Jump to content

The Look of the games


Recommended Posts

The logo didn't come from intersecting lines. I don't want to speculate about where the logo did come from (there are all sorts of horrible things I could write here, but I will restrain myself...) What I will say is that the intersecting lines came later. They are purely an attempt to make some sense out of the logo and create a cohesive aesthetic. They are simple and safe and they will do their job.

Do you know this for a fact? While I have been generally disappointed with the Look in general so far, I don't think organizers are lying about what's behind the logo they came up with. I do remember reading way back in 2007 at the time of the logo's release about the intersections of different peoples - different lines so to speak - coming together in a dynamic way to form the shapes that make up the logo. I can't find it anywhere now but I also remember seeing a promotional video that essentially showed this design concept in animation; I believe it was from Adidas, one of the sponsors.

Intersecting lines representing the intersections of different peoples is arguably not the most inspired or fully developed design concept, especially when compared to that of other Olympic logos which are usually quite layered with symbolism and much more specific to the identity of the host, but it does make sense. So I don't think the intersecting lines were an afterthought attempt to justify the logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Athensfan. I believe the intersecting lines are post-rationalised from the logo, easily done by extending each edge of the logo.

If the logo was derived from the intersecting lines, then where did the lines come from? It's pretty miraculous they manage to pick out a 2-0-1-2 out of some random lines. Or this is like a chicken or egg first question.

logo1jsx.jpg

Edited by kevzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an image from the launch time of the wolf Ollins studio showing the logo with all the lines continuing off. The lines have been there from the start, they just wernt part of the initial look, they were there to show how the logo was drawn. Wolf Ollins is a professional company and wether people like it or not the logo had to be created in a professional way. The lines have now been integrated into the look.

Like it or not, the London branding is the most integrated scheme for many, many years. Theres a thought process that is being implemented really well. The fact people don't like it isn't the point. It's actually a really good branding job. The logo effects everything, rather than just a pretty pattern for the sake of a pretty crowd pleasing pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it or not, the London branding is the most integrated scheme for many, many years. Theres a thought process that is being implemented really well. The fact people don't like it isn't the point. It's actually a really good branding job. The logo effects everything, rather than just a pretty pattern for the sake of a pretty crowd pleasing pattern.

Well, i dont see that the london branding is the most integrated scheme for many years. Compared to Athens (and here we go again) its a mess. In Athens really everything did fit together. The Logo, the pattern, the colours, the medals, the torch the mascots - it just was smooth and did fit perfectly. In London we have got a logo, which had to grow to most of the audience first, we have ugly mascots and also strange uniforms. They could have done better. Ways better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep mixing up liking it with being effective. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not a great scheme. Liking it is personal taste. Time will tell I guess, I think it will be better received in years to come.

The argument is getting a bit dull. People don't like it fine but hopefully they can see past that to see how the logo, the look, the podiums, the venues, the outfits, the way finding, the seat patterns even, the medals, etc all work together better than any games for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think London's look will be remembered for being the first one to really exploit the 3D environment. Mexico sort of did it, but mostly it was variations of the logo. Other hosts usually have large 3D logos as a piece of decoration around venues, but London's is the first to utilise the simple shard shape to maximum effect in all areas, which I think Rio will be hard pushed to better. Maybe they'll do curvy signs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep mixing up liking it with being effective. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not a great scheme. Liking it is personal taste. Time will tell I guess, I think it will be better received in years to come.

The argument is getting a bit dull. People don't like it fine but hopefully they can see past that to see how the logo, the look, the podiums, the venues, the outfits, the way finding, the seat patterns even, the medals, etc all work together better than any games for years.

What is your criteria for a "great scheme"?

My criteria is the following:

1. An aesthetic that creates an overwhelmingly positive emotional response in Olympic environments -- a look that makes people want to linger and soak up the atmosphere.

2. A distinctive and unique aesthetic that is instantly identifiable and memorable.

3. A cohesive style that balances unity with points of interest and surprise.

4. A design that reflects the host nation.

5. A design that has the kinetic energy and intensity or world-class athletics.

6. A design that can serve as a vivid, but non-intrusive backdrop for television.

London fits some of that criteria, but it doesn't fit key parts of it.

The look is DECOR, yes there is a functional aspect, but decor is supposed to be beautiful and appealing. People are supposed to like it. Granted, everyone isn't going to like anything, but this look is getting ho-hum reactions of many of us.

