Original London Olympics 2012 Logo Design © Wolff Olins 2007
This design is nothing new to me. I discovered it when it was created, but found it important to focus upon now... This is a perfect example of professional design gone wrong.
A commenter on David Airy's website entry for the logo said this (which encompasses my feelings quite accurately!):
"Is it April 1st again already? This has to be a joke.
Did you watch the first video on the official website? Wow… bad 80’s music video! And I see I’m not the only one reminded of the 80’s with this logo campaign, like the early days of MTV.
However, to take this design seriously, do you think it’s possible for us to set aside our initial disgust with the logo and analyze it the way we would any other design? It creates a pretty intense emotional reaction, but is it really a poorly designed logo? Why? How did they meet/fail with their objectives?
These are the goals that I found when I read about their reasons for this logo:
1. “everyone’s Games, everyone’s 2012”
2. “invitation to take part and be involved”
3. “reach out to young people”
4. “inspired to either take part in the many sports…or inspired to achieve personal goals”
5. “welcome the world”
6. “dynamic, modern and flexible”
7. “visual icon, instantly recognizable”
8. “reflecting London’s commitment to hosting a truly integrated Paralympic Games”
My critiques of the logo and how it relates to the goals:
1. I think the marketing campaign will accomplish this goal more than the logo.
2. I don’t feel invited. The jaggy edges are prickly, the intense colors are alarming.
3. Does it reach out to young people? Perhaps they went to MySpace for inspiration? Oops. And it’s suppose to be everyone’s Games. Why are they specifically targeting young people? I don’t think the senior citizens will find this logo very attractive.
4. That’s a nice goal, but the logo doesn’t do it. I don’t think that second video (with the personal achievements) has anything to do with the logo. It could’ve been any logo. I do think it’s a really inspiring movie and goal, though, and it’s good they want to get people involved in this way, but we are critiquing the logo, not the campaign.
5. Again, not very welcoming/inviting. And did they take other cultures into consideration? Are there any people groups that might be offended by this logo? I’m not sure myself, but I wonder if they took the time to research the meaning of color, shape and such in other countries. They had plenty of time, after all.
6. Dynamic? Such a vague term. I hate it when people say “make it dynamic.” What does that mean?? Modern? We’ve already established it looks like it’s from the 80’s. Flexible? I suppose that is yet to be seen.
7. Instantly recognizable, yes, but in a more infamous sort of way.
8. I think it’s very noble and long awaited that they integrated the Paralympic games, but does this logo show that? The only thing I see is that they used the same logo for both games.
I think what I’m looking for is a basis for this hatred of the logo. Anyone else’s thoughts?"
My Media/Design/Culture professor showed the image during class, which was met by several gasps and "eeugh"s. Even by the non-art majors.
No comments:
Post a Comment