PRIO profile, part 2

The staff meeting on Tuesday, in which we presented two suggestions for a new PRIO profile, was extremely useful. In a previous post, I stated that a new logo – the key element in this process – needs to be ‘sharp and serious’. The staff meeting convinced me that neither of the two suggestions fulfils our criteria. The Blanke Ark version (the unruly globe) displays a motive that does carry meaning for PRIO, but it is neither sufficiently original nor 'human' to merit a change from what we have. The Motorfinger and Friends version (the man), while quite original, does not come across as ‘serious’ and it signals an aggressive-militant-masculine attitude, which is not exactly what I sought when I said ‘sharp’. Having been in the middle of the process, I failed to see this prior to the staff meeting, which worked exactly as the quality assuring sounding-board that we needed. Thanks to all for your engagement and constructive reactions!

We have not buried the project. Right now, Agnete and I are working with Motorfinger to see if they can come up with an alternative (as an inspiration, we have reminded them of the jelly-men). As for the general design profile, I thought both companies came up with interesting (though not flawless) suggestions, but we will need to be confident that the logo lives up to our expecations of being SHARP, SERIOUS and HUMAN (new addition). I expect to have news fairly soon, and you will all be invited for another round of discussions.

As a quick follow-up to my previous blog post on the NUPI Anniversary, let me alert you of a very timely op-ed by NUPI's Ståle Ulriksen in Bergens Tidende (again in Norwegian, I am afraid), in response to a commentary in the same newspaper and generally to those who criticize NUPI and other institutes (PRIO included) for being power-abiding and servile. Ulriksen asks who it is that carries the critical debate on foreign policy issues (not the universities?), and encourages the media rather to take a look in the mirror and examine whether they have been critical or servile in their coverage of key events such as the Afghan conflict. (One does not need to agree with all Ståle says to enjoy his article.)