M Morgan Bruggeman Portfolio
B
Business Card
O
Original
m bm Morgan Bruggeman mbruggeman95@aol.com Lincoln, Nebraska
My first iteration of my business card did not include much heiarchy besides the order in which the text was placed. I used simple colors and text because I wanted my business card to acheive its main goal: Give a little information about me and lead people to contact me for more information on me and what I do. I like the use of monotone colors, which is why I stuck to tints and shades of black.
For my final iteration of my business card, i took into consideration of my peers opinions. They had suggested that I include a little more information about me, which I definitely agreed with. I also added more heiarchy using different weights and sizes within the same font family. I kept the colors simple because I still wanted my business card to have a simple and classy feel, and wanted it to be a representation of me.
m bm Morgan Bruggeman
mbruggeman95@aol.com University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Advertising and Public Relations & Graphic Design
Final
F
I
Icon/Site ID/Monogram
O
Original
m bm m bm For my logo and monogram I wanted to keep simple colors that can be changed depending on background color. I kept to shades and tints of black so that it would not clash whith whatever colors it may be put up against. I didn’t want my monogram to be just my initials, so I added my own little sketchy decoration underneath my initials.
When going back to fix my logo and icon, I had a lot of issues with deciding to add color or not. Ultimately, my peers shared their opinions, saying that my idea to keep it simple was cool, however it wasn’t exciting. I decided to add pops of bright pink to really draw the eye in. I am really glad I decided to do this because I think it really added the excitement it needed. I also decided to change my icon completely due to legibility issues. Originally it was a little hard to read trying to cram it all into a small space.
m bm
b
mm
Final
F
E
Event Poster
O
Original Join your colleagues-at-large on a fun four-mile run. Network about the ins-and-outs of the environment and how it intersects our lives. Come with an open mind and enjoy the scenic views on the new trails surrounding Nebraska Innovation Campus.
EN VI RO RUN
NOVEMBER 19, 2015 6:00 PM TO 8:00 PM FREE ADMISSION
NEBRASKA INNOVATION CAMPUS CONFERENCE CENTER 2021 TRANSFORMATION DRIVE LINCOLN NE, 68508
Four-mile run with scenic views on the new trails surrounding Nebraska Innovation Campus.
I chose to do my event poster on UNL’s envirorun because I really love nature and am all about the beauty of the environment around us. I really fell in love with this poster when it was finally finished and I felt as if it were an accurate representation of the event, as well as me as a designer. I chose these colors because I wanted the earthy blue to really pop out from the background.
During the class critique, my peers pointed out a few areas of improvement. Once i took a step back and looked at the design I was so in love with, I also saw the flaws. I changed “enviro” to a ligher shade of blue to help better decipher the word. I also lessened the text in the circle to make it to the point. In my previous version I had the address more hidden and hard to find, that being important information i decided to outline it in a white box just as i did the other main text. Overall, I love the final outcome of this project.
EN VI RO RUN
NOVEMBER 19, 2015 6:00 PM TO 8:00 PM FREE ADMISSION
NEBRASKA INNOVATION CAMPUS 2021 TRANSFORMATION DRIVE LINCOLN NE, 68508
Final
F
S
Syllabus Cover
O My first iteration of the syllabus cover was extremely simple. I wanted it to be clean and simple, however I think it may have been too simple. I stuck to black, white and Husker red because I didn’t want my design to seem all over the place due to color choices. I chose a center balanced because I felt that it helped define the heiarchy of the design along with the color of text.
My second iteration of the syllabus cover stuck to a simple concept. My peers brought to my attention that there was too much white space, and that my simple design, was maybe a little too simple. I added a red dotted border to break up the white space and add more to the visual aspect. I also flipped the text “University of NebraskaLincoln” so that it was no longer upside down to the viewer. Overall, I think that the second iteration turned out to be much stronger of a design.
