So, the debate over the new London Olympics brand has raged on for more days than a debate about a graphic really ought to… Hasn’t it? Initially it was just the aesthetics, but, while many people mentioned it made them feel sick, but then some of the video pieces really did. The Mayor has waded in, and countless other alternative logos have sprung up too… The Press have refused to let it go, and the vitriolic response to it has been amazing…
But are we going to be proved wrong? Is this actually a bold leap into a new aesthetic that we will, by the time the Olympics come round, think was amazingly design-prescient?
Newness always disturbs us to begin with. The Olympics committee could have gone for something predictable and comfortable. We would not have been disturbed. But, as we know from emergence theory, without disturbance, nothing ever evolves.
With the advent of home-computing, ‘everyone is a designer now’. And a peek at some of people’s own goes at a logo do tell us just how badly visual ideas can be. So, Nic, tell me – is this a brave new world, is it ‘in tradition’, or just terrible?
Technorati: Logo | London | Olympics | Disturbing
Comments
12 responses to “London Olympics Logo | Newness Disturbs?”
as a designer and a bit of a provocative person, I like disturbing. I like progressive. I like daring. This is just bad (my opinion of course). So will we look back and say “wow, they really knew what they were doing”? I doubt it. If so, I’ll be sad about the direction of design.
but hey, it’s art right? it’s all subjective anyway.
On the news tonight here in the States, they said this logo cost $1 million dollars. The story also noted that the budget for bringing the Olympics to London has already gone over and that this may create an increase in taxes. Are y’all getting your money’s worth?
It ain’t no Munich.
It’s shit. Yet another Wolff Olins car-crash. The last time they did this was with the first Abbey rebrand and before that, the tate. They’ve got a history of doing it.
This certainly isn’t experimental, it’s just poor
Interesting. Didn’t know it was them. The Abbey thing was shocking too… Lucky they got taken over and it switched again. Any successes to base the experiments on?
Do you mean successes in sporting visual identities or successes in identities in general?
Munich is the benchmark, but it comes from another time– top-down, holistic and imperialistic.
I’m fascinated at the moment by the potential of identities formed around ‘affinities’ or ‘shared diagrams’. How is a whole or ‘one’ formed without annihilating difference? Munich is the exact opposite, it applies a sheen or gloss over the whole in order to give the impression of unity– very prescriptive.
Affinities are more about cybernetic coalitions and patterns, aggregate for a while, and then move on to something else. I suppose it comes from the notion that there is no fixed human identity, we are all in the process of becoming. Visual identities should reflect this same fluidity.
It has fascinating implications as it challenges the very notion of consistency at the heart of design; and also opens up other possibilities for communicating identity. It would be lovely to explore identities that focus on processes, engineering procedures and patterns.
I agree nic, that would be lovely.
I was actually wondering if that agency had had successful experiments in the past…
Interesting thoughts though… Will have to have a bit more detail though. In lay-man’s terms?
Wolff Olins last credible identity was probably Orange phones. That team is long gone now– moved on. That’s the problem with design, that’s the Faustian deal you make with the agency. The work forevever remains associated with the agency and talent comes and goes.
I don’t think people who comission design are really aware of this. A good company will continue to attract gifted designers and the quality of output will roughly remain the same. Yet this does’nt last for long, everyone has their ‘purple-patch’ and then it’s back to producing ‘prison art’!
The real problem with Wolff Olins is that their a corporate machine and they deal with banal corporate clients. They are never going to take risks or be experimental, that’s just not what they do. Actually, the other problem is that they’re not attracting the talent either.
Good design is the curation of flow, the controlling of “shir”. How users, designers, clients and (roadies and U-jobbers) all interact and make together– for better or worse.
Wolff Olins last credible identity was probably Orange phones. That team is long gone now– moved on. That’s the problem with design, that’s the Faustian deal you make with the agency. The work forevever remains associated with the agency and talent comes and goes.
I don’t think people who comission design are really aware of this. A good company will continue to attract gifted designers and the quality of output will roughly remain the same. Yet this does’nt last for long, everyone has their ‘purple-patch’ and then it’s back to producing ‘prison art’!
The real problem with Wolff Olins is that their a corporate machine and they deal with banal corporate clients. They are never going to take risks or be experimental, that’s just not what they do. Actually, the other problem is that they’re not attracting the talent either.
Good design is the curation of flow, the controlling of “shir”. How users, designers, clients and (roadies and U-jobbers) all interact and make together– for better or worse.
“The real problem with Wolff Olins is that their a corporate machine and they deal with banal corporate clients. They are never going to take risks or be experimental, that’s just not what they do.”
Doesn’t that contradict the fact that they’ve created this? Wasn’t this clearly a risk?
Wonder where the do you think the ideas came from – some sort of Tiswas nostalgia? Personally I think they just went down a blind alley after Coe had won the bid with lots in their presentation about impacting ‘street’ kids.
Not really a contradiction. The confusion comes as they are presenting something that is poorly executed as ‘edgy’– mistaking naivety for creativity.
exactly nic. Just because something is weird or badly executed doesn’t make it edgy. But again, I’m sure some would argue that’s an opinion.