Design 21: Social Design Network

At least there's one person that liked the logo: London Broil

I'm by no means a design expert, but I kinda like it.

Design diversity or just bad taste? The London 2012 Olympics logo is just another example of the post I recently added about Design Diversity in response to Thoughts on the globalization of design, posted by Christian Etter.

Personally I feel we need to judge design - logos especially - by its function and not just esthetic appeal.

The dictionary says a logo is "a symbol or other small design adopted by an organization to identify its products, uniform, vehicles, etc".

So esthetically, the organization has a right to do whatever they want. But what about its function. If a logo needs to identity an organization and be used in various mediums, then there are limitations to what can be done.

Where will it live? If the Olympic logo needs to be printed on a pencil, will it work? No. Therefore the logo doesn't work.

Stability - A logo needs to look the same in all of its usage. Does the Olympic logo work when its really small? No. Therefore ...

Clear message - A logo is not very smart, it can carry only one message and that message needs to be clear - ie: a symbol. Though the Olympic logo is "symbolic" to the creator, I would say it is not a symbol ... it is more artwork then icon.

Unique - A logo must be unique to the organization. This logo is unique, very very unique ;-) so I guess we have a winner! But alas, uniqueness cannot prop up the other important functions that are lacking.

If a car doesn't have wheels but has a steering wheel, is it a car? It may look like a car and smell like a car. You may call it a car, but once you need it for its base function - driving - you soon realize that it is not a car.

There have been plenty of these alternative configurations of the shapes flying around.

Basically, any offensive four letter work will work!

Our world is so saturated with logos and brands that newly-designed logos don't even raise an eyebrow for the general public anymore. Does it really take a logo treatment such as the London 2012 Olympics logo to make people notice? Hate to say it, but it does seem a bit like "shock and awe" graphic design, doesn't it?

While I'm all for beautifully designed, timeless logos, this logo, as ugly as it is, does raise the issue of logo shelf-life. Company logos need to have the image of stability but the Olympics is a month-long event and has an expiration date. Does it need to project that image of timelessness and reassurance to its viewer/audience? Does the design fit the function?

I've tried to understand the logo, and I can't. However, I do like the idea of a logo that can keep a core message but can shift into different shapes and identities depending on the function. The TV Asahi logo is a good example of how a graphic can shift for a multi-faceted media company. Basically, I think logos can be smarter. Our society has been bombarded with dumb logos long enough and an occasional design that pushes the acceptable boundaries can be good.

... at least it is a bit more abstract than the 2006 Soccer World Cup logo from Germany. That was really like something made in the Kindergarten.

Somehow I like the complexity of the shapes as they do not seem to make sense on first sight. I think it's quite courageous to do something like that for a billion dollar event. I think it could be much better if the »London« typeface (which is really horrible) would be separated from the logo and act more like a subline.

I don't mind the design as much as the colour, the blue and pink is boy and girl mentality, and it does little to give the event its more generic quality. The shapes are great, very sporty, dynamic and so on, but I think many could do a better job.

Out of 10 this one gets 4.

H