Original
Final
F
P
Paginated Layout
O
Original
A Logo for London by David Lawrence Review by Paul A. Ranogajec
London Transport’s logo—known as the roundel, circle and bar, or bullseye—easily counts as one of the most successful graphic designs of all time. It has been a constant and increasingly ubiquitous feature of London’s streetscape for over a century. In his book, A Logo for London, David Lawrence describes the logo as “exemplary for its clarity and consistency, and for being universally recognizable.” He reveals how the logo has been subject to a surprising number of iterations, inflections, and adaptations (official and unofficial). After a whirlwind introduction setting the roundel design into a broad context of both circle symbolism and brand development (a section I wish had been much expanded), the first four chapters describe the circuitous route and complex efforts to settle on a design. Lawrence traces the origins of the roundel to 1905, when the earliest version of a ring-and-bar logo
The final version of my layout, I decided to take out the red bar leading into the title because I felt like it was a little distracting. I also broke the paragraphs apart and manipulated the text around the pull quot so it was better wrapped around. Overall, I am really happy with the way this layout turned out.
for a transportation operator can be found on buses of the London General Omnibus Company. These carried a signboard featuring Hermes’s wings on a spoked wheel with the word “General” inscribed on a horizontal bar. By 1907, the Underground Group of London’s transport companies was busy constructing new, deep-level “tube” railways. The company hired Frank Pick as head of publicity and Albert Stanley (later Lord Ashfield) as General Manager. Lawrence credits them with developing the first unified design program for the underground railways. This was also the year in which architect Harry Ford’s “UndergrounD” logotype (with capital U and D) first appeared. It consisted of white letters on a blue ground and white bars or counters above and below the letters. In 1908, Pick and his team began to revamp the display of station name
signs. Until then, the signs had been difficult to distinguish amid the visual clutter of competing advertising posters. Taking the Paris Metro as a model, Pick installed large signs with clear lettering. He quickly decided to place red half-discs above and below the nameplates to further distinguish them. Pick commissioned calligrapher Edward Johnston, a devotee of William Morris, to create a distinct typeface for the Underground; this went public in 1916. Johnston’s project subsequently grew into a wholesale redesign of the disc-and-bar nameplate. In 1917, Johnston’s new bulls-eye or ring logo was rolled out and in 1918 first used on a poster for the rail network. Lawrence then details some of the refinements to the design and its varied uses through World War II. He provides a fascinating transcription of selected correspondence between Harry Carr, a publicity officer working for Pick, and Johnston. These very brief excerpts are enough to suggest the seriousness with which the designers and publicists took the task of developing the company’s visual identity. Carr and Johnston’s letters show that careful attention was given to the subtleties of both typography and abstract design. In a 1933 report, for example, Johnston describes letter spacing adjustments to the hundredth of an inch and shows great concern for maintaining the “clean cut structural effect” of the bulls-eye design. In the second half of the book, the text brings the story up to the present day, mixing in thematic sections with ongoing attention to the complicated, ever-changing structure of London’s transportation bodies. Too often, though, these later chapters seem perfunctorily written and under-conceptualized. For instance, Chapter Eight offers a small selection of artworks drawn from the Art on the Underground initiative of recent years, reproduced without commen-
tary. Some context beyond the single introductory paragraph would have helped readers understand the art. The lack of text led me to wonder why this particular set of works had been chosen from the many available. In other parts, the text reads as if it had been written by the publicity department of London Transport. In Chapter Nine, for instance, Lawrence adopts language more appropriate to a press release than to design criticism or history (discussing, for example, “comprehensive retailing strategies”). And he sometimes passes by important, complex issues of context. In one instance, he notes the fact that “devices and images of national identity and capital city are eminently saleable in this time of intense consumerism.” This raises the question of how far we–citizens, collectively–are willing to go in commodifying national or urban identities. It is a question designers are well placed to engage. I can’t help but think Lawrence missed an opportunity here to
present an alternative way of thinking about design in relation to London’s visual identity “beyond the market,” so to speak. The main attraction of this book are the images, which show the roundel in various guises in advertising, signs, art posters, pamphlets, and ephemera over many decades. If the text is
A conspicuous visual omission is the London Underground map. There are some covers of rail and bus pamphlets, but no images of the map itself. Of course, a short book that surveys a century of history cannot cover everything. Yet one or two representative examples of the map— surely a defining element of London’s transportation system—would have made the selection more complete. The book’s narrow focus on the roundel design fills a gap in the coverage, taking its place among the many recent publications on all aspects of London’s transportation systems. It is also well designed, informative, and very reasonably priced—all of which is sure to appeal to designers and Londonophiles alike.
