This. is. bad. design.
Of course that's just an opinion. Art, design, and creativity, are subjective. To each his own. Can you even tell the shapes are numbers? Oh my, and the colors. Miami Vice anyone?
Many people agree that the London 2012 Olympic logo above is bad, that it was overpriced, and underdeveloped. The logo cost well over £400,000 in addition to that!
Can you believe that Wolff Ollins (their website doesn't represent them well either), was given the chance to create this logo for that amount of money? Here's the kicker. They were chosen over a year ago to create the logo, and this abstract thing is what they came up with? On the other hand it has been stated that the current logo may evolve over time. Will this be included in the original 400,000?
There is even a petition to change the logo.
That speaks volumes about the design.
Here are the logo ideas for the countries that bid back in 2005 to hold the Olympics. The earlier London version you see is more traditional, legible, people enjoyed it, and the list goes on. Do you suppose that is what helped London "win" it's bid in the first place?
This is from the London 2012 site.
"The new Olympic emblem is based on the number 2012 - the year the Games take place and includes the Olympic Rings and the word London.
It symbolises the Olympic spirit and the ability of the Games to inspire people to take part - not just as spectators, but as volunteers, in the Cultural Olympiad and more.
The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, commented: "We want London 2012 not just to be about elite sporting success. When people see the new brand, we want them to be inspired to make a positive change in their life. London 2012 will be a great sporting summer but will also allow Britain to showcase itself to the world."
The new London 2012 brand has been approved by the International Olympic Committee. The emblem will be available in four colours – pink, blue, green and orange.
The unique new emblem already enjoys legal protection, offering London 2012 and its sponsors protection from copying and ambush marketing."
Inspiring? Hardly. Again an opinion.
I think that Ian Stewart said it well, in the comments on David Airey's blog.
"I don’t know what you’re talking about. This logo totally encompasses the punk rock spirit London has been feeling since The Clash and The Sex Pistols made their debut. I think the 1981 London Olympics will be a big success.
Oh, wait, it’s the 2012 Olympics. Sorry, this logo sucks."
The logo even has legal protection, but who would want to copy it? Seriously. That is, unless you can't come up with your own ideas. If that's the case, are you really a designer at all?
*I've actually run across this issue, and it's sad. It gives graphic designers everywhere a bad name. In that particular instance, I felt obligated to notify the organization that legal actions could possibly be taken against them (by a very large company - amusement park/beer company combined). That is because the so-called "designer" copied, and poorly modified a trademarked logo, using it as their own.
There's my rant for the week.
What do you think of the logo and hype along with it?
5 thoughtful comments:
400,000?????
that logo eats lots and lots of crap.
but the committee who PAID FOR IT, eats more.
I had no idea what I was even looking at, although I to kinda like the colors.
I think it's awful. They don't look like numbers; they looks more like weird dancing people or something. I wouldn't have paid for that. But I tend toward classical design and not abstract.
That logo is not worth 400000 pounds. It's horrible. Until you said it was made of numbers, I thought it was just made of weird spiky shapes. I liked their older version, though. And Paris's logo. But not the new one.
yeah. I'm with you....I do not like it, but I'm not a big abstract fan either!
Post a Comment