This is an Abomination

In graphic design, there is a subjective side, and an objective side when trying to represent real-world objects. This is meant to be the 100th anniversary logo of Grand Central Terminal. It's composed of two parts, the stylised clock, and the typography. Leaving the typography alone for a moment, I'd like to focus on the clock. It's wrong.

"But Christopher, how can you say it's wrong? It's art!" Yes, and it's wrong. Take a look at any analogue clock, when the time isn't exactly on the hour. Notice where the hour hand is in relation to the numbers on the face of the clock? It's between the two numbers, because a clock is just a series of gears that are continuously moving via a spring, or a beat from a quartz crystal. Even when representing something stylistically, it's important to get the details right. You don't have to include all the details, but those that you do include, should ring true. Something like this, once seen, cannot be unseen, and it detracts from the piece as a whole.

Stylistically, I think it's not the best, but that's personal taste, and bias. This clock is special to me, and to millions of other people who see it every day. It's probably the most famous clock in the world, next to perhaps the Tower Clock in London (which most people think is Big Ben — hint: that's the name of the bell). You can't simply fudge it and expect people not to notice.

Once you see the flaw in the hands of the clock, everything else starts to fall apart. The font they used on the clock face is NOT the same as the one used on the real clock. The hands aren't the same shape as the real hands. The stylistic versions are piggy and brutish in comparison. Also, the GCT clock has four faces. Stylistically, they chose to show only one face, and not even hint at the others. While it would have been difficult to do, it could be done (it has in the past), it makes the entire work seem lazy, and ill-thought.

For reference, This is a picture of the real clock:




Oh, and the font they're using… it looks a lot like Gotham, doesn't it? …Except it's not. Look at the G. The G in Gotham is distinct in the roundness of the curve, and this is mildly compressed, yet not narrow, as there is a Gotham Narrow, and this ain't it.

For the 100th anniversary of a global landmark, they could have tried a bit harder.