The Look of the games

[Athensfan]

Red/Blue: BMX Track, Velodrome, ExCeL (Boxing, Fencing, Judo, Table Tennis, Taekwondo, Wrestling), Earls Court (Volleyball)

Ok, don't everybody throw rotten tomatoes at once, but are we still saying there's no red in this Look?

[nykfan845]

I have to say, the logo looks fantastic on the middle of the floor at the Basketball and Handball arenas, especially in the latter.

Past logos have looked out of place right in the middle of a high energy environment, but London's logo's dynamism works very well.

I could not disagree more. It looks so flat and static. High energy it is not.

[4seasonscentre]

Wasn't there a website that went over the "look" of Games past.

what is it again?

[hyigigi]

Do you know what is Kechara Protection Chakras? It is amazing to protect life, strengthens mental and well being as well. Those Olympic images be not enough special styling and shiny, maybe the topic is look like natural,environmental. I hope I can go to Great Britain there to join this Olyimpic Games.

[NY20??]

Wasn't there a website that went over the "look" of Games past.

what is it again?

http://www.theolympicdesign.com/deu/home/

They need to add Vancouver and now London, but it's a great site for looking back.

[DarJoLe]

Ok, don't everybody throw rotten tomatoes at once, but are we still saying there's no red in this Look?

That's orange.

[Athensfan]

That's orange.

That's nuts.

Are we gonna say that the USA and China have orange uniforms as well? In all the camera shots at the velodrome, volleyball and basketball your "orange" matches the red uniforms.

[DarJoLe]

But it's orange in real life, labelled orange in the look book, called orange by the look team, described as orange by the IOC and people who have visited call it an orange venue.

Really, stop calling it red like you're trying to find further fault with the colour palette.

[NY20??]

Why dose it even matter if it's red, red-orange, or orange? Would it make this Look any more effective or creative?

The Look still looks nice enough on television, but it's also generic and could have worked for Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, Paris, Singapore, Tokyo, and any other city without looking out of place.

[Rob2012]

Turn the cyclinfg on now (really, do, GB World Record 4 seconds faster than 2nd place) - it's orange. Some of the very darker tints look a bit red but the overall effect is definitely of an orange field.

[DarJoLe]

The Look still looks nice enough on television, but it's also generic

Oh no. Only London could have done this, essentially turning the whole concept of Olympic look on its head. Time to move on from the era of geographical based look and into a more message based design.

[NY20??]

Oh no. Only London could have done this, essentially turning the whole concept of Olympic look on its head. Time to move on from the era of geographical based look and into a more message based design.

I don't think only London could've done this, but I understand what the Look is trying to achieve. It reflects the energy of these Games. It's meant to be attention grabbing and capture the eyes of young people in an increasingly media saturated world (although I do question how attention grabbing it is. If anything, it can be distracting - Gabby Douglas in pink was eaten up by the the all-pink Gymnastics Arena last night on my HD television).

I think it's good, clean, crisp design, but I would've much preferred something that makes a statement about the host and its character, something unique to where the Games are taking place. A distinctive take on who the host is through inspired design. I think it's hard to argue London's Look, no matter its intentions, has more artistic and creative value than Athens', Torino's, and Vancouvers'.

The logo was a good, flexible starting point for the brand and I don't know see why the Look could not have met the above and still spoke of these Games' message.

[Athensfan]

Oh no. Only London could have done this, essentially turning the whole concept of Olympic look on its head.

Utterly baffling.

I see nothing ground-breaking here at all. I see plain, basic, obvious. The colors are nice and bright and it's clean, but there is nothing about it that is wildly innovative.

[DarJoLe]

Oh well. You and the IOC differ then.

[4seasonscentre]

http://www.theolympi...n.com/deu/home/

They need to add Vancouver and now London, but it's a great site for looking back.

Thank you!

[Athensfan]

Oh well. You and the IOC differ then.

