Olympic Logo triggers apoplexy
The logo for the London Olympics has caused a storm in the world of design professionals and The Great British Public. The blog Design Observer is typical of the furore. Here's the comment I added to the thread.It is number 160+, so deeply buried that I thought I would take it out for a walk here:
It's always easy to be critical of things that shock us. In this case the criticism is probably justified.
But I have one nagging thought. What if the alternative was some sort of slickly conceived and executed orthodoxy - which is common in design; variations of what things 'should' look like (a throwback the rigor of modernism - form and function riding in tandem and all that).
It fascinates me how things that were considered mad and unacceptable when first introduced become accepted with familiarity. Imagine having the cojones to approve Frank Gehry's Guggenheim at Bilbao.
The size of the budget, the prestige of the project and the fact it was funded from the public purse probably means any design would meet with criticism.
For what its worth - I don't think it's all that important. Bright colours, dynamic signage, the total package will probably pull it all together.
A logo is just a logo.
If you want to be truly bamboozelled visit London2012.com and watch the video on the home page. Just plain weird - makes the City of London seem filthy and bleak (which parts of it are) - but what is the point exactly?