A little while ago I wrote an article discussing the Logo & Identity Designed for the London 2012 Olympic Games. At first glance everything about the logo seemed completely appalling from the colours to the jagged shaped and seemingly meaningless random nature of it all.
Well I’ve just read something which completely shifts my perspective and I’m not shy to say I’m thinking twice about how I view the whole thing. It might be a tad impulsive of me as my initial criticism was inspired by the outcry which followed to unveiling of the design. I still hold many of my views on the pure graphic nature of the Identity but applying some perspective and context changes the impact of my initial views.
Â You’ll have to read my intial article and then this one I found on “A Brief Message.com” written by Rob Giampietro (principal of Giampietro+Smith and a board member of AIGA/NY) and formulate your own opinion.
Critics, in the excitement of newsmaking, have rushed to judgment. Theyâ€™re writing history before itâ€™s happened.
Theyâ€™re forgetting that the games these identities signify havenâ€™t happened yet. How the London 2012 and Chicago 2016 identities interact with their respective events and audiences will ultimately determine whether they are lasting, valuable marks or not.
Ugly or beautiful, these identities will ultimately belong to us. We will wear and trade them. We will merchandise and trash them. We will honor and deride them. They will belong to us the way celebrities do, the way monuments do, the way media spectacles do. Years from now, I suspect different opinions will prevail.
Maybe both perspective have their merits, but sometimes its good to see both sides of the story. Its a good lesson in design, to know that no one design can be perfect or completely inappropriate at the time of their inception, but that perspective, opinion, experience and time are factors which have a say.