It isn't the first time and won't be the last.

Did you poll them?

The IOC has a predilection for tooting their own horn and praising their own product in case you haven't noticed.

[NY20??]

Utterly baffling.

I see nothing ground-breaking here at all. I see plain, basic, obvious. The colors are nice and bright and it's clean, but there is nothing about it that is wildly innovative.

London's Look does differ from past Look's in that it does not mean to represent the character of the host. Its goal is to reflect the message of the Games it serves. Inspiring youth, grabbing their attention, etc.

That's the departure London took from past hosts. Or "innovation" if you want to call it that.

But I do think Atlanta manage to do both. That Look paid homage to the Olympic Centennial and celebrated the American South at the time. I wish London had incorporated both approaches as well.

[Athensfan]

London's Look does differ from past Look's in that it does not mean to represent the character of the host. Its goal is to reflect the message of the Games it serves. Inspiring youth, grabbing their attention, etc.

That's the departure London took from past hosts. Or "innovation" if you want to call it that.

Two points:

1.) "departure" and "innovation" are not the same thing. Just because you make a different choice doesn't mean you are blazing valuable creative trails.

2.) London ABSOLUTELY meant to represent their own character in the Look. They were trying to be "hip and cool." Why do you think the likes of DarJoLe and others are fighting so hard to convince us it's innovative? They want us to think LONDON is cutting edge. It's the same old thing.

3.) Look at LA's Look. It's non-literal too. Multi-colored confetti. Quite a bit more distinctive and aesthetically pleasing in my personal opinion.

HA! Make that three points. Sorry!

[NY20??]

Two points:

1.) "departure" and "innovation" are not the same thing. Just because you make a different choice doesn't mean you are blazing valuable creative trails.

2.) London ABSOLUTELY meant to represent their own character in the Look. They were trying to be "hip and cool." Why do you think the likes of DarJoLe and others are fighting so hard to convince us it's innovative? They want us to think LONDON is cutting edge. It's the same old thing.

3.) Look at LA's Look. It's non-literal too. Multi-colored confetti. Quite a bit more distinctive and aesthetically pleasing in my personal opinion.

HA! Make that three points. Sorry!

1. I'm not going to argue semantics. The point is that London's Look took a different approach from most of its predecessors whether one considers that innovative or not.

2. No. London is not trying to say London itself is hip and cool. London is trying to say these Games are hip and cool. There's a fine distintiction there. London won the right to host these Games by telling the IOC that 2012 would be delivered in a way that will grab the attention of young people worldwide. The Look is a manifestation of that distintive goal spelled out in Singapore. It's not meant to be representative of London or of Great Britain. It's meant to be representative of these Games.

3. Ok? 1984 was really nice, yeah, but I don't understand what your point is in the context of this discussion. Sorry.

My problem with London's Look is that I don't see why the it couldn't represent both these Games and the host. The result would look less generic and more inspired.

[Athensfan]

1. I'm not going to argue semantics. The point is that London's Look took a different approach from most of its predecessors whether one considers that innovative or not.

2. No. London is not trying to say London itself is hip and cool. London is trying to say these Games are hip and cool. There's a fine distintiction there. London won the right to host these Games by telling the IOC that 2012 would be delivered in a way that will grab the attention of young people worldwide. The Look is a manifestation of that distintive goal spelled out in Singapore. It's not meant to be representative of London or of Great Britain. It's meant to be representative of these Games.

3. Ok? 1984 was really nice, yeah, but I don't understand what your point is in the context of this discussion. Sorry.

My problem with London's Look is that I don't see why the it couldn't represent both these Games and the host. The result would look less generic and more inspired.

1. You were the one who equated departure and innovation.

2. Totally disagree. London is trying to portray hip, young Britain. The Look is all about the image of London and Britain. The reason they avoided the traditional tea and crumpets/Big Ben aesthetic is that they are trying to redefine their own image.

