Yeah... its less than memorable. Maybe I'm too much of a Ivan Chermayeff / Pentagram fan, but I've always liked Mexico '68, Montreal '76, and Barcelona '92 wasn't too bad. Plus I've always had a soft spot for Sammy the Eagle, or whatever his name was, from LA '84.
that black+red and the angular shapes.. it has some sort of communist feeling no?.. like a postcommunist icon symbolizing the mess most east european countries were in (or still are) after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union..
Barcelona 92 was more "fresh".. more mediterranean if you want..
Red, white and black, the band's (white stripes) signature colors, are, according to Jack, "the most powerful color combination of all time, from a Coca-Cola can to a Nazi banner."
I thought that it was a funny coincidence with the opening of the cristal http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=58792_0_24_0_C
it might as well "form an equilibrium of imaginative unity" with the future olympic buildings.
i agree with all the critiques so far. i'll add that the first thought that popped into my mind was all the graphics of the era that brought us flashdance, esp. 'she's a maniac' and sleeves torn off of sweatshirts.
beyond the critique of the shapes themselves, the combination of them with the london font and the classic olypics logo adds up to a sort of graphic non-sequitur. just doesn't fit together in any sensible way.
imho, using the date/numbers
20
12
as the universally recognizable emblem by masquerading it, is not sold on me; however, i will admit that the more i look at it, the more acceptable to my eyes it becomes.
A trademark has nothing to do with design credit secrecy. It's public knowledge that Wolff Olins designed this logo, as is the fact that they were paid £400,000 for the job.
Oh one more thing. I also find the emblem hideous as a fist impression. However the more I look at it... I am starting to get fond of it, its like the ugly duck, we all have to like it.
And, to be fair with the designers. Conceptually this emblem is really interesting, because it is meant to be an interactive 'thing'.
It really has no shape, it mutates, moves, vibrates, it changes color. It is meant to be seen through an interactive medium or at least through video. The question of printed media of course remains unresolved but if you think that now people dont want a simple mp3 player, they want video players, I can see the use of a "moving" embem by 2012 making sense as the hardware to play it will be much more ubiquitous.
Personally, I don't like it at all right now, and I don't think I'll grow to like it. I must say, however, that designing a logo for such a huge international event, to occur 5 years in the future, during a time when design and technology is moving at record speed, is an incredibly hard task. It would've been nice to see a design concept that allowed for evolution, so the logo could be organically updated as we move toward 2012. It would be unfortunate to be stuck with a logo in 2012 that reeks of 2007. Perhaps they should have just gone with a more timeless design?
Following Orhan:
Epilepsy fears over 2012 footage!!!!
Hilarious situation...but serious business. Did anybody get a chance to see the movie? I thought that the moment when the diver hits the water was the apotheosis. Its the thing I remember the most. I enjoyed it. At the same time I can see the harmful potential of it. An expert said "And so it does not comply with Ofcom guidelines and is in contravention of them." talking about the speed of the color changes in the jagged ripples made by the logo.
So this is the first olympic logo to have failed health and safety in history!
It is meant to be seen through an interactive medium or at least through video
but people in some parts of the (4th, 3rd and some 2nd) world will never see the logo "in motion" with a laptop, or a cellphone or any other hi-tech device.. they will wear t-shirts with the logo while they are farming or selling something at a local market...
if the logo -the .jpg/.tiff not the .avi/.wma- isn't "friendly" enough for a t-shirt it won't succeed, and this one is far from being "friendly".. it's sharp and somber... archinecters and people of the design world may like it or not (I personally think it's graphically or plastically very unfortunate) but I'm guessing the rest of the world won't find it too attractive
I agree with Paul about the evolution of the design... I just remember how the logo of Barcelona '92 evolved from the late 1980s' first sketches until the 1992 final design and while it always shared some characteristics (like bright colors) it kind of turned into a simpler and more beautiful design with time... probably it will happen the same with the London 2012 one... right now it's too geometrically "strong", too aggressive... it will probably soften as they work on and redesign it...
here's some other examples... simplicity always work better -like in architecture-:
i think it's interesting that they have chosen to do something different, and are not afraid to do something 'discordant' as was said in one of the articles.
if you're in london you'll know that there is a bit of a rave revival happening, and the hip kids are sporting white 80's logo/text t-shirts and neon colours (visit topshop and you'll see them!) and i can really see this reflected in the animations of the logo.
in addition there is a more post-digital / homemade / diy style of graphics around as well, and this chimes with the odd text.
overall i find it 'anti-slick' and to me these are interesting cultural references, although they may not mean much to anyone outside the uk, also they are 'fashion' based and it remains to be seen how the logo stands up in a few years time.
24 Comments
i hate to say this, but with the picture and color shown, it looks like a broken swastika puzzle...
Yeah... its less than memorable. Maybe I'm too much of a Ivan Chermayeff / Pentagram fan, but I've always liked Mexico '68, Montreal '76, and Barcelona '92 wasn't too bad. Plus I've always had a soft spot for Sammy the Eagle, or whatever his name was, from LA '84.
some of the comments from the article are great
"This logo makes me embarrassed to be English,"
it took a logo to do that?
i keeed i keeed
that black+red and the angular shapes.. it has some sort of communist feeling no?.. like a postcommunist icon symbolizing the mess most east european countries were in (or still are) after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union..
