London 2012. What Was Chosen.

Update: If you are looking for a different perspective on this—check out what Coudal Partners has to say.  It's a very thoughtful piece.  But the more I think about this—the more I wonder if the London design may actually be art.  Art can polarize.  You can love it or hate it, have an appreciation or not.  Art is fickle.  It can spark debate, dialogue and conversation (good art often does).  And personally, I've stood in front of art—where after several hours of pontification I convinced myself that what I was looking at was actually brilliant when initially I thought the opposite.  So, maybe the logo is art.  Should it be?  Without over thinking this—I can confidently say the logo doesn't work for me.  Just a personal opinion.

Oh, and one last thought.  Anything that triggers epileptic seizures should be debated.  :)

---------------------------------------------------

Before you read on—please take a look at these two visuals for at least 15 seconds.

Done?

OK, what do you think?

Here's what I think.  I think we are looking at two examples of Graphic Design.  One example is successful.  The other is not as successful.  Graphic Design falls under the broader category of Visual Communications.  In order for Visual Communications to be successful, it must nail two things:

1. It must be visual
2. It must communicate

This is what the London 2012 site says about their visual identity (shown above)

"The new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible. It will work with new technology and across traditional and new media networks."

This is what the design firm behind Chicago's 2016 effort put forth:

"The Chicago 2016 logo blends the colors of the five Olympic rings within torch-shaped vista of the city, from serene blue lake to vibrant green landscape to fiery skyline. It also evokes Chicago’s Games concept, to host compact Olympic Games celebrated in the center of the city, along the lakefront and in the city’s parks."

Is this really just a matter of taste?  One could argue that London's logo is appealing to some.  Maybe a younger demographic?  Maybe older—I don't know, you tell me.  But let's take a look at these examples from another perspective:

Which one solves a problem?  In my opinion the Chicago identity tells us two things immediately:

1. Olympics
2. Chicago

And yes—from a personal preference I think it's visually appealing and does capture the vibrancy of Chicago's lakefront through the color.  What's my point in all of this?  My point is that I have a gut feeling something went horribly wrong during London's design process.  Maybe someone thought the identity really did look "dynamic, modern, and flexible". 

The London identity is supposed to read "2012".  I didn't see it.  Did you?  What could have helped the London 2012 committee avoid this?  The committee could have realized they had a problem to solve.  The problem was how to successfully communicate London's enthusiasm and passion for the Olympic spirit.  Maybe they were solving for the wrong problem—or worse yet just following an exercise in style.

The identity fails because it doesn't successfully communicate London, or the Olympic spirit.  It doesn't tell a story.  Instead it focuses on translating "dynamic, modern, and flexible".  Seth says it best:

"Actually, it's just a jaggy picture"

Comments

[Prakash Dogra]

Aptly put that the design must be must be visual and must communicate -- London one does not do both. Jagged is the right word. While Chicago one communicates the games - the city part is not so identifiable as how many people around the world - would have seen photos of Chicago skyline. A universally acceptable - read - identifiable - visual will be the best bet for me.

[Matt Dickman]

David -- Even though I know what it is supposed to say I *still* have a hard time seeing it. I think it may work as a modern art piece in a gallery where you have time to step back and soak it in, but to your point it does not tell a story and I think the points they made about "new technology" and "new media networks" are laughable and were thrown in to help try to justify the selection.

London is such a cool place with so much history and excitement and this does a disservice to the entire city.

[Nic Darling]

I am not typically prone to bluntness or brevity, but that is just an ugly visual. I am desperately searching for something more intelligent but dear, sweet God . . . hideous.

I am sure you are correct about the lack of story telling and the inability to carry a message, but I just can't get by thinking that it looks like something Pacman defecated after mistakenly devouring a couple hundred "jagged" space invaders.

[Joanna Pena-Bickley]

love the Chicago one...simple, the visual communicated city and games in one fail swoop. It tells me the story before the copy decoration does.

london is tasty if you are an art lover who knows th tate modern or london's fashionable simplicity. I struggle with knowing what we are commutation if this were to stand on its own to global audience.

what was the demo on the brief?

[Roger von Oech]

If you'd like to see the London logo in a whole new way check out (caution: has an "R" rating):

http://img9.imagepile.net/img9/12224olympicgschpunken.gif

You'll never think of anything else now when you see it.

Compliments of Fake Steve Jobs

I guess everyone is having fun with this one.

[eaon pritchard]

well, its started a conversation thats for sure. whatever happened to 'playing safe is too risky'? its unconventional, granted but it conveys spirit rather than literal representation. maybe some young fogeys would have preferred a picture of big ben or the tube map. i like it.

