dynamo london

down with the kids

Firstly I must say i’m glad that this subject and debate has been opened in a reasoned and thoughtful way. I’m sure many of the designers based in London have been discussing this topic over the last few days and it would be too easy to be excessively negative about this new brand.

Having said that I do dislike the mark for a number of reasons and ironically my reasons for dislike correspond very closely with Wolff Olins’ justifications.

Appealing to the youth is an admirable approach and undoubtedly the most important audience for the future of the Olympics, unfortunately in trying to be current the brand is under great risk of dating before the event takes place. Further more, the ‘youth’ section of society is far more brand aware than this campaign seems to think they are. They wont be fooled for a second when the ‘establishment’ tries to reach out and involve them with such an unusually misjudged approach.

I hate to be negative about things like this although the ground swell of (vociferous) option from colleagues and the wider public does suggest that i’m certainly not alone.

I’m left with a pang of nostalgia for the bid logo. I hope that the proposed ‘evolution’ of this brand is going to be quick, if not that, I hope that they get all of the building work done on time.

you've got to laugh

http://www.beadesigngroup.com/blog/archives/2007/06/jonstewartonthelondon_olym.php

Its important to have a sense of humour in cases like this.

Being controversial about the controversy ...

It is testament to the power of graphic design that a few simple shapes placed, just so, can precipitate such an outcry from so many distressed and disturbed public and professional commentators.

In my younger days, I would praise such creative forces as those late 70s art terrorists Throbbing Gristle for producing work that challenged preconceptions in precisely this way, and wondered why it was that so seldom anything so upfront in its attitude was produced for larger organisations. In this case it seems sad that the execution of the idea does not appear to come close to the rationale behind the idea itself.

Perhaps the comparison with Throbbing Gristle is a little strong in this instance, but nevertheless it always seemed to me that any work like this, of national importance and resolutely in the real world (the one that is a little wider than that of art, music or entertainment, which is were I myself and most of my post-punk peers were destined to find ourselves) was always to be left to the more conservative design groups, and challenge and controversy were always the first victims of design by committee.

TG, on the other hand, regularly addressed the passion and potential that could be released with their own robustly considered observations on the banal and the everyday, whilst also drawing our attention to the apparent banalities that shroud the emotively-rich material surrounding us both in our daily lives, and in societal and cultural artefacts from recent history.

It is with this spirit of praise for the extraordinary and the joy of espousing an environment of relentless enquiry, that I now approach this latest 'affront' to our public and professional sensibilities.

In fairness to the creators of this mark (and I am looking for a positive viewpoint here), to paraphrase Orson Welles' celebrated monologue from 'The Third Man', whatever else, at least we haven't ended up with something as innocuous, nor as twee and boringly sedate as "a cuckoo clock". Nor thankfully have we been given a rigid, corporate symbol of conformity and creative repression – the kind of visual straight-jacket that the Olympic rings themselves are forever in danger of being constrained with, given the stipulations for usage that are normally attached to them.

That contrary person, which is always within me, is inclined to disagree with the early barrage of naysayers, and to caution against the wisdom of that initial knee-jerk reaction, so unpleasantly negative, and so typical of our society. Perhaps we should await further outcome as these Olympic visuals develop (as we are told they undoubtedly will). Can we yet work with this unashamedly brave starting point? Could it be the bravery of the truly memorable that is being fashioned here? (And I choose the world 'fashioned' advisedly in this context).

I admire that the organisers and designers have attempted to supply us with a blank-ish canvas which individuals and partner organisations alike can modify, mutate and make their own, without losing some essence of common identity along the way. This is a difficult enough concept to propose in such a conservative arena, and it will be a monumental feat to actually achieve, but in that regard I wish it well. The question that is to be asked, and which for the moment necessarily remains unanswered is whether this is a well-intentioned failure, a complete non-starter, or the (arguably ill-advised) leaping off point for an as yet undeveloped, but sublime success. The odds are stacked against the latter, but who knows.

I come here to praise graphic design not to bury it, and challenge myself and others to find the good within. If this mark is for us all to make our own, let's do that. - Can it be done?

Let me also note here that dynamo london currently has somewhere in the region of 150 members, with some influential and outspoken names in our midst, yet only three of us has so far felt drawn to comment openly.

This is a mark meant for all of us, so don't we have an opinion, beyond the basic 'eloquence' of simply referring to this so called travesty as "shite!"?

I'm sure many of you disagree with my willingness to receive the work with any kind of positivity. That said, what can we really say about what this mark means, and moreover this situation our industry now finds itself in once again because of this very public display of ineptitude?

small fire

I'm not sure I can match the eloquence of my esteemed colleagues and my comments may even appear knee jerk sloppy, but here goes:

I don't like it.

I don't really understand why each city needs it's own Olympic logo. I realise there are winter and summer Olympics and that it's useful to differentiate between the two, but it's the Olympics, not a tube of tooth paste. Do the Oscars feel the need to have a different shaped Oscar each year, just to include everyone? I was at the 'State of London' debate recently and the comments from the audiences were largely "What's in it for me?" Developments in the transport system - "What's in it for me?" Green issues - "What's in it for me?" And yes, the Olympic legacy - "What's in it for me?" Surely the Olympics is bigger than London and Londoners. Maybe i've misunderstood the function of the new logo. If it's just advertising a big party, then it can do better. If it's advertising the Olympics, then it can do better.

To me, the Olympic torch is symbolic of passing on the spirit of the games and in this vein the logo may actually work, in the sense that people can create their 'own' versions, but it has none of the fire's fluidity or freedom. It's inarticulate and clumsy, more like a baby than an Olympian. But hold on a second - I could be accused of fascist tendancies here. Should the Olympics and hence the logo encourage people of all ages to better themselves? Or is it more about marvelling in the peak of human physical achievment, then going out to the park for a kick about followed by a pint? I think we ask a lot of this logo. The 'brand' is already there. It's been around for hundreds of years. I feel that in the logo's proliferation as a DIY bolt on identity, the impact and meaning will decline like so many bland high streets. The first version I saw was a full page Lloyds TSB on newsprint. I don't remember what the ad was for and they'd used a kind of gradation technique within the logo using their corporate colours, green and blue. It was all about them.

context is king

This logo works well as multimedia - animation or in video - the one they've been forced to pull down thanks to the (bandwagon-jumping?) epilepsy complaints was actually a really great piece of multimedia design. To me, though, it works very poorly on paper or as a static image, which is what has prompted most of the reaction.

However, by 2012, let's hope, the context will be multimedia, not printed pages.

IMHO, the big mistake was to have a brand launch. These are never popular since the cost of developing such things is always going to seem disproportionate in the public sphere. If it had been launched in its natural environments via. TV and YouTube, then its worth would have been given a fair hearing.

OK, we've lived with it for a few weeks now...

It's not getting any better is it?

No

It still hasn't got any better.