
Cover from The Sun, Wednesday June 6, 2007.
Three days after the launch of the logo for the 2012 London Olympics, Britain's biggest selling tabloid newspaper still regards the furor surrounding the new symbol as front-page news. Not only is it widely regarded as a badly designed logo, but nearly 30,000 people have signed an online petition demanding its withdrawal. And now, in its animated form, it is said to cause epileptic attacks.
Designers often bemoan the lack of coverage given to graphic design in mainstream media. Yet when design catches the attention of journalists and commentators it usually results in a vicious mugging rather than hearty praise. Since the organisers of the 2012 London Olympics unveiled their new logo (or 'brand' as they call it), we Brits have been treated to our national press in fixed-bayonets assault mode. This is normally an unappetising sight, but on this occasion — although it wounds me to say it — the self-righteous indignation of the British press is justified. The London 2012 logo is a solid gold stinker.
Earlier this week, the in-boxes of British designers filled up with links to the London 2012 website and with messages of incredulity from fellow designers. I went to the site determined to maintain an open mind. I wanted to like it, to swim against the tide and defend it against instantaneous dismissals by friends and colleagues. Surely it would have some redeeming features?
I logged on expecting a typo-illustration — the sort of coy, wafty thing you see at the end of CNN TV commercials from countries with questionable human rights records. Instead, I got a piece of clumsy, oafish design; a self-conscious gesture of forced trendiness that failed every test you can apply to a new logo: clarity, precision, memorability. The Wolf Ollins 'brand' for the London 2012 Olympics looks as if it has been designed by a committee desperate to prove its street credentials.
The London 2012 chairman, Sebastian Coe (Lord Coe, a former athlete, and a former Conservative MP) announced: "We don't do bland. This is not a bland city. We weren't going to come to you with a dull or dry corporate logo that will appear on a polo shirt and we're all gardening in it, in a year's time. This is something that has got to live for the next five years." The logo is an example of the sort of design you get when politicos and business people try to be hip. What we've ended up with is a logo commissioned by middle-class suburbanites who do 'gardening in polo shirts.' In other words, it's a laughable attempt at 'cutting edge' design.
For Brits there's nothing new in the spectacle of the press rounding on new logos. In today's Independent, an article appears entitled "Design disasters: logos that proved a flop." It lists British Airways ethnic tail fins (famously despised by that well-known design critic Margaret Thatcher), and Wolf Ollins' 1991 'prancing piper' logo for British Telecom. Wolf Ollins must be getting used to appearing on the front of The Sun: at the time the prevocational tabloid ran the headline 'BT blows £5m on a trumpet.'
But in the era of the Internet, the reprisals for getting it wrong are even harsher. The organisers clearly attempted to use the viral power of the internet to spread awareness of the new logo and to encourage participation: visitors to the site are encouraged to create their 'own designs' and post the results. But rather than leading to a mass acceptance, the internet has provided a forum for vast numbers of people to bite the organisers: it has become a platform for Olympic bashing — and rightly so. This is public money.
Both the left and right wing press seem determined to damn the new logo (The Guardian also carries the epilepsy story on it's front page). The emotive language of the logo's detractors is widely and gleefully quoted: 'toilet monkey,' 'broken swastika,' 'some sort of sex act between The Simpsons.' Supporters are hard to find amongst the vitriol and abuse, but there are some advocates. The Creative Review blog has comments from both sides of the argument. Peter Saville has given it his languid approval ('incredibly noticable, brave and confrontational'), and the leading British designer Michael Johnson wrote a lukewarm appraisal in The Guardian. ("It's trying to be 'vibrant' and 'youthful'," he argues. "The website suggests you download bits for children to colour in. When animated it has an edginess not normally associated with the Olympics.") The Independent reports the existence of two petitions devoted to supporting the logo. noting among other things that "... they attracted 70 signatures in total, many of which seemed false including Ms. Lisa Simpson, of Springfield, USA."
The gist of the arguments from the logo's champions is that it at least the marque has the virtue of stirring up debate and controversy. But this is a facile defence and plays into the hands of branding and marketing people who will see the London 2012 logo as a dazzlingly successful paradigm of hype and spin. Wolff Olins have been silent on the matter. They are rumoured to have been paid £400,000 for their work. Why should they worry? Their phone is probably white hot with calls from corporations desperate to gain a fraction of the PR that their 2012 logo has generated. Meanwhile, yet again, graphic design skulks off into the corner wearing a cap with a D on it: D for dreadful.
Comments [116]
Ultimately I've concluded that the shapes mean nothing but are simple illegible jaggies implying "2012." It definitely feels, as you say, like some men in suits and ties wanted to do something hip. It's the type of "cool" my grandfather probably thinks is popular with the youngsters.
As almost everyone across the globe has said, it's god-awful. I don't need to even go into how horrible it is. I'll simply end my thoughts here.
06.06.07
01:18
> The Wolf Ollins 'brand' for the London 2012 Olympics
Um, Adrian, why the quotes around brand? If there ever was an example of branding - the sum of visual manifestations, the promise (and the premise), the buzz (even if inflated), the attitude, the sounds, the ambassadors, etc. - this is it. Unless brand/ing has other definitions and expectations to you that Wolff Olins hasn't met, I think we can skip the skeptic quotes. Unless you are just turned off by the concept of branding altogether?