3. LA is absolutely relevant because you're arguing London was the first to do a non-geographically specific Look. I'm saying LA already did it and did it better.

[baron-pierreIV]

I like the whole look of the Games, the venues and the Medals-staff uniforms so far. The stark simplicity of the FOP buntings is in direct contrast to that rather lazy blue-green & swirly motif of Vancouver which I never liked. Good job, London.

London's venue branding makes me forgive the rather disappointing logo.

[NY20??]

1. You were the one who equated departure and innovation.

2. Totally disagree. London is trying to portray hip, young Britain. The Look is all about the image of London and Britain. The reason they avoided the traditional tea and crumpets/Big Ben aesthetic is that they are trying to redefine their own image.

3. LA is absolutely relevant because you're arguing London was the first to do a non-geographically specific Look. I'm saying LA already did it and did it better.

1. I preferred the term "departure" and used that first. If anyone wants to call it "innovative" then sure, whatever. That's not the crux of the point here and I'm done arguing this.

2. It's not a matter of opinions and disagreeing and agreeing here. It's a matter of fact - London has made a point to emphasize youth engagement in the last seven years more so than any other host because that's what it promised the IOC. The Look is a manifestation of that. As was the highly predictable choice of teenage cauldron lighters.

You'll be very hard pressed to find a single soundbite of a 2012 organizer making the point about how these Games are suppose to redefine the image of London and of Britain. But you'll find plenty of soundbites about how these Games are suppose to capture the attention of young people and leave them a legacy in East London.

3. LA 1984's Look is often coined Festive Federalism. Star and stripes done in sunny, bright colors often found in Southern California. So yes, it was geographically-specific.

[nykfan845]

I was watching fencing, and I was just thinkng how crude the logo looks on the official's uniforms. Blecch.

It's much better as a standalone image than being a part of a brand.

Looking back, SLC's look was so simple and elegant.

[RiceXIX]

Okay, while I love the looks of the games, the colors and and everything, they did a really poor job of hanging the wraps (if thats what you call them??) that are inside arenas. Examples are the Indoor Volleyball Arena and North Greenwhich Arena for gymnastics. Not the lower ones but the upper ones that say only London 2012. They look like they're almost falling off and doesn't look very good on TV. Has any one else noticed this or is it just me???

[Athensfan]

1. I preferred the term "departure" and used that first. If anyone wants to call it "innovative" then sure, whatever. That's not the crux of the point here and I'm done arguing this.

2. It's not a matter of opinions and disagreeing and agreeing here. It's a matter of fact - London has made a point to emphasize youth engagement in the last seven years more so than any other host because that's what it promised the IOC. The Look is a manifestation of that. As was the highly predictable choice of teenage cauldron lighters.

You'll be very hard pressed to find a single soundbite of a 2012 organizer making the point about how these Games are suppose to redefine the image of London and of Britain. But you'll find plenty of soundbites about how these Games are suppose to capture the attention of young people and leave them a legacy in East London.

3. LA 1984's Look is often coined Festive Federalism. Star and stripes done in sunny, bright colors often found in Southern California. So yes, it was geographically-specific.

1. I'm over it. London's look is not innovative AT ALL in my opinion. It was a simple, clean, basic way to solve a problem.

2. There HAVE been sources saying just that (I'd quote, but I'm on an iPhone and it's a pain), however LOCOG has not publicly emphasized the point. That doesn't mean it isn't the guiding motivation. If you think London isn't desperately trying to look hip and cool (which would be necessary to appeal to a younger generation anyway), then we aren't watching the same Olympics. That's ALL they're trying to do and it's pretty transparent in both the OC and the Look.

3. Festive federalism was unequivocally unspecific geographically. It was hardly stars and stripes. I have the official Look book. Southern California doesn't have a monopoly on magenta, orange, blue, purple -- wait were we talking about LA or London?

I stand by my statements.