In 1908, Pick and his team began to revamp the display of station name signs. Until then, the signs had been difficult to distinguish amid the visual clutter of competing advertising posters. Taking the Paris Metro as a model, Pick installed large signs with clear lettering. He quickly decided to place red half-discs above and below the nameplates to further distinguish them.
“In other parts, the text reads as if it had been written by the publicity department of London Transport.” sometimes dry and mechanical, or too naive, the images will still delight anyone interested in graphic design or the history of London’s visual culture. The early periods offer some of the cleverest examples: Man Ray’s visual pun that turns the flat circle and bar into a Saturn-like celestial object; “Will you walk into our parlour for Easter” by Charles Sharland; and, later, Hans Unger’s “Art Today” advertisement from 1966. Perhaps the book’s biggest revelation is to show just how much London Transport has been an incubator for poster and advertising art.
A Logo for London is written by David Lawrence and published by Laurence King. About the Reviewer Paul A. Ranogajec is an independent art historian based in New York City. He can be found online at paulranogajec.tumblr.com.
For my layout, I really wanted to tie the colors included in the London Underground logo into the entire spread. I really like how it turned out overall, however I had some issues. For some reason the pull quote’s box is not even all the way around with the text wrap, which I couldn’t figure out how to fix. Other than that, I feel as if I balanced the spread as a whole rather well. I chose to keep the background white for readability purposes, and encorporate the colors by text, and color blocks.
A Logo for London by David Lawrence Review by Paul A. Ranogajec
London Transport’s logo—known as the roundel, circle and bar, or bullseye—easily counts as one of the most successful graphic designs of all time. It has been a constant and increasingly ubiquitous feature of London’s streetscape for over a century. In his book, A Logo for London, David Lawrence describes the logo as “exemplary for its clarity and consistency, and for being universally recognizable.” He reveals how the logo has been subject to a surprising number of iterations, inflections, and adaptations (official and unofficial). After a whirlwind introduction setting the roundel design into a broad context of both circle symbolism and brand development (a section I wish had been much expanded), the first four chapters describe the circuitous route and complex efforts to settle on a design. Lawrence traces the origins of the roundel to 1905, when the
earliest version of a ring-and-bar logo for a transportation operator can be found on buses of the London General Omnibus Company. These carried a signboard featuring Hermes’s wings on a spoked wheel with the word “General” inscribed on a horizontal bar. By 1907, the Underground Group of London’s transport companies was busy constructing new, deep-level “tube” railways. The company hired Frank Pick as head of publicity and Albert Stanley (later Lord Ashfield) as General Manager. Lawrence credits them with developing the first unified design program for the underground railways. This was also the year in which architect Harry Ford’s “UndergrounD” logotype (with capital U and D) first appeared. It consisted of white letters on a blue ground and white bars or counters above and below the letters.
Pick commissioned calligrapher Edward Johnston, a devotee of William Morris, to create a distinct typeface for the Underground; this went public in 1916. Johnston’s project subsequently grew into a wholesale redesign of the disc-and-bar nameplate. In 1917, Johnston’s new bulls-eye or ring logo was rolled out and in 1918 first used on a poster for the rail network. Lawrence then details some of the refinements to the design and its varied uses through World War II. He provides a fascinating transcription of selected correspondence between Harry Carr, a publicity officer working for Pick, and Johnston. These very brief excerpts are enough to suggest the seriousness with which the designers and publicists took the task of developing the company’s visual identity. Carr and Johnston’s letters show that careful attention was given to the subtleties of both typography and abstract design. In a 1933 report, for example, Johnston describes letter spacing adjustments to the hundredth of an inch and shows great concern for maintaining the “clean cut structural effect” of the bulls-eye design. In the second half of the book, the text brings the story up to the present day, mixing in thematic sections with ongoing attention to the complicated, ever-changing structure of London’s transportation bodies. Too often, though, these later chapters seem perfunctorily written and under-conceptualized. For instance, Chapter Eight offers a small selection
of artworks drawn from the Art on the Underground initiative of recent years, reproduced without commentary. Some context beyond the single introductory paragraph would have helped readers understand the art. The lack of text led me to wonder why this particular set of works had been chosen from the many available. In other parts, the text reads as if it had been written by the publicity department of London Transport. In Chapter Nine, for instance, Lawrence adopts language more appropriate to a press release than to design criticism or history (discussing, for example, “comprehensive retailing strategies”). And he sometimes passes by important, complex issues of context. In one instance, he notes the fact that “devices and images of national identity and capital city are eminently saleable in this time of intense consumerism.” This raises the question of how far we–citizens, collectively–are willing to go in commodifying national or urban identities. It is a question designers are
well placed to engage. I can’t help but think Lawrence missed an opportunity here to present an alternative way of thinking about design in relation to London’s visual identity “beyond the market,” so to speak. The main attraction of this book are the images, which show the roundel in various guises in advertising, signs,
revelation is to show just how much London Transport has been an incubator for poster and advertising art. A conspicuous visual omission is the London Underground map. There are some covers of rail and bus pamphlets, but no images of the map itself. Of course, a short book that surveys a century of history cannot cover everything. Yet one or two representative examples of the map—surely a defining element of London’s transportation system—would have made the selection more complete. The book’s narrow focus on the roundel design fills a gap in the coverage, taking its place among the many recent publications on all aspects of London’s transportation systems. It is also well designed, informative, and very reasonably priced—all of which is sure to appeal to designers and Londonophiles alike.