06.06.07
01:26
Being from Chicago, I hope daily that we do not win our Olympic bid... but I have to say, our IOC-violating torch logo is really friggin' sweet.
06.06.07
01:33
06.06.07
01:40
However, I suspect when WO say 'brand' they do indeed mean the whole caboodle, which is where the 400k went. (Or maybe it paid for all the printer cartridges as they output loads of test versions? Nah, too cheap).
One bad thing to come out of this. Given with how easy and cash-rich this has made the discipline seem, I'm guessing applications to graphic design courses will be up again this year.
06.06.07
02:07
When I first saw the logo, I, like many others, laughed a bit because of how bad it looked. After reading many articles and comments, I felt myself compelled to try to like it, perhaps because so many in the design community are supporting it. Thanks Adrian for having the courage to tell the truth!
06.06.07
02:14
06.06.07
02:27
I'm not sure how this is any different from any other domain -- good news is rarely "newsworthy", and doesn't sell newspapers.
06.06.07
02:41
http://www.zoom-in.com/blog/2007/06/2012_logo_a_total_trainwreck
06.06.07
03:25
2012 Is not a logo in the conventional sense. It is a conduit for a larger experience. It contains things, many things; it celebrates inclusiveness and multiplicity. It is a channel for experience. A channel intended to mediate an experience without trying to control the content in a traditional, static and product-oriented manner. Old school aesthetes may not like the forms but there is a lot to admire in the treatment of the medium. This is branding 2.0.
This is not a precious brandmark. It's a mark with a sense of scale. I suspect the shapes are derived from aerial track photographs but most importantly the shapes are containment devices. 2012 Contains the olympics. Clearly the ambitions are to stake a claim beyond the moment of the Olympic games. 2012 Is leveraging the games to catalyse and sustain development, beyond the transitory sporting events.
Of course we need context. Things cannot have meaning without context. Branding is all about context. The 2012 brandmark introduces context via itself which is why we need different tools to asses its value. It does not present itself as the sole content for contemplation, it is a channel for content as well as content itself. You miss half the plot if you assess it as a thing in itself. It is a closure which contains texture and the texture it contains is open. This aspect of the brand I find very inspiring. It is particularly relevant to an audience well versed in media technologies.
06.06.07
03:33
Fred Flintstone Designs logos?
06.06.07
03:48
06.06.07
04:13
IMHO, this is a logo being subjected to the 'my kid could have done that' test. Would you rather it be some boring Helvetica thing?
06.06.07
04:19
the guardian's g2 section carried today a selection of olympic logos, obviously the clear winner was munich 1972 (the graphic designers olympics of choice), and while they were mostly turkey's, none of them even came close to total manifestation of abject horror that the london 2012 one is.
i have no idea what the solution is other than to weap serif shaped tears and wonder what might have been.
06.06.07
04:47
The debate about whether this thing is a logo or a brand aside (who cares? we all know what it is supposed to be), the question at hand is whether it is any good.
I think there's actually a somewhat objective way to evaluate whether or not it is good. What visual qualities does it have? What ideas do those visual qualities convey? Are these qualities associations that should be made with the London 2012 Olympics?
I'd say that the visual qualities of London 2012 are jagged, fragmented, unstable--negative qualitities. I don't get hip, cutting edge or dynamic. Nor do I get anything remotely related to London, the action of sports, or even the lofty ideals of the Olympics movement. I see a stack of mishapen blocks, barely holding each other up, barely forming numerals for 2012, and just about ready to collapse. None of these strike me as good concepts to associate with the Olympics, so I'd have to say the logo fails miserably. I realize others may have different interpretations--possibly far different. But, if we as designers are going to critique stuff like this, we ought to be helping non-designers And clients understand how to critique it, how to think and talk about it.
Alas, I'm afraid it serves us designers right that there are so many atrocious logos (like this one) out there. There is simply so much bullshit surrounding logos (bullshit often produced by designers trying to sell their own designs), that clients can be forgiven for not knowing how to commission a decent logo. They've been bamboozled by designers for years. Indeed, that's what this strikes me as a case of--an incompetent designer with great sales skills managing to pull the wool over a client's eyes. Yet another triumph of hype over quality.
On the other hand, maybe in 2012, everything will look like this.
06.06.07
04:59
because it's not a logo, it's an application of a brand with the olympic logo
06.06.07
05:04
06.06.07
05:11
06.06.07
05:37
This is a sad attempt to ride the "New Rave" fad. Apart from the fact that it will surely be over in 5 years, tying the Olympics to drug-fuelled all night parties seems like a dubious proposition.
Can we just make the Olympics about sports and cities again, please?
06.06.07
05:38
How about Beijing's Emblem?
06.06.07
05:48
06.06.07
05:53
Despite having a rather cheesy concept (put together by their ace marketing team no doubt), the execution that this level of design deserves just isn't there.
Feels more like the shifting of the continents than anything.
I can do without the stroke and drop shadow.
I was hoping they would use Johnston Sans for the type.
After the numerous "simpsons sex act" responses, I can't help but snicker everytime they say "...an invitation to take part and be involved."
Wasted opportunity to play with the negative space. (That sounds so raunchy in that context)
06.06.07
06:27
06.06.07
06:46
Or perhaps a boring Univers thing.