[nicholas gill]

My real beef with this, despite the fact it's been designed by committee - and we all know whatthat can do to good ideas, is this:
They want to appeal to a new, younger generation whose connection with the Olympics is limited. Then why not involve them? Let them BE THE CONTENT? Let them shape it, be part of it, be engaged with it and let them have control in the future size and shape? Open up the design to art students in London (a hot bed of creativity - anyone knows that) and let people choose?

Good luck with the new job

[Nikyborghi]

Hi david,
I write you from Milan, Italy.Just a note on what you said about the chicago logo.If you look at it from an "international" perspective you will find that it doesn't actually communicate "Chicago" as you said. I know Chicago but I am not so sure, that, outside US, many people know what that tower is and that Chicago is near a lake and since Olympics is an international event that logo will be seen by more non-US people than US. From that logo I got the feelings of Olympics and I like the torch-shape, but I can tell you not so many people will say "oh, that's chicago".
BTW, the london logo is horrible and no, i didn't see the 2012 immediately.

your blog is great,
nik

[mansoor]

Hi, I'm not too sure about the fact that the chicago logo tells me its about the olympics, you see, they're missing one very important guideline... the games LOGO!! Plus, i have no idea about chicago skyline or the parks etc, since i've never been to the states in my life.

The london one, though jagged and all, does carry the logo and identifies itself as somethin with the olympics. And if you step back and think a little, the number becomes very clear.

just my two cents

[Adam]

"London is such a cool place with so much history and excitement and this does a disservice to the entire city."

That's the Great British spirit!

We're a nation of moaners and now we have something to collectively moan about. Perfect!

You'll never get us. Don't try.

[Steve Woodruff]

I wrote a blog post giving my reaction to this bit of hideousness (London's Olympic Throw-up), then called my wife over to look at the logo. She pointed out that there is actually a 2012 buried in those jaggy shapes - I had not even seen it! But if these folks want to wire me $800,000, I'll be glad to come up with something at least as bad...

[DC1974]

Well as the Chicago one has been banned by the IOC for incorporating the torch -- I'd say that just on that, the London one wins. By I also say the London one wins because it says something about London that is more than Oliver Twist or Tea Time: it calls to mind the most significant exports from London over the last 40 years -- pop culture through rock and roll, avant guard fashion, and contemporary design. And frankly, as fewer and fewer people under 40 watch the Olympics (I'm 32 and can't tell you the last time I watched them), it seems like presenting a younger, hipper London is the way to go. I love the London logo and the way it manifests across medias.

[DA]

Some really good thoughts here and points taken on the Chicago logo. Maybe my perspective is tainted since I live in the city, therefore I saw the skyline immediately.

A few of you actually like the logo. So let's say this falls in the catagory of a "polarizing design". Then the question is should the logo polarize? That seems to go against the grain of what was said on the site.

[Ed Lee]

i completely disagree with you about chicago. how does the chicago image say olympics? it could be for any event.

i'm not a fan of the london logo, i much preferred the understated but arresting image of the thames looped through the olympic rings. however it does communicate 3 things very quickly:

1. olympics (see the rings)
2. London
3. 2012 (eventually)

on another note, i think it's ironic for someone who advocates being "remarkable" is putting the smackdown on an organization that tries.

Ed

[DA]

Ed,

When I saw Chicago I got that torch = olympics immediately. Actually, I thought it was pretty innovative that the designer was able to communicate olympics without the rings. But I could be wrong on this and maybe I'm showing some bias.

To your point about remarkable. Yes, the London logo stands apart. Yes maybe they tried. And I'm always hesitant to criticize without offering rationale or some type of recommedation.

That's why I elaborated on why I don't think it works as opposed to just lsaying "I think it's ugly".

What it actually might be is art. Abstract and all. But again, if this is viewed as a problem to solve, is "art" the right solution?

[Philippe]

Check out the post on brainsonfire: http://brainsonfire.com/blog/london-2012-the-logo-drama/ You'll find a link to a petition to prevent London to use this terrible logo (charged 800.000 dollars!)

[Andy Welfle]

It looks like the Flinstones are hosting the Olympics -- Olympics: Bedrock: 2012

[Doug Meacham]

Hi David,

I've read a number of quotes from British Olympic officials saying that the design was meant to be "edgy". It certainly is. Probably has a few more edges than it needs.
You asked "What could have helped the London 2012 committee avoid this?". The reaction has been so overwhelmingly negative, that I suspect they didn't bother to ask people what they thought of the design before rolling it out.

[Valeria Maltoni]

You know, I've been looking at the posts about this logo all over my neck of the blogosphere and I think you have the most interesting group conversation here.

