The Underscore Archives

A measured and well thought out response I thought.

Given the hysteria the logo seems to have generated its gotta be worth 400k
in advertising alone! In noticed a Sun front page this week 'OLYMPICS LOGO
CAUSES EPILEPSY', as if if you actually just showed it to someone they would
immediately flop onto the floor and start foaming at the mouth. Bless their
hyperbolic cotton socks.

For the record the number of BBC programs that fail a Harding pass (test for
epilepsy inducing flicker) on a TV program is huge. They just end up getting
re-cut and tested until they pass. So the only mistake they made was to
release material onto their website without running a Harding pass on it
first. Stupid, admittedly but understandable since its usually only required
for broadcast video.

Still, its a great thing to get good and worked up about when there isn't
much news about eh?

cheers,

mark

PS Personally I don't give a monkeys about the logo, the olympics is almost
a dull as football. <troll>

On 6/7/07, Jon Hadley <me at jon-hadley.com> wrote:
>
> 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. "
>
> --
> underscore_ list info/archive -> http://www.under-score.org.uk
>



-- 
Mark Chitty
web: www.thisliquidspace.com
email: mark.chitty at thisliquidspace.com
mobile: 0777 3392821
skype: markchitty