The Underscore Archives

I'm firmly on the fence on this one, but here's a rare positive write
up from Coudal:

http://coudal.com/olympics.php

"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. "