06.06.07
07:05
Maybe next time the Olympic Gurus should hire someone who actually showcases design on their website rather than under-loaded case studies and a self-gratifying list of clients. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
06.06.07
07:09
Maybe next time the Olympic Gurus should hire someone who actually showcases design on their website rather than under-loaded case studies and a self-gratifying list of clients. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
06.06.07
07:09
06.06.07
07:49
06.06.07
07:57
06.06.07
08:31
06.06.07
08:37
Is it any wonder why the public in general sees this type of work, realizes how much the budget for it was and then draws the conclusion that "Anyone can be a designer as long as they have a cheap PC and some fonts?"
What have we given them in this case to prove otherwise? Do we tell them "It's a good thing you hate it that is part of our platform approach. We embrace your loathing and over time you'll want to hug our branding despite it's sharp points."
The firm can wrap a poorly executed design in as much marketing psycho-babble as they want it still doesn't change the fact it's lame.
06.06.07
08:52
I'm tired of the Olympics being about watercolor illustrations of host city landmarks or those swooshy abstract human figures. It's been a long time since such a large scale design project has excited me.
This is the best thing to happen to the Olympics since Lance Wyman's work in 1968.
Thanks Wolff Olins
06.06.07
09:08
Let it suck.
06.06.07
09:20
06.06.07
10:45
06.06.07
10:59
What "larger experience" I wonder...that of an ER visit?
This reminds me of a classic book by Tom Wolfe called 'The Painted Word" where he documents the modern art movement transitioning to something understood and written about only by the cultured and oh so rarifed, not experienced as communicative works. If this absurd logo has to be explained by text like Andrew Sabatie wrote, well, it's in deep doo-doo as they say here in the USA.
It sucks and no amount of hyper art/design commentary can change it.
The fact it's opening film causes seizures DOES matter, (to the poster who said it comes with the territory). This mark happens to be designed for a combination of the Olympics and the Paralympics-thus it serves two athlete groups, disabled and non-disabled.
Even the very worst of work should not cause hospitalizations.
06.06.07
11:00
http://flickr.com/photos/reservoir/531734345/
hearsay: there's a pattern of logos for olympics, football world cups etc. getting consistently more lame. At least this London one is an attempt at breaking free of the traditional modern branding system approach, which for various reasons just mightn't work so well as it used to.
06.06.07
11:08
But at least the logo isn't quite as bad as this one.
06.06.07
11:12
06.06.07
11:20
VR/
06.06.07
11:51
An earlier post mentioned the architecture of an Olympic Games, which is an apt comparison. These committees don't go to a developer for their stadiums and they shouldn't go to an ad agency for a logo. Since the logo has been reduced to just one more "thing" in the brand package it doesn't count for much on its own, so of course just about anything will do. The Olympics used to be a great opportunity to create good graphic and information design. Now it's been reduced to just another "branding" exercise.
While Wolf Ollins has created yet another turkey of a logo, it is the Olympic organization that allows each host city to create (and re-create) its image anew each time. Perhaps they should just impose a consistent system on all cities and just be done with it.
06.07.07
01:08
Cool.
06.07.07
01:49
06.07.07
07:26
At the time a courageous NOC president employed a brave (and controversial) designer who built up a design team full of world class designers. This doesn't seem to happen anymore.
The London 2012 logo lacks craftsmanship, quality and style. It's a great pity for an exciting city full of brilliant designers.
06.07.07
08:18
Sorry to dwell on this point... But does something need 100+ years of "equity" to be a brand? I don't think so. Establishing and cementing "aspirational pretensions" through a mark, a video, a set of high profile representatives, a launch in a creative forum (the Roundhouse), through PR, and more, is branding. Just because you don't like it or don't agree with how it was done, does not make it any less of a brand. That we are all just talking about the mark is representative of how narrow designers' and the public's view of the larger picture can really be.
06.07.07
09:08
Would you hire the kind of teams and organizations they do to design say, a house? A chair? A General Motors car? The house, chair, etc. that would result from it would be a mess.
The "craft" of design has been completely sucked away from mark making by giant media and marketing groups. They run everything by a focus group and it becomes a mess or something akin to processed fast food. After a few meals of it, you want to barf. Design by mob.
The challenge for design is how do we bring back the "craft" of a small group of top designers focused and unfazed by fashion, politics, or marketing monsters for important projects in the future.
In a way, this mess is the best thing that could have happened for our profession as long as the truth of how it occurred and how it should have happened can be cut to a two minute news clip. Bring back the designers and leave them alone. The results will be great.
06.07.07
09:15
06.07.07
09:41
Hot Pink:I taste Germany and who is the PR firm that handles this amateur program?
Please go to your local track or swimming pool and celebrate the true spirit of sports. Typing here doesn't make your fingers less fat,only your brain.
06.07.07
09:47
Classy.
06.07.07
10:32
"The Wolf Ollins ËËbrandËË for the London 2012 Olympics looks as if it has been designed by a committee desperate to prove its street credentials."
The problem is it has been designed by committee...the dreadful decline of the idea of 'expertise' has been replaced by 'focus groups' and the 'intuition' of the designer or design group has been usurped by reams and reams of so called research.
That the logo is to appeal to people under 30 and that the aethetic of the logo is apparently 'punk' shows the problem, you have to be over 40 to remember punk in any meaningful sense. Also, on being under 30, you dont expect to be patronised by being 'spoken to' in a different language than the rest of the population.
