Jump to content

PyeongChang 2018 Emblem Unveiling


Recommended Posts

I could do that using the Paint software ...

Plus whoever doesn't speak Korean , how are they supposed to know what this means? A lil house and a star? What's wrong with the latest host cities!!!!? x[

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

FYI to all, The PyeongChang 2018 Emblem Unveiling will take place May 3. The ceremony will take place at 15:00 in PyeongChang and Seoul.

Hope you studied Korean at school... http://youtu.be/BZ56O9ikGWc

I've just belatedly realised that, for all its artistic problems, the London 2012 logo got away with a well-calculated gamble. By emphasising time and almost ignoring place, it acknowledged that the

Well they have to approve everything in terms of what an OCOG is proposing, so they do have ultimate say on what is a final design. But they aren't overarching gods who say yay or nay, more guiders along the journey who can advise. It's only in recent years the Olympic movement have become more aware of the power of branding a Games and creating a coherent look programme, which really kicked off at Salt Lake. Ideally, one of the biggest pieces of advice they give is to get your host city brand sorted early, before the problems of large numbers of stakeholders needing to sign everything off becomes an issue as time goes on and more people become involved. That way an OCOG can effectively guide their brand to the right people and not let it be dictated to by sponsors and various officials.

I wouldn't say there's been any time the IOC have actually stopped a design for a particular reason. OCOGs are in constant communciation with them so nothing is a real surprise, and it's the job of the OCOG to devise a brand and merely the IOC to give advice on what to look out for an pitfalls that might come along. And of course there are the IOC's guidelines that it needs to adhere to in terms of ratios of rings to the logo emblem, but that's atypical brand practice.

Thanks for the response, I asked partially because I saw this on Twitter earlier:

"Host countries need IOC coaching to bring out their best design I blocked fist proposals Sydney & Salt Lake"

https://twitter.com/MichaelRPayne1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response, I asked partially because I saw this on Twitter earlier:

"Host countries need IOC coaching to bring out their best design I blocked fist proposals Sydney & Salt Lake"

https://twitter.com/MichaelRPayne1

Yes I think he has a point. Olympic branding is an absolute minefield in terms of rules, and London only got away with what it did through sheer determination, and dare I say a little arrogance but it did push in the right direction, and you can see that in the rise of polymorphic branding that is now de rigeur in terms of marketing and brand application. In terms of 'best design', I think he means the juggle between being 'designed' well enough, or essentially having flexibility to adapt to a multitude of applications. You can have the most beautiful intricate logo that everyone falls in love with, but if it's completely inflexible in building a look out of, or garnering sponsorship, then the IOC will have to step in. After all, an unsuccessful OCOG is an unsuccessful Olympic Games, which in turn is an unsuccessful IOC at the end of the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why they've stopped doing those field formation representations of the logos on the infield by performers after Sydney because they are sooooooooooo LOUSY!! Not even communistish Beijing attempted it.

Where's the Matching Village Idiot logo for the Paralympics?? Or did those clueless Koreans forget that too?? :blink:

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think he has a point. Olympic branding is an absolute minefield in terms of rules, and London only got away with what it did through sheer determination, and dare I say a little arrogance but it did push in the right direction, and you can see that in the rise of polymorphic branding that is now de rigeur in terms of marketing and brand application. In terms of 'best design', I think he means the juggle between being 'designed' well enough, or essentially having flexibility to adapt to a multitude of applications. You can have the most beautiful intricate logo that everyone falls in love with, but if it's completely inflexible in building a look out of, or garnering sponsorship, then the IOC will have to step in. After all, an unsuccessful OCOG is an unsuccessful Olympic Games, which in turn is an unsuccessful IOC at the end of the day.

But at the end of the day, how much do we see the brands anyway? Ok, they're supposedly "polymorphic", but how much is that actually exploited? And does it matter if something is polymorphic if all the morphs are unappealing?

Frankly, I felt Gamesbidders made far more of London's logo than LOCOG did. I wasn't there in person and perhaps that would've affected my impression, but based on photos and videos I didn't see much evidence that LOCOG used their logo terribly creatively.

I don't see PC's logo as being polymorphic any way. It's made of colored sticks and I suppose you can represent anything with colored sticks, but will that really be associated with PC 2018? And are we really going to applaud the creativity of stick figures now?

I feel like our world is searching for a graphic aesthetic for our time and is having trouble finding one. We have so much technology and the possibilities are virtually limitless, but what happened to beauty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're famous! A Korean blogger captures our reaction to the logo:

http://blog.daum.net/fyeong3/3096

Scroll down and you'll see some familiar names. The Korean blogger has called our reaction the "North American" response.

