London 2012: it’s all crazy paving and death
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
I’m no artist, and design is not my thing (this site is testament to that), but in the craze over the 2012 olympics logo (which looks like our old patio on speed), people might overlook the fact that the London 2012 landing page is even worse. It’s a complete horror featuring an eye-bleeding swatch of web-safe-but-not-really-safe colours alongside fonts you wouldn’t expect anywhere other than on a printed suicide note.
Conversely, apart from a quiet mention of the new logo in the news section the main London 2012 site fails to have any serious, strong branding anywhere in sight.
Slightly related:
- Guardian (2004): Olympic games may not benefit London
- Guardian (2007): Olympics are costly, but regeneration is priceless
- Diamond Geezer: “Don’t worry, we’ve checked that the final logo passes all known quality thresholds”
- B3ta: It’s amazing what you can do with no proper image creation software
Share this
When I first saw the logo, I thought “ick” but it’s actually growing on me, especially in all the variations in execusion (which are unforunately not easily found at that Web 2.0-ey website). There’s a discussion at Under Consideration where a lot of designers actually like it: http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/003489.html
Bart
on June 7th, 2007
It’s nuts. The Olympics should not be a brand. Seb Coe should not be allowed to talk like a scientologist about it. The logo should not celebrate street crime. It’s a bad logo – it should be more fun or more stylish.
John V. Keogh
on June 18th, 2007