Thursday, December 9, 2010

Will Pitney’s Post

Anything but…

Because you are in a graphic design class, I would assume you know about the 2012 Olympic logo that London has chosen.  So, I don’t need to go into why I think it was a waste of 400,000 pounds.  Thankfully, the UK newspapers asked people if they could come up with a better solution than the current logo.  So, while anything but the shabby logo would do, some really well made designs arose.

So, without further a dew, I present an alternative made by a concerned citizen.  Overlooking the oversized ‘L’ and the poor kerning on the last ‘N,’ it is a great logo. It reads London then immediately slips into the rings.  The iconic rings multiplied provide a legible, clean and classy symbol for a worldwide event.  It reads London then immediately slips
into the rings.

The second rocks my socks off.  Having the color gradient blend the skyline with the rings works wonderfully.  Like the other Olympic logos of the past, it draws from current art movements. This embodies the middle ground between modern and post-modern logo and for that I applaude. (clap clap clap)

In the end, these logos embody a time-honored tradition in history.  No effort spent looking edgy for the younger audiences, no crazy European numbers and no seizure inducing colors.  Just effort in being aesthetically pleasing.


  1. I agree the London logo seems pretty bad. You really have to wonder how that much money could be wasted on a bad design, but it probably was designed via committee, and so over analyzed that it ended up back. The alternative you choose is certainly a great improvement, but I think that it might be a little busy. Regardless it is a world of improvement over the real Olympic logo.

  2. I completely agree with you. I hated the other logo. It was nearly impossible to read. The 12 looked ridiculous and I feel the top logo is not nearly as strong as a solution as the bottom logo but over all I feel they are both stronger than the original design. My favorite would have to be the incorporation of the city structure into the bottom logo and the colors they overlaid the logo.

  3. um yes agree that is terrible kerning between the "o" and the "n" and why the extra strokes on the "l"? I personally think it should have at least been a capital L or picked out a more readable typeface. this one is just too thin and wouldn't be as readable on signs or reduced to a smaller size. the second one is definitely a better solution, though i still think that one can be improved as well. the london...though it works with the gradient, just seems out of place and too small...i would have liked to see it either completely centered or to the right or left side...not kinda in the middle, kinda to one side. i would have put the year beside it as well but keep that bolded to make it stand out like it does. i'm not too much a fan of either and think they could both show some improvements but if I had to chose one it would definitely be the second. its sad they paid that much for the first one. lame.

  4. So, the obvious typographic problems with the first one have been pointed out. But I would like to draw attention to the slogan "We've got the Olympics in us!"
    It reminds me of all those crazy stories you hear about someone swallowing a ring hidden in a cake or a coin hidden in a certain cupcake as part of a game.
    It makes me think something horrible has happened to (the personified version of) London and that they need to be operated on to get this thing out of them.
    But, maybe that's just me and my crazy imagination. I don't even know if the designer made up this slogan, or if it's really what they're using. Either way, I wouldn't go around advertising it.

    And, LOVE the second one. I don't think it's too busy especially if you take it as a whole. It's a famous skyline, and to incorporate it into the rings was a nice way to bring the city and the event together.
    However I don't like the way "london" is split up into two colors. It looks funny.

  5. While I don't love either of the logos, I do think that the second one is the better of the two. Obviously the fist logo does not work. I actually do like the type face and how the rings are incorporated but as a logo it is too thin to stand alone. The lower case "l" just sets a bad taste in my mouth. The second logo is definitely an improvement because it is more solid. I like the incorporation of the london skyline but I'm not sure how well it is incorporated with the olympic rings. I am not a fan of the gradient nor is the "lon" in london easy to see. if you step back the "lon" fades out, which looks quite odd.

  6. Admittedly, I'm actually drawn a bit more to the simplicity of the first one. As everyone else has noticed, it's definitely not ready yet, but conceptually I like where it's going and think if the kerning and the thickness of the letters were tweaked the artist may be on to something. The slogan has to go however. It either sounds egotistical, like a dumb platitude, or both.

    I love the skyline on the second logo, but I also don't feel it's quite ready yet. Not liking the two-color London as a few people have said, and I wonder if adding a faint white stroke to the tops of the rings would be good (they're stroked between each other but not between the skyline and the rings as a whole). Might help with a B&W version anyway.