At first blush, I do prefer the slender and elegant Chicago logo. However, let's back up for a moment and look at the London logo. Here are the messages it sends (to me):

* 2012 -- so obvious. Then again, I grew up doing puzzles and looking at what's missing, etc.

* Origami -- how the pieces fit together = creativity, imagination, team spirit (this is the moment when the designers are coming to my home and kissing me on the forehead, I'm waiting;-) and people. Yes, the jagged image looks like a person.

Here's what Chicago conveys:

- Star, best person, medalist
- Place

Hmmm... none of it is art. They are both communications. And now, let it rip.

[DA]

Valeria,

That's a really interesting take. I wish the visual was as elegant as your description. So would you keep this as is?

I have a totally different feeling about Chicago's. While I agree with place—the Torch to me evokes the feelings of the opening ceremonies. Hope, excitement, anticipation.

[Erin Magner]

If anything, the 'questionable' character of the London design has gotten it so much publicity, that I think it serves its purpose.

Do any of these logos strive to be art? Personally I feel the Chicago logo is a bit boring and pretentious, lacking in substance and using outdated symbols to communicate a meaning that is not so compelling. I did think the London one was quite hideous upon first inspection, but after reading this blog, I feel that making a questionable logo that sparks debate is far superior to any cliche reference to London culture. It would be nice if either chose to communicate something bigger, say equality or social justice, that the Olympics in London would mean. But the marketing aspect of it is brilliant.

[brian murphy]

I'd recommend reading the Coudal Partners post noted now @ the beginning of this post.
I couldn't agree more w/ Coudal and less w/ this post (though I very much respect your posting a well.versed alternative view.point)
-this logo speakes very well to contemporary London, starting w/ Punk then New Wave, etc.
-while not all of us look back on the 80's kindly RE: design, this is looking back to that and looking forward to how these same shapes are influencing contemporary design, notably architecture.
-BIG note, and something this logo will do well... it must translate into an extremely broad system that will become the Look of the Games, including varied signage, motion graphics, architecture, print, etc.
-yesterday there was motion-graphic piece on the site http://www.london2012.com/index.html that I can't seem to locate now (it's not the story/video). it captured ideas like energy,movement, building w/ the system, etc. maybe it even works better @ times in motion than viewed only as a single logo, but I think this begins to show that it will work well as a complete system, which is what it must do.

[DA]

Brian—I do agree it works well as system due to it's simplicity in colors the shape and readability.

I guess I'm a cultural Neanderthal—I get the New Wave thing as I lived through it...MTV and all but I feel the nuance doesn't translate well to a broad audience.

I just don't see the connection that this visual identity has "the goods".

Erin, you say:

"If anything, the 'questionable' character of the London design has gotten it so much publicity, that I think it serves its purpose."

I might agree with your statement if the effort was intentional. Seems that it wasn't. But even if it was—does everything have to be designed to stir up controversy and debate? What ever happened to coming up with something that works so well that...

it just speaks for itself.

[Erin Magner]

oh but i forgot to say the the blending of the olympic colors bit on the Chicago logo was genius, and Chicago's culture is very focused on its architecture, so I guess Chicago wins at communication.

[brian murphy]

I think this probably gets into an ideological discussion of design/art:

-is the best design that which communicates very clearly while and is visually appealing to the largest of audiences?
-is the best design that which communicates somewhat codified and not always subscribing to an already generally accepted aesthetic, asking the audience to ask questions?
-does design that works so naturally for a large audience become an automatic mind.numbing super.brand?
-is a mainstage for sub.culture ideas relevant to change?
-should design conform or attempt to convert?

I guess you can see which way I may lean. but, hey -I think this is very subjective.
perhaps the most successul part of this system may be if it really does bring people together when they experience it: online, in space, @ an event, in broadcast, flowing as a colonnade of banners one is walking thru, formed and dispersed as physical parts in a performance... rather than treat is as simply -a mark.

[DA]

"if it really does bring people together when they experience it: online, in space, @ an event, in broadcast, flowing as a colonnade of banners one is walking thru, formed and dispersed as physical parts in a performance... rather than treat is as simply -a mark."

Yes. Agreed. But it also needs to work as a mark. A mark that translates to a large group body of people—namely the world. It's the Olympics. A global event which celebrates the human spirit and inclusivity among other things. Everyone can participate—even if it's just by watching or listening to broadcasts.

Since so many people are opposed to this image. I say it failed it's objective.

But we can certainly disagree. At the end of the day, cerebral and emotional arguments aside—something about it 'aint right (in my opinion). Not sure how else to put it.