“In other parts, the text reads as if it had been written by the publicity department of London Transport.” art posters, pamphlets, and ephemera over many decades. If the text is sometimes dry and mechanical, or too naive, the images will still delight anyone interested in graphic design or the history of London’s visual culture. The early periods offer some of the cleverest examples: Man Ray’s visual pun that turns the flat circle and bar into a Saturn-like celestial object; “Will you walk into our parlour for Easter” by Charles Sharland; and, later, Hans Unger’s “Art Today” advertisement from 1966. Perhaps the book’s biggest
Final
A Logo for London is written by David Lawrence and published by Laurence King. About the Reviewer Paul A. Ranogajec is an independent art historian based in New York City. He can be
F
W Wireframe
O For my original w e b s i t e wireframe I still didn’t really understand the concept. I didn’t include any photo’s or text because not only did I not know what I wanted to do yet, I didn’t really get it. I knew how I wanted the elements to be arranged, I just was a little confused.
A
Original
Morgan Bruggeman B
Home
Hobbies
Portfolio
C D
A
Header- Name in cursive font
B
Navigation Bar- San serif font, pink background
C
Site ID link
HEADER
D
Photo block of me
E
4 about me blocks san serif font, grey background
F
Footer with email link
LOGO
NAVIGATION
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed vel interdum mi. In hendrerit magna a augue tincidunt, vitae elementum est imperdiet. Etiam pharetra diam dolor, vel faucibus enim sollicitudin vitae. Sed at erat pretium, gravida justo eget, efficitur nunc. Phasellus a porttitor tellus. Morbi ante arcu, condimentum at placerat a, consequat eu arcu. Do-
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed vel interdum mi. In hendrerit magna a augue tincidunt, vitae elementum est imperdiet. Etiam pharetra diam dolor, vel faucibus enim sollicitudin vitae. Sed at erat pretium, gravida justo eget, efficitur nunc. Phasellus a porttitor tellus. Morbi ante arcu, condimentum at placerat a, consequat eu arcu. Do-
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed vel interdum mi. In hendrerit magna a augue tincidunt, vitae elementum est imperdiet. Etiam pharetra diam dolor, vel faucibus enim sollicitudin vitae. Sed at erat pretium, gravida justo eget, efficitur nunc. Phasellus a porttitor tellus. Morbi ante arcu, condimentum at placerat a, consequat eu arcu. Do-
E
IMAGE
IMAGE
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed vel interdum mi. In hendrerit magna a augue tincidunt, vitae elementum est imperdiet. Etiam pharetra diam dolor, vel faucibus enim sollicitudin vitae. Sed at erat pretium, gravida justo eget, efficitur nunc. Phasellus a porttitor tellus. Morbi ante arcu, condimentum at placerat a, consequat eu arcu. Do-
BODY OF TEXT
F
BODY OF TEXT
Email Me
IMAGE
Final FOOTER
For my final wireframe I decided to keep the sam structure concept, however I chose to re-arrange the header of my home page. Listed below the header I chose to center the whole page. I chose to do my information in 4 boxes below separating the information.
F