In context, I dont think the logo is any better or worse than the logos of the last few olympics, but I do feel that the debate is problematic, we are all to ready to criticise and berate anyone who spends any amount of public money these days.
So, in design-land we should be asking what's really behind the outcry, is it really that the logo is a 'stinker' or is there a more deep-seated problem underlying the reaction?
We should be careful in giving the disenters what they want, we should perhaps be concerned with the impact it will have on the next public design project.
Alex [de]sign
06.07.07
10:33
-great article Adrian!
06.07.07
10:42
The fragility of this claim becomes ever more apparent as the Olympics budget rises and grassroots arts and sports funding is pillaged to pay for the Games (see The Guardian). Wolf Olins perpetuates the lie of 'everyone's Games' in a brand video showing a working class woman getting on her bike. It's impossible to watch it without thinking of Norman Tebbit - Londoners will know what I mean. The brand is a fiction, and so I suppose in one startlingly apposite way this broken logo represents a reality of broken promises.
Everyone's games? Corporate games, politician's games, property developer's games, pharmacist's games. Personally, if I'd been looking for truth and beauty, Lord Coe, (never mind credibility) I'd have said bugger Coke and hired Jon Barnbrook to design the brand identity.
06.07.07
10:43
06.07.07
12:00
It is a good point to pick up. I was thinking about the outcry around the money involved. Ken Livingstone thinks the agency's fee should be withheld.
I'm not a huge fan of the logo itself but talking about not paying the designers when it's the client who set the brief and the client who signed it off is dodgy territory. It implies that the designer is the sole author of the product rather than a mediator of someone else's vision/message.
06.07.07
12:41
I'm fairly shocked at how virulent the criticism is, considering how few international events have good logos (the Mexico City and Munich Olympiads are probably the extent of them for the past forty years). Design has gotten a much higher visibility at every level, apparently, because I can't recall much hand-wringing over the logo for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. (Does anyone even remember what it was? Probably not.)
I would put this logo firmly in the same camp as OMA's recent work, namely the Seattle Public Library and the CCTV tower. (As well as Herzog and deMeuorn's Olympic Stadium in Beijing.) Anything that's new or different gets attacked. This logo is one of those things.
Maybe this will be the Bookman Swash Italic of Olympic logos in the future.
06.07.07
01:16
06.07.07
01:16
But here's the thing: In the past Olympic logos have often been stale and completely boring. We can all agree that this logo does not fall into that category. What have the past logos done to push the Olympic brand forward? I think that, for the most part, they have just maintained the status quo (the Chicago torch logo was pretty good, but look what happened to it).
So, even though I'm not sold on this logo, I want to point out the things I like about it:
I am thrilled by the fact that no city landmarks were included. We all know that Paris has an Eiffel Tower, London has Big Ben, Chicago has the Sears Tower, NY has the statue of Liberty, etc. These landmarks are included in every tourist pamphlet, logo and website. Therefore, please spare me the municipal cliches and show me something different.
This logo is reaching out to the Under-30 audience. Most of the Olympic Games' established audience will watch every 4 years regardless of the logo. They are already sold, and no logo is needed to "sell 'em more." Young people, however, finally get to see a logo that relates to their tastes and aesthetics.
Randomness and chaos are not just visual fads: they have become an essential part of the internet generation's thinking. That is why there are thousands of popular websites full of nothing but utter chaos: You're The Man Now Dog, Youtube, WTF CNN, etc. The random, the unexpected, the childishly silly: these things are practically worshipped by the new generation. This logo reflects those values and attempts, in a very tongue-in-cheek/self-concious way, to say that the Olympic games are full of life and drama, not just stale sporting events for Mom and Dad.
The best example of this is the commercial that depicted a diver (the one that was pulled off air). For many people, diving is pretty boring. Someone jumps into a pool while a panel of judges nit pick their form. But in the commercial, bright colors undulate over the diver, who then jumps into a pool of pure, seizure-inducing psychadelia. It is okay to laugh here: this is tongue in cheek... and though I, like most people, will never sit down for an hour and watch a diving competition, I will always remember that image, and I am now more aware of diving.
The logo has its ups and downs, but hopefully future designers, because of this new precedent, won't feel inclined to repeat, yet again, the old Olympic logo traditions.
06.07.07
01:24
06.07.07
02:04
What is really depressing about online logo shout downs in general and this one in particular is how a bunch of graphic designers choose to discuss graphic design. The assumption seems to be that a logo should be a precious little piece of art (make that Art) suitable for framing. It should be a tribute to the cleverness and good taste of the graphic designer.
Designers who treat a trademark project in that manner do a great disservice to their clients. The conversations largely focus on personal aesthetic response to the logo itself rather than the sort of visual system creation tool it might be. Hasn't everyone had the experience of working with a lovely trademark that got in the way of producing good, communicative design or a toad of a trademark that seemed to ask for a great design system? A trademark is a tool, not an object of veneration.
I hope that someone in the design process argued strongly for doing away with a singular event mark. The utility of having one file to send to tchotchke licensees might win out in such a discussion but marks often get in the way of serious discussion of design and designing.
The Olympics that London 2012 seems to evoke most is Los Angeles 1984. Although Bob Runyan's "stars in motion" was used prominently (along with Univers), it is Sussman-Prejza's colors and banners that were the 1984 Games. It didn't matter that the mark and the venue design seemed to come from different planets rather than just different parts of western L.A. because the mark didn't really matter. If Deborah had put together a variable system for the identity program as well as for other graphic design, nobody would have missed a logo.
