|Please Use Quote Tags When Copying And Pasting wrote: |
|"ORGANISERS of the London 2012 Olympics have been plunged into a fresh row after spending £400,000 ($A954,000) on a controversial new logo for the Games.
In a move billed as the most significant event since London beat Paris in 2005 in the race to host the Games, the organising committee unveiled a striking, jagged emblem as the official symbol for the Olympics. It will also be used as the logo for the Paralympics and will be crucial to hopes of raising private sponsorship for both events.
Based roughly on the figures 2012 and apparently inspired by graffiti artists, the image, which replaces an earlier logo devised for London's bid to host the Games, was hailed by organisers as "dynamic" and "vibrant".
London Games organising committee chairman Lord Coe said: "We don't do bland — this is not a bland city. We weren't going to come to you with a dull or dry corporate logo that would appear on a polo shirt and we're all gardening in it a year's time."
British Prime Minister Tony Blair hoped the symbol would leave people "inspired to make a positive change in their life" while International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge praised it as a "truly innovative brand" that would appeal to the young.
But the logo, which cost £400,000 and took the best part of a year to be devised by brand consultants Wolff Olins, met widespread disapproval. Design guru Stephen Bayley condemned it as "a puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal".
An online petition to get the logo scrapped had more than 11,000 signatures last night. The London Games have been plagued by rocketing costs — the original budget of £2.3 billion now stands at £9.3 billion.
Although the organising committee stressed the logo was paid for by private money, Mr Bayley voiced astonishment that the emblem — available in blue, pink, green and orange — had cost £400,000. "That's an outrageous amount," he said. "There are 5000 extremely talented designers who could have done the job for £10,000."
I'm pretty sure you are supposed to discuss world news here, not just copy and paste. Anyways, the logo looks like crap. Its main influences are an 80's LSD trip, and a bunch of highlighters. The BBC did a redesign the logo contest and they had some interesting submissions (including a logo that closely resembled goatse http://forum.football365.com/index.php?t=msg&th=349333&start=0&rid=&S=1406d98bf7cb78f9828effd8edde2ea2)
If you haven't heard already. There was an animated logo created on their website and it started giving people with epilepsy seisure's. o_O It pretty much cost 796,000 and people seem to be complaining in droves. The poor Olympic committee. I would have thought they would have learned from Canada's example.
|Please Use Quote Tags When Copying And Pasting wrote: |
|LONDON (AP) - An animated display of London's jigsaw-style 2012 Olympics logo, which has drawn an unfavourable public response, was removed from an official website Tuesday following concern it could trigger epileptic seizures.
Epilepsy Action, a British health charity, said 10 people had complained about the animation and some had suffered seizures from watching images depicting a diver plunging into a pool.
The Olympic group said it has taken steps to remove the animation from the website and will now re-edit the film.
The design is made up of four jagged pieces that form the numbers 2012 in a variety of colours. It cost US$796,000 and was targeted at young people. The logo was unveiled Monday and within hours an online petition was established asking for a new design.
London's Design Museum founder Stephen Bayley said the logo was "a puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal."
Chief organizer Sebastian Coe claimed the graffiti-style design was created to draw the attention of young people. An official website shows flashing and moving images of the logo. In a departure from previous games, the logo has no visual imagery of the host city or country.
The Making of the London 2012 Olypics logo:
As a Londoner, I am ashamed. What were these people thinking?!
I just feel that such a big comite as the Olympic one could have thought one step further and do some more research before even starting up a project of this size...
Wow, that logo actually makes me feel sick.
Don't the English follow best practice and all that? That thing in contradictory to all the guide lines for making logos I can think of, mainly not looking like crap.
It almost looks like there is a subliminal message.
"The logo was paid for by private money." £400,000??? Who is the "artist"?
An open internet contest with the grand prize of £10,000 would have done the trick. We, the public, would have voted the best logos and then the organizers would have chosen the final one.
All I can say: stupidity!
I don't think that the logo is that bad. I kinda see what they are trying to depict. But I would rather go for something different. Here is a collection of the latest olympics logos. Now see that the London logo has a different style alltogether. I like uniform in design. The olympic guys should set up a corporate identity package and require all commitees to work according to that package.
Then you would be able to recognize anything officially related to the Olympics by it's basic layout and design.
The design on the other logos is better, but the London logo ain't that much of a disaster...FOR 400,000 IT IS A DISASTER, TOUGH.
I don't think it's as hideous as some make out, although I must say that I liked the logo used in the submission much more (AFAIK you can't use the same logo for the submission and the games). If you look back there have been much worse logos for submissions (Brisbane had one back in the '80s that was just the Coat of Arms and Olympic rings with some text).
I really like the font they use on it though, it seems very modern and by all accounts the design is meant to be adaptable for the various items of signage they'll need all over the place.
This was a particularly interesting article, outside all the ranting and raving:
By Bryan Bedell
The London 2012 Olympic logo was revealed yesterday, and it seems to be almost universally loathed. Even designers seem reluctant to defend it. We posted a link to the BBC story this morning with no comment aside from, "Hmmmm."
