London 2012 Olympics Logo: Graphical disaster or original statement?
June 13th, 2007 Zeid Nasser (Admin)
Over the past 24 hours, following the launch of the new London 2012 logo, a wave of negative feedback has swept the net. In blogs, on news sites people are outraged and shocked at the logo designed by renowned British brand designers Wolff Olins (at a reported price of 400,000 pounds, which I am sure not not just for the ‘logo’ but a whole identity system). People are even submitting their own logos to the BBC..
Now, as a designer and an owner of a design business myself, I try to be careful before I scream AWFUL when presented with any design. But my first reaction to to the logos, was negative. So was the reaction of the two designer colleagues in the office last night who showed it to me.
The logo, which is supposed to be animated, adopts what I can call a graffiti style some are calling it stone age style). It supposed to be bold, vibrant and appealing to young people who do not want something corporate and bland.
See the new logo animation
See the new brand video
To be fair, many design icons were hated when they were first launched.
The animation sequences are that lead up to the logo are quite interesting. But the culmination of all this dynamism in a broken square shape is disappointing to me.
I think what the designers tried to do is come up with an anti-design statement. To come up with something that the people can own.
Adopt this edgy look has apparently backfired. A graffiti tag in a London underground station is what it is. Turning it into a logo of a mega event seems forced.
And let’s talk about the design preferences of young people. Are all of them graffiti enthusiasts? Don’t they also gravitate toward the sleek, clean design language of Apple’s iPod?
Then again, this ‘shockingly bad’ logo might still surprise us. Good designs often polarizes people (but polarization means something like 50% loving it and 50% hating it). As I said, I don’t take judging these thing lightly.
I would like to know you opinion. See my poll below.
Here are some screenshots of the brand’s animation.
By the way, this was the logo for London’s Olympic candidacy campaign
So..
Via [ 360east ]
Entry Filed under: Brands, Controversy, International
Add to:
11 Comments Add your own
1. Mathew | June 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Zeid,
Maybe we need to view this identity with a timescope. I mean, imagine the sheer interactive possibilities 5 years from now… in 2012! This logo surely has the flexibility and potential to be alive and relevant even then.
Also, given the rampant corporatisation of the Olympics, I am quite certain that the ‘brief’ would have called for an identity to counter the ‘establishment’ image.
I agree, the ‘Candidate City’ logo is neat and conventional… But perhaps a little too much so.
But whether it is 400,000-pounds worth of pathbreaking creativity or just ‘different’ for the sake of being different, we’ll know in 2012.
Shanty Mathew.
2. datasky | June 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
original statement!
3. Mohamed | June 13th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I see in it the figures “2″ and “0″ on top of “1″ and “2″.
another way to look at it: “2″ on top of “1″ which makes a silhouette of a man, in front of the “0″ (looks like a head) and the “2″ which could be the rest of a kneeling woman’s body….. I can’t say what’s the little losange in between… pervert no?
well, the Olympics logo is getting worst and worst every 4 years…
Zeid, I love the typo logo submitted by James Wren… it has all what it takes; and could be amazingly aniimated as well.
4. Zeid Nasser (Admin) | June 13th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
I really like the ‘TIMESCOPE’ concept put forward by Mathew.
It’s true, in 5 years time our whole concept of creativity will have evolved …..
5. restless | June 14th, 2007 at 10:48 am
evolution
6. Ed Kohler | June 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I get the impression that this logo concept is really understood when shown as a flat non-dynamic image.
7. VivienneQuek | June 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 pm
The Brits did not like the original emblem, most probably because there is nothing related to British history and culture to make them proud of. Nationalism is evident in the graphical execution of Sydney 2000, Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008 emblems.
Some of the alternatives are really interesting.
8. AMY | June 25th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I THINK THE LOGO AND ANIMATION IS CRAP
9. Swarovski crystals | June 27th, 2007 at 1:51 am
I agree the logo is very disappointing but before anyone goes pointing the finger at the designers, shouldn’t we look at what the design brief was they were working to?
10. dinco | July 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
It is revolutionary, Pioneering… You are looking at the new trend.
The candidate logo is quite ordinary, looks like from a history book. I am glad they developed a new one. And once again, Brits!! Damn they r good.
Check how the identity elements flow into/along the logo.
They are breaking some rules there, rebellious, wonderful.
Price is reasonable. Only for the brand mark or all (identity, guidelines) (if all, it is like free!!!)
11. govinda | August 12th, 2007 at 10:58 am
for me i think a logo should say “something” automatically to an audience. like you’d know what it’s telling you, and what it wants you to think of it. darn, i don’t hear anything.
(and why are they using only PINK?)
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed