In the 1990’s the university created a logo with a coat of arms that was derivative of their old seal (below):
http://www3.lehigh.edu/images/userImages/bs05/Page_711/colorSEAL.jpg
The 1990’s version is the second (below) and the 2001 version on top (below):
http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/photos/12160195604PM.jpg
There was strong opposition to the 2001 version. Recently they switched to a version of their old arms:
http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/photos/21402103315PM.jpg
Read more:
http://www3.lehigh.edu/about/luseal.asp
http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/story.asp?ID=14890
http://www.bw.lehigh.edu/story.asp?ID=14694
To me, this is too much instability.
I wonder (not really—I’m sure it’s driven by the contract some design firm got for a "graphic identity" package) why Lehigh couldn’t just use the seal design as the arms: Azure (or Bleu Celeste) in chief a sun Or and in base an open book proper charged with a heart Gules, or some such blazon.
Anyway, I agree with the alumni who wrote: "Why is it that schools such as Penn, Princeton, Yale, Harvard haven’t changed their logos for hundreds of years? The world isgoing to continue to change and additional improvements will be made regarding printing formats. Is the precedent being setthat every time a technological change occurs, our identity will be changed also? There is something to be said for tradition."
To some degree I can understand the thinking behind changing the arms to include the school colors (which is what I think they did with the 2001 design). But I don’t see the point of removing the book and heart. Doing that made the arms look very generic.
I like Joe’s idea. (& they could have depicted the Gules heart as a shade closer to maroon, or even blazoned it as Murrey, and the school colors would have been automatically included.)
I guess the question as well is…Should these be considered arms?
Dave
DRShorey wrote:
I guess the question as well is…Should these be considered arms?
Dave
Should they be considered arms?: heater shaped shield, colors, charges, etc. used to specifically identify a particular university. Lots of precedent for this, isn’t there? And other authority (College of Arms, Lyon Court, etc) have granted achievements to other universities, yes?
So, I guess my admittedly untutored answer is: "Yes. These should be considered arms. Why would we not consider them as such?"
I would argue we shouldn’t consider them as such because the university doesn’t seem to consider them such, they change them every couple of years, and they’re more focused on the precise graphic depiction than on creating a permanent basic design that would admit of various interpretations over time.
Ah, well there you have it, and I certainly agree. If Lehigh’s is not arms in their own eyes, but no more than a corporate logo, then we shouldn’t elevate it, either.
Joseph McMillan wrote:
To me, this is too much instability.
I wonder (not really—I’m sure it’s driven by the contract some design firm got for a "graphic identity" package) why Lehigh couldn’t just use the seal design as the arms: Azure (or Bleu Celeste) in chief a sun Or and in base an open book proper charged with a heart Gules, or some such blazon.
Anyway, I agree with the alumni who wrote: "Why is it that schools such as Penn, Princeton, Yale, Harvard haven’t changed their logos for hundreds of years? The world isgoing to continue to change and additional improvements will be made regarding printing formats. Is the precedent being setthat every time a technological change occurs, our identity will be changed also? There is something to be said for tradition."
100% agreement. This sort of instability in arms might be read as (or subconsciously contribute to an impression of) instability in the institution itself.
...but in the context of the history of heraldry, this sort of initial fumbling about (from our perspective) wasn’t at all unusual "in days of old when knights were bold." With luck, they’ll settle down in time.
And compared to some of the druck we’ve seen, any one of these would deserve at least an honorable mention!