rubificticious
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2007
- Messages
- 343
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2007
+1I would have thought the age and prestige of the university was one of its best assets. The coat of arms embody such things. To dump the 152 year old arms for a corporate logo makes no sense. The new thing just looks terrible.
I'd note though that the university's arms will continue to be used for formal purposes (Testamurs for example).
+1I would have thought the age and prestige of the university was one of its best assets. The coat of arms embody such things. To dump the 152 year old arms for a corporate logo makes no sense. The new thing just looks terrible.
I'd note though that the university's arms will continue to be used for formal purposes (Testamurs for example).
millions? i thought it'd have been in the billions, personally.Just think about the milions of dollars they spent on the new logo..
+1...I dont get it what's wrong with the crest in the op?? thats the old one isnt it??
I personally hate the new one, it destroys the traditional feel of usyd and notions of heritage and prestige. The new one is too compact and round, personally I love a huge, over the top crest, like this one File:Newingtoncoatofarms.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What a load of rubbish. The new logo is an example of the fatuous, revisionist drivel that spurts forth from marketers (Americans, no less), who think everything old must be "modernised" at the expense of heritage and tradition. It is like renaming Oxford University "iOxford2.0".Marian Theobald, the university's external relations executive director, said market research, overseen by the Chicago-based firm Lipman Hearne, had found the university relied too heavily on its sandstone heritage and something ''bolder, more energetic and more modern'' was needed.