There is precedent. The mascot of the 1996 Olympics was a giant, walking sperm.
I thought it was supposed to be a fetus?
It doesn’t look like the style of the Olympic logos of the 80’s. It looks like the style of lots of other crap from the 80’s. I am reminded of the Mark Gonzales Pro Skateboard I had in 1985.
It says 2012, but it also represents a runner in a starting position with one arm up.
Then of course came the epilepsy reports…
It looks more like a speed skater than a runner (at least a sprinter). So, maybe London thought they were hosting the Winter Olympics!
The video has been pulled – can you give an idea of what was in it (if possible, without inducing the urge to bleach my brain)?
If you google London Olympics goatse (with SafeSearch turned on!), you’ll see the actual logo in question. It’s not explicit or nasty in itself…it’s just meant to remind one of goatse.
What’s wrong with them? I think they look attractive and stately. The Sarajevo one is a bit simplistic and bland, but it’s at least easy to read. The London one looks like it’s made by one of those new age abstract tormented artists, the kind that no one understands and then ends up sticking their head in an oven pained by the world’s innability to appreciate their genius. Kinda reminds me of British animations from the 1960’s a la Yellow Submarine but with straight lines instead of curves.
Graham Norton did a funny bit about the logo on his chat show last year. I can’t find it on YouTube, but I think a link to the video is on the BBC website here, although I can’t get it to play (perhaps because I’m in the US).
I didn’t say it looked like the olympic designs of the mid eighties, just that it looked like the style of graphic design that was prevalent then.
Funnily enough, when I went searching for 80s logos to get my point across, the 2012 London Olympic logo popped up almost immediately. A quote from the article:
"Nottinghamshire-based designer Richard Baird, whose company workinprogress has designed logos for many top companies, said: “To me it looks dated, it has flavours of the 1980s.”
It’s supposed to represent pissing away good money on a load of shit which most Londoners want about as much as they want fatal herpes, but which politicians and their hangers-on absolutely LOOOVE. It is in fact a 100% accurate pictorial representation of the London Olympics 2012.
Jenga!
Huh. I don’t see that at all. I do see the numerals now, but it sure takes some creative thinking.
What I’m now curious about is the 400,000 pounds that was paid for this. Not that I’m asking if it was worth it, because I know the answer to that (it wasn’t) but my question would be, how was that price arrived at? If I make a steel widget for you the price is the product of a fairly easily defined set of costs - the price of steel, the price of the specific type of labour/machine time needed, plus a markup I’d set based on what I thought the market could bear and the specific demand characteristics of the customer. But how do you arrive at a price of almost a million dollars for that logo? Surely it didn’t take a team of ten people a year to come up with it?
£400,000 actually sounds cheap to me. It depends what, exactly, the £400,000 was for. There was another recent thread which touched on the cost of branding exercises, in which it was pointed out that it’s not just some guy sitting down with Photoshop and coming up with a cool logo. The proposed designs have to be tested, and once one is selected all the collateral material has to be changed to match the new brand… it’s a huge operation.
It looks like the money was mostly spent on mind-altering substances. The old logo that Usram linked to looks infinitely better IMHO. In fact, every other proposed logo is superior to the official one. Including the goatse logo.
If you really wish to look a the logo askance, you can almost see the four numbers representing England (the last 2), Scotland (the “0”), Wales (“1”) and Northern Ireland (the first “2”). That is really stylized, but I cannot help but wonder if there was some such intent.
Check the video (link in upper right). It’s almost as bad as the logo, and has nothing to do with the logo, altho’ it’s the “London 2012 brand film.”
Funnily, I’m the other way around. I love the geometry of the Sarajevo logo. The LA one is not bad, but way too obvious and boring.
Calgary had a classy, stylized snowflake in 1988. Seoul’s was kinda odd, but still visually harmonious. I think the 80s were pretty good for Olympic logo design. 1980 Moscow also had a cool feel to it.
Anyhow, the current 2012 London Olympics logo has got to be the ugliest Olympics logo I’ve ever seen–and I’m quite a fan of abstraction and modern design. I had no idea that was supposed to be a “2012.” Absolutely revolting color scheme. There’s just no visual harmony to it, in my opinion.Ugh.