So forget any personal urges you have to design a cool little thing that you can have embroidered on a cap and enameled on a pin and proudly claim authorship of. Imagine that you are a trusted advisor of both the International Olympic Committee and the organizing committee for any one particular Olympics:
1) What are the implications of one consistent visual identity across all games? What does that do to the spirit of the host city, to promotion of that particular Olympic Games, and to people's desire to participate in the spectacle and to go to a particular place?
2) What would serve them best for a particular Olympics' identitysomething that surprised people on first viewing or something that made them say "Yes. That's what I would have chosen."
It is worth noting that many of us disliked Sussman-Prejza's pastels at first and that pretty much everyone liked them by June of 1984.
Speaking of 1984, does anybody remember (or care about) Sam the Eagle? When are we going to see a cartoon bulldog wearing a Beefeater hat for London 2012?
06.07.07
02:32
As well it should -- spend a huge amount on something like this amateurish, illegible, some wistful nostalgia for some of the worst design habits of the 1980s and throw in a nakedly pandering marketing ploy (I mean, come on, "youthful"?) and you deserve to get raked over the coals.
Gunnar states that trademark is a tool. One can ask then, how this horrifying pastishe of shock-of-the-new (or whatever it was they were thinking) actually functions as a tool for the games? Does it communicate well? Does it at all? Does it represent an international athletic festival or a half-ass graffiti convocation? Hell if I know.
Is it some MTV-like grasping at youth straws for a bloated two-week corporate-sponsporship orgy?
If you wish to defend a garish, unusable, barely recognizable mark because it is wonderfully garish, unusable and barely recognizable because Hey! It's New and Interesting! then great. But your criterion is just as arbitrary as anything else. And you support hideousness.
I just have to come out strongly in opposition to visual pollution. Just because it's new doesn't make it good or worthwhile.
06.07.07
03:20
And this is the real 'stinker' of the piece. The consultants' job is to understand the context in which a brand has to work - and the job it needs to do - and communicate this to the designers (keeping them on track).
What is pretty obvious to at least every Londoner - it doesn't require any special consultation or workshop process to uncover it - is that the 2012 are a highly controversial, and quite unpopular project. The context for this logo was to connect with what little residual goodwill and positivity there was for the project and to heal popular perceptions. Top of the list of risks to be avoided was, undoubtedly, to make the London Olympics any more unpopular than they already were. Unfortunately this is exactly what the consultancy has achieved.
There are times when a logo can be bold, adventurous and challenging. Generally, these are times when the people for whom it is intended are prepared to 'suspend disbelief'. A fair headwind of goodwill is usually required, as is a pretty broad-minded and tolerant audience. What exactly suggested to Wolff Olins that they had any of these in this case remains a mystery. And whatever it was, it was a major miscalculation. A blunder, even.
Maybe it was - as is so often the case with catastrophic miscalculations - an inability to see beyond their agendas. I can't help wondering if they weren't driven by a need to prove themselves: a company living painfully aware that their greatest work was done nearly two decades ago, and that has floundered around in the branding arena for at least the last decade.
But whatever the reason, this is a case where a 'safe' logo - one that underwhelmed people like ourselves, that could even have been bland and generic - would have been a much better solution. London 2012 is a hot potato - something a little bit cheesy and creamy would have gone much better with it.
06.07.07
04:48
Just because you don't like it or don't agree with how it was done, does not make it any less of a brand. That we are all just talking about the mark is representative of how narrow designers' and the public's view of the larger picture can really be.
and to quote gunnar (i'm not going to quote all of him, it's too many words)
What is really depressing about online logo shout downs in general and this one in particular is how a bunch of graphic designers choose to discuss graphic design. The assumption seems to be that a logo should be a precious little piece of art (make that Art) suitable for framing. It should be a tribute to the cleverness and good taste of the graphic designer.
I think these two points in particular are the ones that are being unjustly overlooked. whether it be intentionally, or scrolling down past all the fake usernames who don't contribute anything other than trite statements about vomit and extreme exaggerations based on superficial inadequecies which are forced upon an idea which has only been shown in very limited scope, they are the most important comments to be consider as they are the two that offer at least a little insight into why this brand might work.
06.07.07
05:56
It would still be a mess, but at the very least, utilitarian to put a map of the Tube in place of that, umm, trainwreck.
If you print a copy out and hold it two inches from your nose and throw your eyes out of focus, you see an image of Benny Hill falling off a tricycle.
Design by Committee so rarely works. On the other hand, if you're going to fail, fail big.
Cheers, Y'all!
06.07.07
07:16
Sorry, did I miss the context for that? Surely a logo should represent the offering and purposes of the client?
A tribute to the cleverness and good taste of the graphic designer? Surely that's what bodies like AIGA are for - backslapping all around.
06.07.07
07:23
And to the point of a universal identity, brand, logo, what have you... it's a wonderful idea. Almost as wonderful an idea as having the Olympics in the same place every year. Such a truly Olympic village would be free from tyranny or partnerships with enemies of our state or the United Nations. The perpetual Olympic village would also have a perpetual graphic identity (logo), although the application could change every 4 years with the new games.