Barcelona 92 was more "fresh".. more mediterranean if you want..
Red, white and black, the band's (white stripes) signature colors, are, according to Jack, "the most powerful color combination of all time, from a Coca-Cola can to a Nazi banner."
I thought that it was a funny coincidence with the opening of the cristal http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=58792_0_24_0_C
it might as well "form an equilibrium of imaginative unity" with the future olympic buildings.
i agree with all the critiques so far. i'll add that the first thought that popped into my mind was all the graphics of the era that brought us flashdance, esp. 'she's a maniac' and sleeves torn off of sweatshirts.
beyond the critique of the shapes themselves, the combination of them with the london font and the classic olypics logo adds up to a sort of graphic non-sequitur. just doesn't fit together in any sensible way.
luckily there's time for a redo!
i thought the same thing ludwig... it looks like something libeskind would come up with...
I'm surprised the designer of the logo, Wolff Olins, hasn't even been "credited" with the design yet, in this news post or the linking article.
libeskind would never do that, i can't make out a star of david in that design...
and that's not intended to be racist, just a critique of libeskind's one and only gimmick.
paul, thank you for the link...within the webpage, you can also find:
http://www.wolffolins.com/interactive.html
(note all the relevant construction lines)
imho, using the date/numbers
20
12
as the universally recognizable emblem by masquerading it, is not sold on me; however, i will admit that the more i look at it, the more acceptable to my eyes it becomes.
Paul, for the olympic authority the most important thing about the Logo is protecting it, see the TM mark on the right side. http://main.london2012.com/en/gettinginvolved/Business/Brandguidelines.htm
maybe they dont want any individual getting any credit ??? just speculating.
A trademark has nothing to do with design credit secrecy. It's public knowledge that Wolff Olins designed this logo, as is the fact that they were paid £400,000 for the job.
Oh one more thing. I also find the emblem hideous as a fist impression. However the more I look at it... I am starting to get fond of it, its like the ugly duck, we all have to like it.
And, to be fair with the designers. Conceptually this emblem is really interesting, because it is meant to be an interactive 'thing'.
It really has no shape, it mutates, moves, vibrates, it changes color. It is meant to be seen through an interactive medium or at least through video. The question of printed media of course remains unresolved but if you think that now people dont want a simple mp3 player, they want video players, I can see the use of a "moving" embem by 2012 making sense as the hardware to play it will be much more ubiquitous.
see movie: http://www.london2012.com/about-newlook-video.html
Personally, I don't like it at all right now, and I don't think I'll grow to like it. I must say, however, that designing a logo for such a huge international event, to occur 5 years in the future, during a time when design and technology is moving at record speed, is an incredibly hard task. It would've been nice to see a design concept that allowed for evolution, so the logo could be organically updated as we move toward 2012. It would be unfortunate to be stuck with a logo in 2012 that reeks of 2007. Perhaps they should have just gone with a more timeless design?
i like it
£400,000!!! I think this thing sucks.
That's nearly $800,0000!!!
To make a pile of red paper scraps with some lettering on it.
Following Orhan:
Epilepsy fears over 2012 footage!!!!
Hilarious situation...but serious business. Did anybody get a chance to see the movie? I thought that the moment when the diver hits the water was the apotheosis. Its the thing I remember the most. I enjoyed it. At the same time I can see the harmful potential of it. An expert said "And so it does not comply with Ofcom guidelines and is in contravention of them." talking about the speed of the color changes in the jagged ripples made by the logo.
So this is the first olympic logo to have failed health and safety in history!
Read BBC> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6724245.stm
but people in some parts of the (4th, 3rd and some 2nd) world will never see the logo "in motion" with a laptop, or a cellphone or any other hi-tech device.. they will wear t-shirts with the logo while they are farming or selling something at a local market...
if the logo -the .jpg/.tiff not the .avi/.wma- isn't "friendly" enough for a t-shirt it won't succeed, and this one is far from being "friendly".. it's sharp and somber... archinecters and people of the design world may like it or not (I personally think it's graphically or plastically very unfortunate) but I'm guessing the rest of the world won't find it too attractive
I agree with Paul about the evolution of the design... I just remember how the logo of Barcelona '92 evolved from the late 1980s' first sketches until the 1992 final design and while it always shared some characteristics (like bright colors) it kind of turned into a simpler and more beautiful design with time... probably it will happen the same with the London 2012 one... right now it's too geometrically "strong", too aggressive... it will probably soften as they work on and redesign it...
here's some other examples... simplicity always work better -like in architecture-:
well, i like it too. it does grow on you...
i think it's interesting that they have chosen to do something different, and are not afraid to do something 'discordant' as was said in one of the articles.
if you're in london you'll know that there is a bit of a rave revival happening, and the hip kids are sporting white 80's logo/text t-shirts and neon colours (visit topshop and you'll see them!) and i can really see this reflected in the animations of the logo.
in addition there is a more post-digital / homemade / diy style of graphics around as well, and this chimes with the odd text.
overall i find it 'anti-slick' and to me these are interesting cultural references, although they may not mean much to anyone outside the uk, also they are 'fashion' based and it remains to be seen how the logo stands up in a few years time.
and the comments from the Conservatives are wholly predictable!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.