Post by: krissel on June 07, 2007, 01:59:55 AM
It IS pretty awful. I saw it on TV and had to look away.
http://news.com.com/Epilepsy+fears+nix+ani..._3-6188994.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_spor...012/6718243.stm
http://main.london2012.com/en
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6719747.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6722205.stm
Post by: kimmer on June 07, 2007, 02:14:07 AM
Some of those alternate logos are really nice looking.
Post by: Highmac on June 07, 2007, 02:41:36 AM
Many people over here reckon instead of spending £400,000 (about $800,000) on the design, they could have got a class of infants to design a better one....
Alternative logos suggested by BBC site readers. I just loved number three....
Readers' views here. You may have to register to access it.
My own theory is that after a couple of weeks of worldwide publicity like no other Olympic logo has ever had... they'll wheel out the real one
EDIT to add - just realised my 'alternatives' link is Kriss's second one....
Second add - someone set up an online petition against it and closed it just two days later... As the petitioner said: "Almost 50,000 signatures speaks volumes."
Post by: Frances144 on June 07, 2007, 06:32:06 AM
I liked the one that said "Play together, win forever". Very good.
Fx
PS Highmac, i read your theory and thought "you bitter, cynical, twisted person" and then "probably right, though"!
Post by: Highmac on June 07, 2007, 07:59:07 AM
One (presumably Canadian) put in his two penn'orth:
QUOTE
…and in other news, the residents of Vancouver, BC in Canada have found great relief in seeing the logo for the London Olympic Games as they thought they had the crappiest logo in Olympic history.
Post by: Paddy on June 07, 2007, 10:49:20 AM
Believe me, the Vancouver logo is not in the same league at all - it's not very exciting, but it's not truly horrible.
http://www.sportslogos.net/logo.php?lo=6936
London logo:
http://www.sportslogos.net/logo.php?lo=p03ccfg6ej0n0p0n3z17
The bid logo was much, much better (though some issues with the readability of "London"):
http://www.sportslogos.net/logo.php?lo=6953
Post by: dboh on June 07, 2007, 10:58:10 AM
Since they work so far in advance, they should just have a public competition. If nothing else, it might give the officials a better understanding of the public's tastes.
Post by: Highmac on June 07, 2007, 11:09:40 AM
QUOTE(Frances144 @ Jun 7 2007, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...thought "you bitter, cynical, twisted person" ...
I love compliments
(Actually, it's a lifetime in journalism that's made me what I am today)Paddy: While Vancouver's is, as you say, not the most exciting, at least it won't make people physically ill. And I did recognise it as a totem pole. If they are still called that... or have the PC brigade changed it to something else?
Post by: Paddy on June 07, 2007, 03:46:39 PM
It's almost as if they've become a non-destructive, somewhat more time-consuming version of scrawling "kilroy was here" on the rocks...and I've seen a few animal ones too.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inukshuk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_pole
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 07, 2007, 04:36:56 PM
Unlike Lord Coe, I would call the design/image just a logo. The "brand" is the "Olympic Games" whenever/wherever. All I know is that the 'design' is a little too abstract for me. If one needs to have a design 'explained', I don't think it's efficient at what it should do: remind people of the brand and/or what that brand represents. In this case, I would look for something that reminded people of something/anything about the Olympics. OK, they did include the five colored rings but the rest of the design is nothing more than a date and a place. I dare say that's not the only thing that might occur in London in that year. It appears that the designers are more interested in promoting London than the Olympics. Oh well, what do I know about 'design'? 
I just hope I get some alert about the next contest of this type! It gives me encouragement that anybody can win these competitions! 
Aha! Maybe that's the 'message', as bad as a competitor looks, s/he can still be a winner! All it takes is perseverance, hard work and bad color combinations! 
Post by: krissel on June 08, 2007, 01:44:15 AM
Post by: Highmac on June 08, 2007, 02:16:15 AM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Jun 7 2007, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Actually, Neil, it's supposed to be an Inuit inukshuk...
Well, we're still learning lots of fascinating things on here despite the forum "split"
Your reference to Kilroy reminds me that one of those graphic designers, commenting on the logo, said he'd seen grafitti on Tube trains that looked better....
Post by: gunug on June 08, 2007, 05:57:25 AM
Post by: Gregg on June 08, 2007, 07:40:41 AM
QUOTE(krissel @ Jun 7 2007, 01:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It IS pretty awful. I saw it on TV and had to look away.
If it provokes such a strong reaction, was it a success??
"Art" that is cutting edge is usually dissed by the general public.
Some guy wanted to hang a "sculputre" on our airport's parking structure that was a huge blue (glass) man's shirt. Yeah, that says "Milwaukee" to the world.
The public outcry was so great, that the County Exec pulled the plug on the funding, and was sued by the artist. I don't recall how it was settled.They could be in for a similar soap opera on this Olympic logo.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 08, 2007, 12:27:42 PM
QUOTE
"Art" that is cutting edge is usually dissed by the general public.
Rather pushing the definition to call this logo "art". It's purely commercial, no 'artistic' message that I know of is/was ever intended. As Lord Coe said, "It's a brand." 
Post by: Gregg on June 08, 2007, 01:07:10 PM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Jun 8 2007, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Rather pushing the definition to call this logo "art". It's purely commercial, no 'artistic' message that I know of is/was ever intended.
Try telling that to the Registered Graphic Designer. I suggest wearing a hockey goalie's mask.
art –noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts, a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences. b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.
I wouldn't put it in the first category, but take a look at #5. Of course, I don't think much of #4 either. One could say that blogging, or even posting on this forum is an art. Of course, that depends on whose posts one is referring to...
I'd say the definition is certainly broad enough to include the logo design. Heck, if the Blue Shirt qualifies, the bar is pretty low! We have a real "sculpture" here at the end of Wisconsin's Main Street. It's a bunch of standard steel shapes welded together and painted a bright orange. It predates the now famous art museum addition, and now serves to obscure the view of that architectural masterpiece. But do you think the City plans to move it? (See hockey mask above.)
Post by: bil207 on June 08, 2007, 02:08:40 PM
PS. I was in the stands for the "Miracle on Ice" game (USA vs Soviet Union).
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 08, 2007, 06:09:03 PM
QUOTE(myself)
I may not know what are it
What did he say? Did me intend to say "I may not know what art is"? 
Post by: krissel on June 09, 2007, 12:08:18 AM
However, logos serve a specific purpose, not to be compared generally to 'Art' in the abstract.
This one violates almost all the desirable assets a logo should display. About the only thing you can say positive is that it does get one's attention. But then so does a gunshot.
One of the most important aspects of a logo is the ability to convey a message about the product or company that it represents. All this one does is convey a sense of anxiety and upheaval. I doubt that is what the Olympic committee had in mind.
Post by: Gregg on June 09, 2007, 02:19:54 PM