06.07.07
08:08
there's not THAT many of them.
06.07.07
09:00
there's not THAT many of them.
06.07.07
09:01
06.07.07
09:27
Where it misses, perhaps, is showing the world London's (or Britain's) design skills.
Why does every branding piece, nowadays, have almost the same four colours? OK, this one has hot-pink instead of violet.
* Oz Ken Done art, urban graffiti I passed on the tube for 6 month in the 1980s, painting with sponges, punk rock record sleeves and T-shirts.
06.07.07
09:39
The London 2012 logo is not as groundbreaking as these examples, but it puts the lie to your '[and sucks]' addition.
This logo is going to look prescient in a couple of years' time. It's very forward-leaning, and a welcome respite from the Web 2.0 design tropes that have a hold on everything right now. There are some problems with it, but overall it's a winner. At least in my opinion, and the last I heard we still lived in a world that tolerated dissent.
06.07.07
10:12
06.07.07
10:20
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/06/its_a_zionist_p.html
06.07.07
10:45
check it out here,
Joshdesigns.blogspot.com
06.08.07
04:56
1. I have seen it on a T-shirt and it is actually something I would wear, it's not conservative, it's not bland, it's fresh, abstract and memorable.
2. The grid this thing works on is insane. There are endless permutations of abstract patterns to be derived from it all tied back to an instantly recognisable theme.
3. I've seen the initial usage manuals showing the brand extension and it works on various levels. Motion, print, small/big, corporate, 3D, etc. It's much more thought out than has been revealed thus far.
4. The cost. £400,000? Wolff Ollins probably lost money on this. They had a staff of 60 working on it for a year. 60 x salaries of even part time labor shows that the UK got it's monies worth and if you think that the logo is 'it' it's not see 3.
5. It's non-nationalistic and contains no facile phallic or yonic symbolism. It cares nothing for jingoism of any sort. The London that I know and am proud of.
6. I can't wait to see the pictograms.
7. At least people stopped talking about Madeleine.
8. Hate is love not yet understood.
06.08.07
06:52
I like new things. I like brave things. I like different things. Personally, I don't have any problem with the logo on any of those grounds, except that in this case 'new, brave, different' have worsened a perceptions crisis for the client, which is bad business as well as bad design.
Maybe they were the client from Hell (or, at least, one of them - there are a lot around these days): impossible expectations, resistant to any kind of 'reality check', hopelessly divided, big egos aplenty. The classic curse of a project entrusted to the 'great and the good' (a phrase deliciously replete with irony). Or maybe the London Olympics, with its incompetent political leadership, its massive overspend and its echoes of the execrable 'Millennium Dome', is just too fucked a project for branding to do anything other than sink it further into the mire. I don't know, but both possibilities seem likely. Even so, that's hardly an excuse for this mid-life crisis solution from Wolff Olins, with its declared intention to further alienate people by appealing exclusively and unashamedly to the 'Yoof'.
So that's why 'prescienct' worries me. It suggests a future where there are more and more disastrously misconstrued projects like the Dome and the London Olympics, where design consultancies are so obsessed with their own middle-aged creative impotence that they turn out logos with all the charm and vitality of lecherous, combed-over lotharios, and where fracturing and alienating audiences in the name of 'excitement' is acceptable and accepted.
I was rather hoping that all that could be buried, along with the Blair and Bush eras.
06.08.07
07:34
06.08.07
08:32
If it actually was all the good things people see in it that they like and it was well done (good ugly or just good), I would be on board.
But I think the two - origins/connections + the design - are tied together. Just because something vaguely looks like or is described as a - whatever - 80s design, youth appealing, cutting edge, not cliche London, etc. etc., does not mean it is. Especially if it is also poorly executed.
06.08.07
09:22
The Paralympic Games are in the same city and use the same venues.
Isn't this like that one sculpture in Trafalgar Square?
06.08.07
09:53
06.08.07
10:15
06.08.07
11:04
all for nathan!
06.08.07
11:45
A committee would say:
Make the Olympic rings bigger! Make the date smaller! It's too hard to read! It's too colorful! It doesn't represent the unique character of the city of London! It's too funky! It doesn't appeal to all ages! It doesn't show an athlete! It's too jagged! It doesn't show our commitment to world togetherness!
This logo is the absolute antithesis of design-by-committee. It's bold, doesn't compromise to a bunch of people's individual tastes, and doesn't hopelessly attempt to capture the spirit of both London and the Olympics in one mark. Those are not signs of design-by-committee. The public — the largest committee of them all — absolutely hate the thing. Yet, they could all draw it on a napkin fairly accurately if they had to, after seeing it only once. Isn't that a sign of a memorable design? If they hate it and paid for it, that obviously opens a different discussion about how cities use public funds.
I don't understand why this logo is bad, or why graphic designers should be ashamed for appreciating it. We're judging it purely based on a style standpoint, despite the fact that it does everything we claim we want branding to do. This, unlike most brands, doesn't need to be simple enough to live on for decades adapting to new markets and unforeseeable situations. It's the visual identity of a two-week event. What's wrong with it? Who gets to decide what's good and what's not?
