My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
MCAL Email Response for UCity Branding and Logo as of 8714
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Arts and Letters Commission
>
2014
>
2014 Minutes
>
MCAL Email Response for UCity Branding and Logo as of 8714
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/10/2014 7:31:39 PM
Creation date
11/10/2014 7:31:38 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
7.20.14 <br />As has been noted previously by Commissioners, it is an inappropriate time to revisit the design or any <br />other aspect of the "rebranding" items. Any such logo/"rebranding" born during such contentious times <br />will long be associated with exactly that memory. Any discussions relative to its '...advisory capacity to <br />the City Council in connection with artistic, cultural, and scholarly development within the City....' must <br />necessarily include aspects other than the "picture" of the logo. <br />Generously speaking, fewer than one half of one percent of U. Citians were involved in discussions of <br />the rebranding effort. This is unconscionable. If the community was interested in rebranding at that <br />time, the numbers of participants would have been far higher. The process was, as has been pointed <br />out a number of times, flawed throughout. At the very least, rfp's from a number of reputable local <br />design firms should have been requested and used to award the contract. <br />As has been previously stated: <br />The "new" logo was unacceptably and unprofessionally appropriated from the original artist's work. The <br />Municipal Commission on Arts & Letters should hesitate to support such actions no matter the <br />appearance of the final product. We understand that the original artist is available and anxious to <br />participate in any process of updating the logo that is requested. The original package includes <br />graphics styles to be used in each area which requires a logo; the new one leaves us to redesign or to <br />use an inappropriate design in various texts. <br />The "new" logo does not add anything to the understanding of what U. City is/means/stands for. The <br />slogan is baffling, especially for a small town in Missouri; it seems both meaningless and absurd. There <br />is no aspect which I can support given circumstances including these. <br />Barbara Santoro <br />7.23.14 <br />I was not at the meeting when this was discussed, and I am unaware of the original attempt to use this <br />logo in the past or the evidently strong political feelings around this issue. I have been quite confused <br />by the responses received thus far, in particular the angry responses that alluded to the political <br />implications, timing, etc. <br />I myself liked the design when I first saw it. I have no idea who the artist is or what his or her feelings <br />are now, or why this is a problem. But some feel it is, so I am above my head in this discussion and <br />really can't add anything useful. Sorry. <br />Susan Stang <br />7.25.14 <br />I am baffled as to why the logo issue is being brought up right now and would not support any aspect of <br />it. rt of our city should include the decency to reprimand city council <br />members for inappropriate behavior in council chambers. <br />Fred Fehr <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.