The new logo for the London Olympics in 2012 was unveiled only 24 hours ago, and the reaction has been outrageously negative (at the time of writing, Speak Up’s servers were unreachable, probably due to activity on this popular entry about the logo). 72% of BBC respondents to an online poll give it a wooden spoon (as opposed to gold, silver or bronze). Designers from left and right call it plain ugly, expensive and reminiscent of ’80s and ’90s designs.
But, how does the logo compare to similar products in the Olympics/World Cup market? Pretty OK, I’d say. Germany 2006 was a boring thingie-logo: huge, too colorful and filled with meaningless little symbols. These examples from the other candidates for 2012 games aren’t very inspiring, and if anything, they all share massive similarities between each other: Paris, Sydney, Vancouver, New York, all share a colorfulness and pastel-like typography that has been in fashion probably since the Barcelona Olympics in 1992. In this respect, the London logo is a breath of fresh air.
The excellent Chicago-based designers at Coudal Partners offer several reasons why they love the new logo. I think that most of their observations are spot-on, though I do feel that the logo might be just a bit too radical for an event of such mass reach as the Olympics. But, on the other hand, that might serve a purpose: it might mark a new era in which the Games break away from the now-standard frame of mind of Olympics graphics. No more colorful circles, no more soft pastel fonts, no more brush strokes.
4 responses so far
1 strangeman // Jun 12, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Pernar te pershendes!
E zbulova rishtas blogun tend.
2 strangeman // Jun 12, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Penar (typo)
3 Blendi // Jun 13, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Looks like the old MTV logo to me. Especially when its mooving and trowing colours around in the background.
4 gjergji // Jul 1, 2007 at 11:40 am
The article convinces me that it’s functional, but not that it’s beautiful and I should love it. It’s functional, but it still does not make any sense to me. ..and to think that it cost $400,000?!
It’s silly to try to prove the point that this logo is simple by comparing it to Mercedes logo and the cross. The 3 lines in the mercedes logo were intended to show the 3 directions of the company, to build vehicles for land, water and air . They come in a star shape to symbolize success and/or prosperity. That logo makes sense. The cross, we all know. The London one — still doesn’t make sense to me.
Leave a Comment