The London 2012 Logo Which Could Have Been .:. grubbykid.com

The London 2012 Logo Which Could Have Been

London 2012 Logo & Branding

While I've stayed somewhat agnostic about the London 2012 logo kerfluffle, I can't help but like the logo, especially the 1960's Awesome video which reminds me of watching dated British animation in the 1980's. I can't help but think the positive outcome will be the publics' discussion about design. The shame is that most of it falls into one of two categories:

You spent £800,000 on that!? I could have done that quicker and cheaper that that hoity-toit design firm. A corollary response has the speaker's child of indeterminate (but less than 10 years of age) coming up with the same thing.
It's ugly (with no other actual criticism).

Both responses are juvenile, ignorant and depressing. In due course, there has been a counterrevolution of sorts consisting of tepid support in the face of the media onslaught which feels (no offense) more a defense of graphic design as a profession than the design itself, and outright praise the London 2012 logo.

We must be reaching Phase Three of our Kübler-Ross model (Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance) because some interesting designs are popping up as a reaction to the logo. For example, Daniel Eatock's London 2012 alternate logo design is excellent, not because it is hip in a Poochie way, but because it is the definition of refined elegance:

Daniel Eatock's London 2012 alternate logo design

Combining the Olympic Rings and the Royal Air Force Roundel (svg file) Eatock has managed to use two very conservative and historical elements in a new and fresh way. Besides the choice of type and location (which seems like an afterthought), the design is a simple and elegant throwback to past Olympic logos (see all modern Olympic logos).

What are your thoughts on the London 2012 logo & branding and have you seen any alternates of merit?

Comments

Jeff says:

BARRRRRFFFFFF!!!

Those colors are awful and I fail to see how the chosen logo represents the Olympics or London. I think I owned a pair of Jams in 1987 that looked very similar.

The Eatock logo is pretty sweet though.

Posted by: Jeff at June 11, 2007 10:58 PM #

Jw says:

I've said my piece on a number of sites, so I'll try not to repeat myself too much here, but I absolutely hate the London 2012 logo for all of the reasons the designers and committee members say it exists.

It does NOT related to the youth (if any kids are interested in graffiti or tag-style graphics, this is a weak approximation of real street art, not to mention the fact that there's always backlash to "permission" tags), it is not forward-thinking, and will not stay fresh for the next five years.

It does not have a lot of transformational appeal (the video showing it "morph" is lame, and anything can be morphed into anything else. Hell, didn't Michael Jackson teach us that a decade ago?), and the way they shoehorned the Paralympic Games stuff into it is offensive to designers and athletes alike. The "london" text and the rings are such a visible afterthought, it's shocking.

The Eatock design is an answer to one of the biggest questions I had. "Doesn't the Olympics already have a logo?"

Yes, it does- the effing rings. The rings are a meaningful, popular, and recognizable symbol- why do we need more? I don't understand this ridiculous need to "brand" the Olympics to a place as it is, let alone brand it up the ass with hot pink shards of volcanic glass (that's what the London logo is right? In reference to the volcanoes in the UK?).

There's only one Olympics, it's only in one place every four years, and everyone watches it. Not because of graphics, but because of athletes. Rebranding the games every four years is detrimental to it's overall recognizability and an exercise in masturbatory design.

So Eatock took the rings and worked with them- nice move. It doesn't overpower the idea of the Olympics with superficial graphics. That's the damn POINT of design.

Posted by: Jw at June 12, 2007 10:37 AM #

arno says:

This may be beside the point but, just like the political parties starting their campaigns for the next election 2 years early, this feels a bit premature....

who knows if London will even be around in 2012. just sayin....

Posted by: arno at June 12, 2007 1:53 PM #

sweetchuck says:

I have to agree with Jw. Why do the Olympics feel the need for a new logo every single time? The rings are a nice elegant recognizable symbol. Maybe give a new mascot for each location or something. As for public criticism being a simple "that's ugly", well, what's wrong with that? It's a valid critique. Hell, I agree! Do I really need to explain myself? In my opinion, that logo is ugly. Why? Because it's unappealing to my eyes, that's why.

And Jeff, jams are totally making a comeback.