Olympic Logo… Hmmmm?
- Started
- Last post
- 861 Responses
- neue75_bold0
Point well taken harry palmskis, so I think you can go now...
The Dutch greatly support your pov, making a logo awkward sometimes can be enough to create a greater lasting impression, have more stopping power or reinforce the concept... Design should never be about aesthetics alone... But to make a broad generalization, this logo would be more suited towards the Netherlands, Germany or Switzerland hosting the olympics in terms of it being more indicative of the culture... Given it being in London, a more suiting treatment would be a clean sans-serif typeface with simple typography and an equally dry [yet witty] photographic treatment and maybe some foil blocking somewhere...
;)
- kelpie0
you know, my art director and me just had a big conversation about this comparing it rather unfavourably to the Athens one (which I really like actually) and then it turns out to have been done by the same agency. w t f?
- moth0
plamenskis, that's makes no sense whatsoever.
If you're going to sign-up and post "wit", you're at least going to have to compete with me - a now published Wittinian.
So hush now.
- defanddumm0
I see what you mean Morilla, and to end this lets just agree to disagree.
But in music they call it a pop formula, in design i just called it a pop technique and that was for my school paper.
I just wanted to explain what it meant to make something pop without a grumpy stressed out designer telling me to not say that word because his marketing bla, bla...
- blipp0
Heheheh, good god...
- chossy0
ewww vespa gross, :/
- forcetwelve0
why does the logo need to be 'played' with? the whole idea is to create a recognisable mark for the event/campaign. having people screw it up and fuk around with it on tshirts isnt going to make it stronger - its just going to create confusion and detract from the primary brand. IMO
- plamenskis0
Moth, it seems you didn't read my previous posts, did you!?
Busy framing your guardian 15 mins?
- plamenskis0
Here's clue - someone here mentioned Logo 2.0.
- moth0
- kelpie0
all of the chat on that article is total pish, if I may be high brow about this. What the fuck does Lord Coe know about reaching out to the yoof?
- kelpie0
me, skt, moth, snuggles...
who are the other two?
- kelpie0
no its not recent - read my posts for christ's sake. You are thinking in a very rigid binary way here, like you have to love it if you like the thinking behind the overall brand, whereas most of us would say you can achieve both a strong conceptual base and an expandable brand without sacrificing the aesthetics and communication this brand should have. You have a very limited understanding of the opinions, roles and skills of the members here. I've seen this before in bad marketing people.
and I still think you're just on the wind up.
- dkmb0
- plamenskis0
most of us would say you can achieve both a strong conceptual base and an expandable brand without sacrificing the aesthetics and communication this brand should have.
----------
Yes, up until now.
This is Logo 2.0. Google sort of started the trend but never in this scale.And you guys do it but only once a year when you put a Xmas hat on your logos.
Logo 2.0 is dada logo, an anti-logo.
- vespa0
who did it kelpie?
i don't mind the rest of it, it's just the actual logo that sucks execution bottom
- defanddumm0
My folio is in transition so Ive linked to some of my video pieces.
- morilla0
AHHHH , you are talking in circles.
you can't rewrite definitions of words. "Pop" in the design world means something completely different than how you are using it. You will look like a douche.
I am sick of trying to help you be cool. Good Luck.
Make it Pop!!!