I had a quick swatch of the BBC site today, to see this jagged wee monster staring back at me. I'm sure the person (although, I suspect it was a committee) who designed it is very proud of their work, and me trashing their design is just another shovel of dung on a Everest of other criticisms they've received since the launch earlier today.
But really. It doesn't say anything. And to demonstrate how little the logo says, politicians have been queueing up to spout nonsense over it. Tessa Jowell, for example, gushed:
The Glasgow Commonwealth Games logo is far nicer - at least it suggests some tartan at the top (cheesy yes, but it's one of the things that makes Scotland distinctive), and ties into a kinda torch like image. It's nice, easy on the eye. Don't suppose it says much about Glasgow (you'd have to know your Mackintosh to pick up on the O), but it's not bad. It's simple and crisp, and I hope it's not dumped if we win the bid.
Anyway, I'm not feeling any sense of inspiration or connection to the meaningless scribble of the London 2012 logo. It's a million miles from the simple branding used for the initial bid (sorry about the cheesiness of the picture, but it's the best I could find!). That was all over London last time I was there, so for additional expense, they're now going to have to take all that down and replace it.
I've had a look about - below are ones from recent games... they don't "say" much, but they stick to a simple formula - get some Olympic rings in there, make it a bit about your country (red white and blue stars for the US, yellow and red stripes for Barcelona).
But really. It doesn't say anything. And to demonstrate how little the logo says, politicians have been queueing up to spout nonsense over it. Tessa Jowell, for example, gushed:
"This is an iconic brand that sums up what London 2012 is all about - an inclusive, welcoming and diverse Games that involves the whole country."
"It takes our values to the world beyond our shores, acting both as an invitation and an inspiration.
"This is not just a marketing logo, but a symbol that will become familiar, instantly recognisable and associated with our Games in so many ways during the next five years."
Iconic Brand? Sums up London? Values? Get over yourself guys, it is just a logo. I'm not really sure it does need to "say anything", other than to get across is that the Olympic Games are in London. A simple message. The one from the 1948 Olympics in London is maybe a bit on the drab side, but at least you know it's in London. The 1948 one uses a real iconic image of London, and has the rings right to the fore. Simple, straightforward, and I bet they didn't have to endure a shiny press wankathon.
The Glasgow Commonwealth Games logo is far nicer - at least it suggests some tartan at the top (cheesy yes, but it's one of the things that makes Scotland distinctive), and ties into a kinda torch like image. It's nice, easy on the eye. Don't suppose it says much about Glasgow (you'd have to know your Mackintosh to pick up on the O), but it's not bad. It's simple and crisp, and I hope it's not dumped if we win the bid.
Anyway, I'm not feeling any sense of inspiration or connection to the meaningless scribble of the London 2012 logo. It's a million miles from the simple branding used for the initial bid (sorry about the cheesiness of the picture, but it's the best I could find!). That was all over London last time I was there, so for additional expense, they're now going to have to take all that down and replace it.
I've had a look about - below are ones from recent games... they don't "say" much, but they stick to a simple formula - get some Olympic rings in there, make it a bit about your country (red white and blue stars for the US, yellow and red stripes for Barcelona).
2 comments:
I can only see rude images now - what is Lisa Simpson doing to that man?
it looks like an abstract form of someone taking a dump in the bog
Post a Comment