London 2012 logo
Out of context: Reply #40
- Started
- Last post
- 48 Responses
- hansglib0
@ rupedixon
The logo is not memorable or distinct (the characteristics of of good logo) - it's an indeterminate confused shape. Extra visual confusion is created by the heavy jagged outlines to the basic elements, and the addition of the olympic/paralympic symbols, and London 2012™ wording within the shapes.
The individual elements of the logo are forced, clumsy, ill-at ease with each other and fragmented, yet without conveying any sense of energy. They do not add up to more than the sum of the parts.
This lack of energy is exacerbated by the way the Olympic rings and London 2012™ wording have been added in - they sit extremely awkwardly within the logo. Why was the wording just set in a line, so it sits there like a pudding, killing any energy the logo may have had?
The design system sits at odds with the faux-graffiti styling of the logo - instead of taking the graffiti theme on and developing it, the associated system relies on meaningless angular lines and colours which do nothing to support the logo, which appears "stuck on" whenever it is applied with the secondary graphics.
The colours used appear to be totally random - nothing I have yet seen suggests there is any system behind the choice and use of colours - for instance, a colour per sport, or division of LOCOG.
OK it's only one application, but the attempt to use the flags within the logo demonstrates a lack of clear or forward thinking. It demeans both the flags and the logo, and bearing in mind the failure to incorporate all flags, should not have been approved.
The supporting typeface is hard to read, clumsy and without any grace. This is event that celebrates athletic prowess and ability, the typeface seems to do the complete opposite.
The individual sports iconography sits awkwardly within the system - neither building on the angular lines of the supporting graphics or the graffiti style of the logo, but using a new "sketch" style. This adds to the lack of consistency that runs through the whole scheme.
--subjectivity alert--
The whole thing feels very thrown together. Maybe that's intentional, to represent the way the Olympics have been organised: a low budget affair using whatever facilities that can be pressed into service.
I don't blame WO for the mess - a client always gets the work they deserve - and I can imagine LOCOG wasn't easy to work with. I find the whole scheme depressingly second rate and disappointing.
- hold tight, response coming... Like this debate alreadyrupedixon