Just like you, our first reaction was shock. But we talked about it all morning. By 3pm, we decided we love it. And here are ten reasons why you should, too:
It's not boring. The bright colors and distinctive design definitely DO stand out and it's immediately recognizable. Everyone's talking about it. Designers always complain about the status quo, so we find it surprising that so very few are taking a stand for a somewhat radical design.
It's different. It avoids all the go-to pratfalls of current logo design. No brushstrokes! No feathered drop shadows! No mirrored reflections! No gradients, patriotic colors, rainbows, ribbons, landmarks, symbols of unity, maps, swooshes or globes!
It's reproducible. Aside from the word "London" going chunky when sloppily rendered for the web (notably on the BBC reproduction that ended up on every site critiquing the logo), it's good to see a logo that's so easily printable, broadcastable, embroiderable and moldable (think of how horrible those 9-color rainbow brushstroke logos look when they're process-printed out-of-register with a 100 line screen on a McDonalds Cup!). It even looks pretty great in black and white.
It's flexible. A variety of color combinations, shapes, and patterns are available, keeping the logo slightly different on each view, but consistent (the BBC showed only the pink and yellow version, which didn't help its case). Also, keep in mind that an Olympic logo is almost always saddled with the logos of corporate partners. This square, bold mark will hold up.
It's the basis for a graphic system. Events require a complicated system of signage, identification, ornamentation, and even architecture. This logo and its associated colors, shapes, type and patterns are the perfect starting point for some fantastic signage, event icons, banners, tickets, uniforms and merchandise.
It's timeless. We've read complaints that it's reminiscent of Tangrams (popular since the 1800s), Jamie Reid's "Never Mind the Bollocks" cover (1977), MTV (1981), '80s new wave design (Swatch, Bennetton), Emigre Magazine, early 90s television titles (Wacaday, Going Live, The Ben Stiller Show). We've read complaints that it's too 'current' and it'll look dated by 2012. We've also read complaints that it's too futuristic or modern. As far as we're concerned, all design is influenced by other design. This design rises above its influences, yet remains simple enough to stand on its own. If current trends continue (towards four color, "computery" 3-D), this logo will be even more fresh in five years.
It's English. The two names that come to mind when we hear "british design" are two of our favorite designers of all time: Neville Brody and Peter Saville. Without being a direct knockoff, the 2012 logo is evocative of their work, the punk and new-wave movements, rave culture and everything we like about the United Kingdom.
It's simple. When we hear "my kid could have done that!" we think "success." Some of the greatest logos of all time involve two lines (the Christian cross) or three lines and a circle (Mercedes). Your kid COULD have done that, but she didn't. Nor did she design the graphics standards manual that goes with it. So give it a rest. Or send us her resume.
It cost £400,000. That's probably a bargain for an incredibly high-profile complete graphic identity system for an international company/event designed by experienced professionals. Anyone valuing the importance of design should give that argument a rest, too. We wouldn't have taken the job for a shilling less.
It's unexpected. Chicago is bidding for the 2016 Olympics and the temporary logo is a perfectly decent design. It's attractive, memorable and generally liked. It even generated a fair amount of internet buzz. But those brushstrokes and gradients don't reproduce well, the narrow vertical orientation complicates usage and by 2016, the Sears Tower is likely to be Chicago's third-tallest building. More than anything, the London logo takes the Olympic logo to a new level of boldness, abstraction and simplicity. And we're a bit jealous.
After a few dozen years of forgettable, watered-down, designed-by-committee logos for Olympics, World Cups, and so on (the 2006 and 2010 World Cups are among the worst examples), it's nice to see something different and something well thought out for long-term relevance. Sure, it may not be perfect and the feel-good mumbojumbo used to sell it to the public was pretty silly, but we feel confident that once the logo sinks in and we see how it's used and how other elements relate to it, it will become a source of pride for London and the Games.
Definately not worth 400,000.
My 3 yr old could do better
Considering that some people are less than happy about having the Olympics in the first place, spending £400,000 on it won't help matters.
As a representation of the Olympic ideals and London's commitment, well I think it's failed.
So far, over 200 people have signed the following petition to the Prime Minister at Number 10: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Change2012Logo/ , Including myself. My view is that it should be changed, and the money recuperated from the people that designed it. Whoever cleared it should have their head checked...
Rubish. Absolut rubish !!!
|otiscom wrote: |
|Definately not worth 400,000.
My 3 yr old could do better
I don't have a three year old, but my 14 year old sister could do better ;P
why would anyone want polygons for an Olympic logo. They are just stupid to think that it would work. That is very funny that it caused seizures.
whats wrong with the logo i think its cool idea but i am only one person with a opinion so meh, they could have thought of something more better or more creative, so i still think its ok...
|roboguyspacedude wrote: |
|That is very funny that it caused seizures. |
Hardly funny at all for those it put at risk.
This fiasco was just another demonstration that even the most, supposedly, professional designers can - and do - get it wrong. Surely they knew that it would have to be tested to make sure it was safe?
I think they should be dragged through the courts for their negligence.
I also think they should be paid for what it is worth - about £0.50.
The Olympic Committee would have done better to launch a competition, on You-Tube or wherever, for the branding of the 2012 Olympics and the design of all the artwork.
Definately not worth 400,000.
I think that is absolutely right.
It is amazing that it cost 400,000 to design such a logo,not creative I think.
I hate this logo, It cannot show LONDON's anything