Whoever thought this was a good idea should be fired.
This logo cost $796,000.
It’s “targeted at young people”.
It also looks like a fourth grade art class mistake.
Oh, and animations of it are causing seizures… literally.
What were they thinking???
London’s Design Museum founder Stephen Bayley put it best, saying the logo is “a puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal.”
by
Tags:
It works wonderfully. It does attract the attention of young people.
Much in the same way that a train wreck attracts the attention of people.
Or an accident on the highway (especially with a fire involved) attracts the attention of drivers.
And, it does sort of resemble construction paper work I did as a child.
$800,000 for that?
-=Russ=-
I dunno. I’ve been reading a lot about it and I can’t come to a verdict myself. I sort of like the feel that maybe it’s avant-garde, but I don’t really think “avant” and “design for the Olympics” have any place together. It seems odd to me that a committee like that could approve a design like this.
Peter Saville likes it, oddly enough, but I got the feeling that maybe he was just trying to be contrary by saying that.
Coudal Partners wrote up a great review of the logo on their website. I’d recommend checking it out.
someone told me me something funng this logo looks like Lisa simpson giving someone a blow job.
The only good thing about this logo is that it reminds me of ‘Saved by the Bell’. However, that can also be a bad thing, so… I suppose it’s difficult trying to find something about this logo that’s likable.
The colors would’ve worked in the 80s, but the ‘screamin’ 80s’ color schemes faded as soon as snap bracelets disappeared from the market.
For the price they paid for this I’m hoping the majority of it was for R&D. I’m sure they ransacked thrift stores, garage/yard/lawn sales and antique shops for anything that would evoke a “hip”, “groovy”, “rad” or “awesome” reaction.
In fact, I’m wondering now if they actually started this project in ’82, planning for the 2012 Olympics which, thanks to a coin toss, meant London for its host.
Plus I think Tiffany might have used this logo at one point.
This is the first time I have seen this logo and I have to say that it is a nasty piece of work. It looks like a cubist painter that could only afford two colors; those that no-one else wanted to buy.
You think that is bad take a look at the Orrick logo. It is just a green circle. That cost $915K.
Sure it’s ugly, but now everyone’s talking about it. They probably were trying to be bold all along, and they just made a bold mistake. However, this has earned them a lot of free PR. And if you think all PR is good PR (which I do), then they’ve achieved at least one of their objectives.
How embarrassing it must be to be the designer behind this logo. Im young and this logo dosent catch my eyes but it sure hurts them.
This is a great way to attract a younger audience and surprisingly the colors work together.
Cae – except that it causes seizures…
Colors work together? Magenta and Yellow. who would have thought….
YIKES! and take a look at the picture here:
http://blog.london2012.com/?p=567
I am intrigued however by the favicon on their blog. That I think is an good step in a good direction. What does it stem from I wonder?
The logo isn’t officially placed anywhere on the website. Have they’ve decided against it?
I hope the designer was directed by someone and the designer made exactly what they were told to make. No amount of brainstorming could lead me to that solution.
Leave a Reply