You can't argue that the look is a "great scheme" and that people's response to it is irrelevant. The Look's most important job is to make people excited and want to linger at the Olympics as long as possible. If people dislike it or find it merely bland then it is not a "great scheme."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think London's look will be remembered for being the first one to really exploit the 3D environment. Mexico sort of did it, but mostly it was variations of the logo. Other hosts usually have large 3D logos as a piece of decoration around venues, but London's is the first to utilise the simple shard shape to maximum effect in all areas, which I think Rio will be hard pushed to better. Maybe they'll do curvy signs.

Athens did not really do that, but LA did it in the extreme. Giant four foot thick stars protruding from buildings. Pathways lined with purpose made Olympic columns. Crazy 3-D collage towers. Overhead banner canopies. 8 foot balloons with huge banners as tails.

I hope London does take a more dimensional route, but they won't be the first. I can't say that scaffolding in the pic is a very interesting shape either.... Oddly enough it reminds me of the red structure of the Orbit. Not exactly the first visual reference I'd want to make.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then if that's the case you can't judge it until the Games are over, but you and several others seem to have already.

I've judged what I've seen so far -- which is actually quite a bit if you look back through this thread. The look is intersecting lines. They are not going to suddenly invent another aesthetic. The intersecting lines on monochromatic backgrounds are on everything. Banners, fence fabric, podium, modular dividers, everything. They may spruce it up a bit and I hope they do, but I'm not being hasty in offering an opinion on intersecting lines and monochromatic backgrounds. That IS the look.

The fact that you are expecting a lot more and wanting me to wait longer before forming an opinion suggests you feel the intersecting lines on monochromatic backgrounds falls a bit short as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, its a range of items that sit together to tell a story. As simple as that.

And in my opinion it does it better than a lot of previous hosts.

London will be seen as a watershed moment, again, in my opinion, whether future hosts will be as brave remains to be seen. Maybe we will get another load of prancing figure logos on crowd pleasing swirly patterns, who knows. But London has been braver, like it or hate it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, its a range of items that sit together to tell a story. As simple as that.

And in my opinion it does it better than a lot of previous hosts.

London will be seen as a watershed moment, again, in my opinion, whether future hosts will be as brave remains to be seen. Maybe we will get another load of prancing figure logos on crowd pleasing swirly patterns, who knows. But London has been braver, like it or hate it.

A story? A blocky, unattractive logo gave birth to a network of intersecting lines and somebody devised wafer-thin justification for it by calling them symbolic of "the intersection of cultures". The end.

That's not brave. That's damage-control. That's finding a very elementary, obvious solution that will get the job done, but certainly will not inspire. I hope no future host takes a page out of London's book. London is getting by, but that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOOOh very exciting, is it signage, branding? Someone on SSC says theres another one by the orbit

It's huge, I can't see it being signage.

More likely, it's a sculpture of sorts like the kind of thing they had in LA. Now I've seen one of these I expect there to be a few protruding from the ground in the Park, possibly in the colours of the brand. This actually seems to me to hark back to the very earliest Wolff Olins stuff (i.e. the video that caused epileptic fits!), where we did see Shards pretruding from the ground. So it comes full circle?

As for the argument between Davey and Athensfan, I agree with you both to certain extents. The Look is very organic, in that it's built up from one very simple idea and has grown from that and not deviated. Having said that, it's all very well having a marvellous concept and being able to put it into words and extolling it in various press releases. But it's the execution which will be judged in the end, not the neatness of the concept.

I've seen enough to be hopeful and I'm willing to say that from what I've seen of London so far only Athens tops it. But time will of course tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've judged what I've seen so far -- which is actually quite a bit if you look back through this thread. The look is intersecting lines. They are not going to suddenly invent another aesthetic. The intersecting lines on monochromatic backgrounds are on everything. Banners, fence fabric, podium, modular dividers, everything. They may spruce it up a bit and I hope they do, but I'm not being hasty in offering an opinion on intersecting lines and monochromatic backgrounds. That IS the look.

The fact that you are expecting a lot more and wanting me to wait longer before forming an opinion suggests you feel the intersecting lines on monochromatic backgrounds falls a bit short as well.

