that’s my opinion. If the client says you got it right…well…then you did your job.

Oct 24, 2010 at 5:22 pm

This isn’t the most exciting mark to look at by any means, however I don’t think they got it wrong.

Its a simple representation of today’s traditional publishing and the crossover we now have with digital/online media.

Maybe its because I use an iPad, when I first saw this logo I automatically thought of digital magazines/Tablets. I think when this technology becomes more mainstream (which it will) the relation between the mark and its meaning will become a lot clearer.

Raja Sandhu
Oct 31, 2010 at 11:42 am

The fact that Pentagram is behind the design shouldn’t cause anyone to have a re-think. While I respect their business, this logo simply sucks. Mainly the typographical after-thought.

If it had been designed by an amateur, the response (not just on this site) would have been less favorable.

Yes, conceptually there is an ‘aha’ when you see the paper-to-screen shift, but overall aesthetics?.. fail miserably. Looks count in logo design.

In terms of application presentation, 99 percent of basic geometric logos will look nice in a pattern once they typography is removed.

- Raja

Jan 4, 2011 at 3:55 pm

My first and nagging impression of this piece was that the subtext violates a pretty hard and fast rule of logos – in that at 1″ x 1″ it should be clear and legible. This identity requires a fair bit of real estate to stay as such. I think the concept of print vs screen is well executed, but not immediately recognizable unless explained.

Seeing it in use, the collateral is beautiful and elegant, but as a standalone, I’m not loving the weight and balance of it. However, the client clearly greenlit it, so who am I to judge it from an armchair.

I do agree though that I’m compelled to see it as a bit of a risky but bold design given it was done by Pentagram, while I would call it a rookie mistake by a lesser firm. That in itself is an interesting observation I think.

I do feel sorry for a designer who has to use their logo as a sponsor on another piece. It’s going to be difficult to include it in relative size to its neighbour contributors.