[brian murphy]

I certainly won't defend it to the point of making out to be the best piece of design out there. it's not.
but I think it may communicate better to the youth market which I would bet the Olympics is trying to get excited and engaged. I think you're right about the mark itself communicating to the largest possible audience. fr: what I've seem, I think it will translate well into various formats though -and it's made people think a little.
was it ready for that big a stage... it seems in the broadest sense (to the masses) maybe not. but I wonder how this will develop for people after this 1st bit of polarization.
cheers.

[Adam Kayce : Monk At Work]

Add the five rings to the Chicago design, and I'd say it's flawless.

The 2012 thing in the London logo is still so vague for me, even though I know what it's supposed to be.

And if the design is meant to convey emotions or provoke an emotional response, regardless of the fact that I think it's nasty ugly, it's clearly falling on houses divided... and that nixes any argument about its clarity, in my mind at least.

[Ryan Karpeles]

I think the question is: "What direction are the Olympics moving?"

Forward or backward? Progressive or nostalgic?

The Olympics embody tradition. But they also embody progress and striving towards the future.

From just one glance at this logo, it seems the Committee wants us to think progressively. Move on. Remember tradition, but don't dwell on it.

Who knows if this trend will continue. Who knows if we'll revert to tradition at some point. But for now, I think the message is clear...

-> Get out of the past. Embrace the future.

Just my take...

[Kula bá]

Future? Reminds me to some 50s style graphics.

[Stijn]

Butt ugly, this would even be considered too much in the 80's. I heard somewhere that they were billed 300 thousand pounds for it. Nothing but kudos for the sales person of that design company. Why didn't London make it into crowdsourced effort and generate extra buzz?

[Matt]

I have some visual sensitivity - I can’t look at strobe lights, for instance, also movies sequences that flash a lot of scenes.

I can’t look at this logo for more than a few seconds before it starts to physically hurt.

[Sarah]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the London logo would be more at home on Hypercolor shirts? Perhaps they can book WHAM! to come and sing at the opening ceremonies.

[AL]

@Valeria "Yes, the jagged image looks like a person"

After a while I also saw a human shape - a runner starting to run:
http://tnij.org/2012runner

I think this logo has big potential and that's great. But the best is that it's not like everything else.

[Chicago 2016]

I wouldn't be surprised if Tokyo 2016 cooks up something cool.

[Gunnar Swanson]

The Chicago mark is very pretty and is nicely crafted. It is also clichéd, insipid, and would be difficult to reproduce with limited colors and using a variety of reproduction techniques. It panders to people who want their expectations met. It is the American Idol finalist of logos. Olympic rings with one of the rings being the face of Big Ben would have been the London version. But the main problem with this (and most) discussions is that it is talking about marks in a vacuum.

The idea that a mark is supposed to be a mini narrative is somehow cemented into graphic design dogma. So it has to communicate the city and the year and the fact that it's an Olympics and what that all means. Who is this going to say it to? The people in the stands who don't know where they are or what they are watching? The people who are going to see promotions for the event that consist of a logo and nothing else?

The people who think 400K pounds went into nothing other than drawing a logo or that what some other guy did in 20 minutes should even be discussed as comparative value are, you’ll notice, the same people who think you should have a big conversation about a logo rather than about a broad design system.

So you didn’t even see 2012 at first glance? Do you see it now? How long did it take to learn? How often will we have to send you to retraining classes when you forget? When should we remind you what year the London Olympics will be? In five years will you be setting your watch using the logo as reference and you might end up in the wrong city? A logo is a functional item but a lot of people seem to have misidentified the funtion.

[davidicus]

.

logos don't have to communicate a hundred things. London's is memorably unique and communicates an excitement that may be the touchstone emotion for all the events' communications.

i prefer the chicago logo, but can also recognise that it communicates careful as much as aspiration.

.

[DA]

"i prefer the chicago logo, but can also recognise that it communicates careful as much as aspiration."

For a globally recognizable symbol a both of these are supposed to be—I don't think that careful + aspiration is such a bad combination.

[Gino]

As a fellow Chicagoan, you must know that the Chicago logo now must be redesigned because the IOC has ruled no representations of the Olympic paraphenalia may be used in logos by cities in competition.

[DA]

Yes Gino I'm aware that it must be resigned. It's too bad because I think it's a fine visual identity.

[Emmanuel Tarr]

The thing that I really don't like within the London 2012 logo is that it doesn't even seem consistent. Not only did I just now after days of looking at it, realize that it even said 2012, but it's not even consistent; the two twos don't even look the same. Just like it would be hard to read a book where the font changes within each word, it's hard to notify that this is one direct message. This might sound petty, but also, the word, "London" isn't even capitalized. Take pride in one's city that's going to be displayed to the world. It seems to show lacking in significance when a city is without any caps, I mean, why did IOC pick it anyway?