The spokesman for London 2012, the organizing committee behind the 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics, defends the … um … “logo” … established for the games.
But a London 2012 spokesman told BBC Sport: “The emblem is flexible and will evolve over the next five years.”
We certainly are open to coming up with something better, for God’s sake.
She added: “Our emblem needs to be modern, bold, flexible and as relevant today as in five years’ time.
So we’ve chosen something that would be considered tasteless and ugly both today and in the future.
“We want our Games to be different. We are hosting them in a different era, in 2012.
Where, unexpectedly, all humans have become either blind or pithed.
“The emblem needs to work across new platforms that reach young people.”
Because the young people of today — er, 2012 — are aesthetic idiots. Besides, they aren’t likely to be interested in the Olympics unless we create a logo that looks like someone doodling on their notebook during history class.
“It won’t be to be everybody’s taste immediately, but it’s a brand that we genuinely believe can be hard working… and reach out and engage young people, which is our challenge is over the next five years,” he told BBC Sport
Since, God knows, it won’t engage anyone over the age of 13 today.
“It’s not a logo, it’s a brand that will take us forward for the next five years.”
It’s not a logo, it’s a brand. Which makes as much sense as our paying £400,000 to an ad agency to come up with this rubbish.
Organisers hope the brand will boost the marketing push to raise £2bn to stage the Games and convey the message that London 2012 will be “Everyone’s Games”.
Because everyone can come up with something more attractive than this particular graphic monstrosity.
Ironically, the logo — or an ad using it — are causing people fits.
Well, at least it’s not (shudder) “bland.”
“We don’t do bland. This is not a bland city,” says London 2012 chairman, Sebastian Coe. “We weren’t going to come to you with a dull or dry corporate logo that will appear on a polo shirt and we’re all gardening in it, in a year’s time. This is something that has got to live for the next five years.”
Ugly is the new black.
But Michael Hamilton of branding consultants, The Hamiltons, says: “I love it. It’s got vibrancy and youth and energy and fun. I think it will appeal to young people because it’s different and attempting to really focus on them as a group.
“It promises the younger generation a different Olympics, a fun Olympics. It’s interesting that it will work as animated as well as static.”
Because, as noted, the young people of today — er, 2012 — are aesthetic idiots.
The logo is available in various colors, and animated versions have shifting colors to them.
“The colours reflect the diversity of the city which is absolutely right. It would have been an obvious move if we had seen a variation on the nationalistic red, white and blue, or simply adopted the Olympic colours.”
Because “nationalisitic” and “traditional” equal “unmarketable to the youth of 2012.” At least, that’s what we told the clients who paid us hundreds of thousands of pounds.
“It doesn’t really matter that it’s slightly illegible, that’s exactly how logos work,” says Mr Hamilton.
Illegibility is the new legibility.
“People have long stopped reading logos. Another part of the brand kicks in because the brain says ‘I’ve seen it before’. It’s recognition of the shape, not the eligibility of the content. This logo will get that recognition and get that response in the brain.”
Cf. that whole epileptic fit thing.
The look and feel of the logo might raise a few eyebrows amongst traditionalists, says Mr Clays. “But ultimately hosting the Olympics is about opening the event up to new audiences and London does pride itself on being a city of innovation.”
Cf. “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
Print
Buzz
Facebook
Twitter
Google Reader
Flickr
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Mother of god, they ought to use all that back-pedaling to help clean up the Thames.
A bit of funny from one of the Political Blogs I read had this Symbol next to the “Underground” symbol under the heading “Proof of the decline of western civilization”. ;P
A bit over 100 years seperate the two and One of them every one loves.
I mean, I realize my aesthetic is not everyone else’s — but I consider this so ugly, so uninformative, I’d rather get tattoos of any past five logos than buy a t-shirt with this ghastly mess on it.
Unless, y’know, I were in London for it — but that’s even less likely.
There’s a certain species of clueless civic-booster type that is almost universal, we have them here in Normal, Illinois too. Amazingly they keep getting elected, or appointed to committees, which does not bode well for the aforementioned Western Civ.
I personally know at least three people who could design a better logo than that – on their lunch hours.
Heck, I’d take this job for £250,000. And then I’d retire.
There’s an article on this in the New York Times. In it, a co-founder of the company that designed the logo is quoted as responding to criticism of the logo by saying, in part,
Seems to me that the guy doesn’t know what “prejudice” means.
Until I read the NYT article, I didn’t realize that the logo represents the digits 2012. If the meaning of the main graphic element is so well-disguised that an intelligent adult doesn’t see it, it seems to me that the graphic design of the logo is poor.
Well, David, I hate to tell you, but you are clearly not the New, Vibrant, Youthful, All-Your-Taste-is-in-Your-Mouth Demographic they were looking for. Obviously they only expect the youth market to attend or be interested in the games (and buy the swag and the sponsored items).
And, yes, “prejudice” has nothing to do with it. It’s uninformative and ugly. The former is demonstrable (cf. your response). The latter is, of course, a matter of taste — but as a public expenditure and public-facing icon, the public’s taste warrents some consideration.
Unless, y’know, it’s *art*.
Certainly there’s that element to it. Some folks would have bitched about it regardless, and coming up with something a bit vibrant and fresh isn’t necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, “new” doesn’t always automatically equate to “good” or “beautiful” or “worthwhile.”
I have no skin in the game, and so can say at least that my own attitude toward the logo is not based on that (which implies that it’s not a universal reason among Brits, either).
It *can* tell you that. Great minds have always been met by great resistance. Then, too, so have crazy and ugly minds. Just because it’s roundly hated doesn’t mean that it’s being hated for some sort of pathological reason.
So are smugness and ad hominem attacks.
Helped, no doubt, by his share of the $800K the whole thing cost the British taxpayers.
I’m sure the designers of the Edsel and polyester disco suits thought the same thing.
Wolff, however, may be right — even an ugly dog can finally be held in affection over time, and an ugly logo will be seen as idiosyncratic and lovable. But it’s still recognized as an ugly dog …
Let me note again — this is a reaction to the (a) communication ability (recognizing what it’s trying to say) and (b) aesthetics of the logo in question. If it’s just art, then it’s fair for the creator to say *my* taste is all in my mouth, and for me to snark back in reply (“Hey, looks like something that should be hanging in the Tate Modern”). But the Olympics logo is something beyond just art, or even publicly funded art. It’s a brand, it serves a purpose, it’s both aesthetic and utilitarian. As such, making too bold a fresh new statement — especially a statement (“We want to attract the youth of today”) that’s not necessarily the key mission point — isn’t just a matter of taste, it’s a matter of not giving the client what they want and need.
Daily Show reference: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=88254
A new development: Win $800 by designing a better logo for the 2012
Heh.
The actual contest, and entries to date are here: http://www.sitepoint.com/marketplace/contest/2071
Not surprisingly (but sadly), I pretty much find any of them a huge improvement on the original (though even then there are some that just don’t make the grade).