THE WORST LOGO IS THE NEW LONDON 2012 OLYMPICS.

 
 

THE WORST LOGO IS THE NEW LONDON 2012 OLYMPICS.

A parting shot from the crony Blairite lickspittle machine, this piece of shit, was from none other than Wolff Olins, normally an OK design house, but on record ON TELEVISION, (pre 1982) for producing a logo for the pencil giant, Staedtler of Germany- of not being reduceable. Fine when it was 12 metres high and on a building, but utterly unreadable and too small when it was actually on a PENCIL! duhhh!
Now this dog's dinner was actualy awarded without a PITCH!
It cost £400,000. That's $800,000 in today's money, and it sucks!
The word London is an afterthought, and is in a reluctant lower case.
It looks like a swastika cut up for origami, combined with SS thunderflashes- already the flashing video has had to be withdrawn because the flashing caused 18 people to go into epileptic shock.True!

It has nothing to do with sport, London, Olympics, and the bidding process is so suspect it must have been carried out by BAE systems bidding for a Saudi arms contract. ( See today's press for the rest of this unsavoury story).
When you think about the talented people in the UK who could have knocked this on the head in a lunchtime, but were not asked, then the cretins who approved it, it is only right that normal people's blood begins to boil. There is a growing call to scrap this crap and move on.
Especially more when you look at the rich hertage of Olympic logos- Barcelona, Sydney, Montreal, all elegant, lasting and iconic.

Oy vey! It makes me ashamed to be here in this country.

Adland: 

Comments

Actually, I like it.

Though I have seen it described somewhere as "two Rock'em Sock'em Robots giving each other hand jobs".

It's crap. Really, it is.
And not very pratical as well, the logo needs to be quite big for you to be able to read the type.

I kinda like it. :)

I disagree with the colors, but I love the nod to Neville & Peter Saville

They've admitted the colours at the logo launch were essentially space-fillers, the "base colours" for the campaign. In use, the shapes will usually be seen filled with photos or other designs.

Here's the Telegraph article where the designers explained their "infill" concept.

Oh, well now I actually like it better. I was worried that those colors would be tremedously passé by the time the logo was all over the place.

Okay, an evolving color scheme makes it slightly better.
But the point that you can read the text only if the logo is really big, still stands.

And I still don't like it!

Sunday Telegraph: The chunky, geometric shapes spelling out the date 2012...

2012? Nope. I just can't see that. Even after knowing what it is supposed to be. I don't like it.

Edit: Okay, I see it now. I still don't like it.

hehe, at least it doesn't seem to leave anyone without an opinion, which is something, right? ;)

It's the chunky, geometric shapes I don't like. It just doesn't appeal to me.

Add new comment

Top