06.08.07
12:13
Actually, Sebastien Coe's initial negative and prematurely defensive statement "we don't do bland..." is one of the best indictments of this logo. He was, apparently, incapable of saying what the logo does/is and could only say what it doesn't do/isn't. That's always an incredibly bad sign. If you have to sell a design by saying what it ISN'T, then you've got nothing. You need to be able to say what it IS! It isn't corporate and it isn't going on Polo shirts (yeah, right)--so what the hell is it and where is it going to appear?
06.08.07
04:39
The Chicago mark is very pretty and is nicely crafted. It is also clichéd, insipid, and would be difficult to reproduce with limited colors and using a variety of reproduction techniques. It panders to people who want their expectations met. It is the American Idol finalist of logos. Olympic rings with one of the rings being the face of Big Ben would have been the London version. But the main problem with this (and most) discussions is that it is talking about marks in a vacuum.
The idea that a mark is supposed to be a mini narrative is somehow cemented into graphic design dogma. So it has to communicate the city and the year and the fact that it's an Olympics and what that all means. Who is this going to say it to? The people in the stands who don't know where they are or what they are watching? The people who are going to see promotions for the event that consist of a logo and nothing else?
The people who think 400K pounds went into nothing other than drawing a logo or that what some other guy did in 20 minutes should even be discussed as comparative value are, you'll notice, the same people who think you should have a big conversation about a logo rather than about a broad design system.
So you didn't even see 2012 at first glance? Do you see it now? How long did it take to learn? How often will we have to send you to retraining classes when you forget? When should we remind you what year the London Olympics will be? In five years will you be setting your watch using the logo as reference and you might end up in the wrong city? A logo is a functional item but a lot of people seem to have misidentified the funtion.
06.08.07
05:20
However, I just read in the French daily, 'Liberation' today that the logo is going to be withdrawn. Is this true or have I had one too many?
06.08.07
05:27
For the definitive word on this debacle, read Ian Jack's reasoned, elegant and culturally astute summary of the sorry mess. He nails it.
06.09.07
05:27
06.09.07
11:14
06.09.07
11:23
06.09.07
03:54
I disagree. It's the London Olympics. This isn't some obscure sporting event in some town nobody has ever heard of before. Do we seriously think as graphic designers that we have to explain to someone what London is through a logo? Do we have to describe the nature of the Olympics? Normally when designing a visual identity, you have to try to build from scratch an awareness and understanding of exactly what is going on. Do we think that the public is too dumb to know what the Olympics is without drawing a person running? Will they not know what London is unless we show Big Ben?
Look at the previous few olympic logos:
Beijing: Athlete in chinese calligraphic style.
Vancouver: Athlete in tribal/native style.
What I like about the London logo more than these other ones, is that it recognizes that people already are aware of both London and the Olympics and doesn't try to explain it to them. It instead tells them that the London Olympics will be modern, fun, and interesting — characteristics that the Olympics has been struggling to achieve as of late.
I do agree that the logo is formally clunky, but I don't think its reasoning or logic is flawed.
06.10.07
01:27
This "mark" (and I will use quotations to invalidate its integrity as one) might have been appropriate for the '80s, and with any luck that decade will be in full retro revival in five years. Regardless of the future design trends of 2012, this thing resembles a clunky mass of deconstructed vomit with a synthesizer.
What's with this colo(u)r palatte? Were they selected from the Wal-Mart poster board swatch book?
Definitely the first "mark" I've seen in a long time that has been an utter disaster.
06.10.07
03:23
Thank you! This is SO the design equivalent to a mayor trying his hand at rap.
06.10.07
07:55
Or MC Rove?
06.10.07
08:14
Of course interpretations of a highly abstract mark are wildly subjective. Interesting that some interpret this mark to suggest "modern, fun, interesting." I interpret it to suggest disjointed, poorly-organized and clumsy. Only time will tell what qualities this mark reflects. If the Olympics DO turn out to be modern, fun and interesting, then the mark will come to reflect that, and gain that meaning. But, if these Olympics turn out to be a complete disaster, this mark will take on that meaning. We'll see what happens!
Of course, if these designers had really had guts, they would have told the organizers that London 2012 doesn't need a mark at all. Now that would have been truly modern!
06.10.07
01:53
OH, and has anyone noticed that it reminds me of the Flinstones go to Vegas? Or even better, Dino the Dinosaur. The 80s guitar playing dinosaur who knows how to rock.
We all know this logo would have been considered "cutting edge" in 1989.
06.10.07
08:19
06.10.07
10:23
evolving. Given that the London 2012 website is currently gathering user-generated content,
it will probably end up displaying flags and Big Ben anyway.
06.11.07
04:18
Out of the mouth of babes...
06.11.07
06:01
06.11.07
07:12
And since 1984 there has been big PR involved to spin the tales and the money. I know that won't change. And I know I say this is just too much hype about a stupid logo, but come time for the games, I'll consult some clown sitting on a bench and maybe share a story or two, and I'll remember a manufactured facial tissue moment. Then I'll take look at my grandkids smile at their innocence while I can and say let's go for a swim. "Last one in the pool is a rotten egg."
06.11.07
10:31
06.11.07
02:27
But I have one nagging thought. What if the alternative was some sort of slickly conceived and executed orthodoxy - which is common in design; variations of what things 'should' look like (a throwback the rigor of modernism - form and function riding in tandem and all that).
It fascinates me how things that were considered mad and unacceptable when first introduced become accepted with familiarity. Imagine having the cojones to approve Frank Gehry's Guggenheim at Bibao.