How have you come to that conclusion - DarJoLe has merely stated that perhaps we should form our opinions once the games have finished & we have seen it in its entirety - a fair point surely? I - like you - loved Athens's look but please allow people to have divergent opinions! What I have seen of London's doesn't massively excite me at the moment but i have yet to see all the components together. I will wait before condemning it outright!

A story? A blocky, unattractive logo gave birth to a network of intersecting lines and somebody devised wafer-thin justification for it by calling them symbolic of "the intersection of cultures". The end.

That's not brave. That's damage-control. That's finding a very elementary, obvious solution that will get the job done, but certainly will not inspire. I hope no future host takes a page out of London's book. London is getting by, but that's it.

Again - just your opinion & one that doesn't fit the reality - but to be honest you are boring me now - lol!

Is there anything you do like about the London look? Or must all hosts abide by your rules?

I'm beginning to feel the same way!!

It's huge, I can't see it being signage.

More likely, it's a sculpture of sorts like the kind of thing they had in LA. Now I've seen one of these I expect there to be a few protruding from the ground in the Park, possibly in the colours of the brand. This actually seems to me to hark back to the very earliest Wolff Olins stuff (i.e. the video that caused epileptic fits!), where we did see Shards pretruding from the ground. So it comes full circle?

As for the argument between Davey and Athensfan, I agree with you both to certain extents. The Look is very organic, in that it's built up from one very simple idea and has grown from that and not deviated. Having said that, it's all very well having a marvellous concept and being able to put it into words and extolling it in various press releases. But it's the execution which will be judged in the end, not the neatness of the concept.

I've seen enough to be hopeful and I'm willing to say that from what I've seen of London so far only Athens tops it. But time will of course tell.

I agree but at the moment still feel that LA 84 still has yet to be surpassed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, come on guys. I never said you had to agree with me.

I've said the look is serviceable and it is. I don't see it as remotely creative. That's not condemnation. It's disappointment.

I like the pictograms and have said that many times.

What exactly are you waiting to see unveiled? Is there some big piece missing? We've seen extensive image files, Sega screenshots and street banners.

I'm open to being surprised and I'll eat my words happily if things improve. I think we've seen it though. What I've seem so far will do the job, but that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A story? A blocky, unattractive logo gave birth to a network of intersecting lines and somebody devised wafer-thin justification for it by calling them symbolic of "the intersection of cultures". The end.

That's not brave. That's damage-control. That's finding a very elementary, obvious solution that will get the job done, but certainly will not inspire. I hope no future host takes a page out of London's book. London is getting by, but that's it.

I'm sorry Athensfan, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the design concept of intersecting lines forming the shapes that make up the logo was a "devised justification" and "damage-control" when there has been enough official material released by LOCOG, Wolff Olins, and the sponsors since the logo's release in 2007 that proof that that was in fact the design idea from which the logo was created. It was not some bullshit explanation given out because everybody was so taken aback by the design. C'mon on now.

While I feel the subsequent Look feels very uninspired and falls short of what seemed possible in 2007 (at least for now), I still actually really like the logo. When it was released, I applauded London for really thinking of how emblamatic and versatile an Olympic logo has to be in today's media saturated world. London recognized that the traditional model for Olympic logos (the emblem, host city and year, and the rings all apart from each other on a plain white background) was not going to cut it anymore.

So what London came up with is something that really works as an emblematic stamp for London 2012. Its shape is distintive enough to be used in smaller sizes than any logo before, it can easily be adapted to fit different moods and work with other brands through change of color, its easily adaptable to the design of clothing, merchandise, and the vast array of Olympic promotional material... it's the very opposite of the dry, unworkable corporate-esque logos that past hosts used.

Yes, Athens' and Barcelona's logos were beautifu and full of deep, deep meaning about the host country. But they were also incredibly restricting in their application. London recognized that and designed something that would function far better.

So it is this basic idea of how an Olympic logo should be designed and applied that is the legacy that London will leave to Olympic design. Sochi followed suit and I expect more and more future hosts to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally disagree. The Logo came first. Then the lines. Otherwise they had a very fortuitous set of lines going that magically formed 2012.

Davey likes the "story" of the look. That leaves me scratching my head because I see no content here at all, much less narrative. I see lines. Saying that those lines represent "intersecting cultures" send my BS meter off the charts. THAT is what sounds cobbled together for the sake of appearances. They're trying to make people think its "high-concept" and wonderful. Some people believe them. I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...