It’s not THAT bad! Is it?
June 4th 2007 21:01. Updated: June 4th 2007 21:45
I just posted this on Twitter:
Am I the only one who thinks the new London 2012 logo isn’t THAT bad?
And pretty much instantly two people, Will Howells and Chris Applegate, told me that, yes, yes I am. (Update: And Sarah…)
I mean, I don’t think it’s a great logo or anything. For a start, it took me bloody ages to work out where “2012″ was written (everywhere, illegibly, apparently).
But I like it for being bold and different. I like it for not being yet another one of those bland, anonymous, forgettable logos that usually accompany such massive events.
Imagine if we had got one of these, which is really the most likely other alternative.
Usually these logos are shocking for just how similar they are to all the others. Love hearts, scrawly handwriting, use of national symbols. I can easily imagine a London 2012 logo where, for instance the London Eye made the ‘0′ and Big Ben made the ‘1′. Thank goodness they avoided that sort of thing.
So congratulations to the London 2012 people for not just making do with some bland squiggly emblem with “London 2012″ faux-handwritten under it.
…Having said that, the “Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob” thing is… er, unfortunate.
MatGB has collected some of the reactions to the logo. At first I couldn’t see the thing about it being a Designers Republic rip-off. (It’s not as if TDR are the only people who have ever used that kind of vibrant Japanese-influenced style.)
Then I watched the video. It has to be said that one particular part of the video reminded me very strongly of an iconic TDR-designed album cover.
Update: Forgot to include this rather funny suggested logo that ended up on the BBC’s website!
-1 (Votes: 1)
Loading ...
#1 Tom
June 4th 2007 21:26
I think - beyond the basic problems that it’s just eye-meltingly horrible and that Coe’s “this is the vision at the very heart of our brand” was nauseating marketing-drivel - a big part of the problem was that the original candidate city logo was actually very cool.
The stylised River Thames sweeping through the city’s name, the simple but appealing font, the understated nature of the whole thing made it a classy piece of work, that actually did represent London (as much as a simple bit of graphic art can represent an entire city). In comparison to that, the thought of having this plastered everywhere for the next five years is simply horrifying.
#2 doctorvee
June 4th 2007 21:42
You know, I never realised that ribbon thing was meant to look like the River Thames.
#3 Calum Leslie
June 4th 2007 23:48
Someone pointed out on the BBC site that it looks like “someone being taken roughly from behind”, and I’ve not been able to look at it since then.
#4 doctorvee
June 5th 2007 00:47
You mean like this?
#5 doctorvee
June 5th 2007 01:07
Doh! Now I have read at qwghlm that the logo also looks like a man vomiting. Which it does. The logo’s biggest crime is the fact that it has ended up looking like so many unfortunate things.
Maybe they should change it from
20
12
to 2012.