The size of the budget, the prestige of the project and the fact it was funded from the public purse probably means any design would meet with criticism.
For what its worth - I don't think it's all that important. Bright colours, dynamic signage, the total package will probably pull it all together.
A logo is just a logo.
If you want to be truly bamboozelled visit the London2012.com and watch the video on the home page. Just plain weird - makes the city of London seem filthy and bleak (which parts of it are) - but what is the point exactly?
06.11.07
11:48
06.12.07
10:00
06.12.07
10:20
Why do you say this? I'm genuinely curious if you have any reason to believe this (besides the agency/politicians claiming that is what it is doing).
Most of the Olympic Games' established audience will watch every 4 years regardless of the logo. They are already sold, and no logo is needed to "sell 'em more." Young people, however, finally get to see a logo that relates to their tastes and aesthetics.
No offence, but you're not under-30, are you? I am (25), and I can assure you that that logo does not relate to my tastes and aesthetics, nor those of my similarly-aged colleagues and friends. We all think it's... well... an absolute trainwreck. A solid gold stinker.
Besides, quite apart from the fact that it's simply terrible...
Also, on being under 30, you dont expect to be patronised by being 'spoken to' in a different language than the rest of the population.
... this is very true as well.
Out of all the excuses for this embarrassment I've heard, "it appeals to the kids" is definitely the worst.
06.13.07
10:40
if this is a fad, for the love of all that is pretty, how can we stop it?
06.15.07
08:56
heading against his computer....
but i geuss that's just the general reaction...
who designed this by the way?
06.21.07
03:30
I have to think that the "Brand" is in the olympics and the olympic rings. That's the mark that's got the 100 years of equity in it. Couldn't we just use that as the logo and then brand the look of the games on the rings and the area that it is in?
I think that an olympic brand is going strong, and doesn't need to be reinvented ever 2 years for both summer and winter games...
As someone living in Salt Lake City for the games that just happened here, I don't remember the official Salt Lake City games logo but do remember the overall branding and seeing the rings everywhere.
But that's just my 2 cents...
06.21.07
05:16
Franz Klammer won without grace and was out of control, too.
He changed things. He moved the race forward.
06.21.07
06:08
You can find their comments at the item "Everything you wanted to know about typefaces you can now ask Hoefler and Frere-Jones" and than click on the right below corner of the page.
06.28.07
07:33
"Design disasters: logos that proved a flop." It lists British Airways ethnic tail fins (famously despised by that well-known design critic Margaret Thatcher).
Legendary UK Identity Consultant / Designer Marcello Minale (now deceased) was the FIRST to Speak Out and LAMBASTE British Airways Tail Fin Design in the 1990s. I suspect Margaret Thatcher was influenced my Marcello Minale's astute observation. Or she may have formed her own opinion. Nevertheless, Marcello Minale was the FIRST Lone Voice of Reason.
Not sure how this is Credited to Margaret Thatcher other than verbalizing her dis-taste for the Design and her Fame Supersede Marcello Minale.
As Comedian Robert Wuhl noted, regardless of the TRUTH. When the Legend become Fact, Print the Legend.
The Designer(s) of the British Airways Tail Fin Design were UK Identity Consultancy Newell Sorrell.
Better known today as InterBrand Newell Sorrell.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
07.03.07
02:38
Maven,
Margaret Thatcher did more than just verbaize a distaste for the BA identity. With the press present, she created a photo-op by draping a handkerchief over the tail-fin of a model airplane in an exhibition. A photo of the occasion is reproduced on page 142 in John Heskett's book Toothpicks & Logos.
I don't know if this action came before or after Minale's observations, but in this particular case, the picture was worth a thousand words.
07.04.07
10:38
I am working with design & interested to start buisness regarding the same so contact me for the same via E-mail.
Thanks,
Sachin
10.02.07
10:56
Because, after all, don't only presumably image-conscioius hipsters vomit in dayglow?
11.16.07
01:58
01.23.08
01:24
On the 4th of June 2007 London unveiled the 2012 Olympic Games logo, an event that would take place FIVE years later. Across the globe it seemed as if it was welcomed with brickbats. Its very form got questioned. Its concept got ridiculed. People began creating their version of a better logo.
This uproar made me too look at the controversial logo closely.
For starters it didn't match the mundane definitions of a great logo - for example simple forms like that of an 'apple' or a 'nike' symbol, typography ideas in logo like that of 'Sun Microsystems' or symbol concepts like the (Indian car manufacturer) Maruti logo which has tyre marks forming 'M' which also looks like wings (Maruti also means god of wind in Hindu mythology).
The logo doesn't even show any hint of following up of previous Olympics designs or even a mascot.
This logo is way too different!
Then how come an organization as big and accountable as the London 2012 Organising Committee approve it. Perhaps it must have met some criteria of theirs in the first place and the design firm in question must have catered to it aptly!
When I began the search..... the answers came from the unsaid...the play of the visual form.
The attachment in this article is what i found and i immediately called my friends to match the visual!
The visual... a boulder (symbology of burden) getting lifted from the shoulders of a young / weak man.
The logo has a sense of humanity getting relieved and becoming lighter....a MEGA CONCEPT for a games as big as the Olympics. Truly wonderful!
Check the related image in the url http://soaringbirds.blogspot.com/2008/01/2012-logo-in-different-perspective.html
02.14.08
02:12