But he left out the best posts by me and runningrings.

Edited by Gangwon
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like our world is searching for a graphic aesthetic for our time and is having trouble finding one. We have so much technology and the possibilities are virtually limitless, but what happened to beauty?

Nothing's "happened" to it - some logos are more beautiful than others as has always been the case. Sochi's logo has beauty and balance, far more than many more traditional logos like Barcelona's actually (which looking back at it now actually looks oddly unbalanced with a dire choice of typeface, even if it is a classic in Olympic design which was aped by Sydney, Beijing and Vancouver). Sochi's is a nice, understated wordmark with some interesting internal symmetries whose typeface looks very Russian. It works on its own and will work with the much more traditionally beautiful Games Look Sochi has developed too. It's a beautiful bit of design as far as I'm concerned.

London wasn't aiming for beauty in any classical sense. But so what? London's Games were brash and loud and colourful and a beautiful logo would have been at odds with this. I can't think of many more appropriate aesthetic than the one London used and whether you liked the logo design or not the aesthetic it was developed from was never going to result in anything beautiful.

Beauty isn't the ultimate goal. Making sure it functions right, getting the tone right to fit the Games, and lastly doing something original (in that order) are far more important for me. Of recent logos I'd say Athens', Torino's, London's, Sochi's and Rio's all do that. Beijing's, Vancouver's and PyeongChang's not so much. And there are traditionally beautiful logos in both those groups.

Edited by RobH
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response, I asked partially because I saw this on Twitter earlier:

"Host countries need IOC coaching to bring out their best design I blocked fist proposals Sydney & Salt Lake"

https://twitter.com/MichaelRPayne1

Some other good stuff from Michael Payne..

Michael.R Payne @MichaelRPayne1 4h

#PyeongChang2018 Emblem - sorry but worst Olympic emblem ever - good luck sponsors & media trying to make this work internationally !

Michael.R Payne @MichaelRPayne1 4h

#PyeongChang2018 Emblem - Korea has such design potential. IOC President called emblem 'innovative' - was this diplomatic speak for 'awful'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I felt Gamesbidders made far more of London's logo than LOCOG did. I wasn't there in person and perhaps that would've affected my impression, but based on photos and videos I didn't see much evidence that LOCOG used their logo terribly creatively.

The infill emblem was used quite a bit, with flag infills which required 204 permissions from NOCs (no easy task). The flexibility of the grid created a fantastic array of possibilities which ran through all the look, and the ability to change colour (from the core 4 colours unveiled at its launch) directly influenced the idea of venues taking on one of 11 colour combinations at Games time.

In terms of it actually 'changing' its shape was a difficulty in legal terms, as copyright and trademark issues are not at the level of recognising polymorphic branding (a 'static' logo is all that can copyrighted, so most polymorphic logos usually have a fixed number of iterations, in LOCOGs instance it was the outline or 'frame' that was copyrighted. Changing that frame itself would need a new trademark). Also the infill wasn't used in venues simply because of cost, the original intention was for logos in each venue to have a display of their sports running through it. The cost of creating such bespoke logos in such a huge number of designs but low quantity of each made it impossible to justify.

But LOCOG did pave new territory and the logo had its triumphs in practical terms that many will never have to really worry about, the fact it was a complete solid lock up with the London and rings inside it meant it's elements could ever be scaled incorrectly to each other (a problem having separate rings/city/design mark tends to happen with sponsors) and being one piece meant it was always installed correctly and little elements of it wouldn't be stolen or drop off after a few days into the Games (now that might be a problem with the 2018 one!)

I agree that Gamesbidders did use it in a very creative manner, but many times I did look and think yeah that would never get past legal or the brand guardians. Despite its inherent flexibility and creativity, there were very strict rules regarding how it should be displayed. Maybe one day the brand guidelines will leak. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I started to show the PC 2018 logo to non-olympic fans and people who are not into graphic design in my iPad. 100% of the 23 people I showed it t them answered if a kinder garden kid did it. Nobody could relate it to Korean culture (or any Asian culture) nor the Olympic movement. Most of them just laughed and thought I was kidding when I reaffirmed it was already the official 2018 Olympic logo.

Just one person liked it at first glance because it was a "funny logo", just like London 2012. Most of people, more or less, remembered the Taeguk used in Seoul'88, and expected something like that.

I think the latest Olympic host cities just want to break visual paradigms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that from an international perspective (and admittedly from a distance) I saw very, very little of London's logo and what I did see was the straightforward single color version.

The fact that they filled in a clunky, weird shape with different colors, flags and images really doesn't impress me anyway. Ok, it was a jagged picture frame. I just don't see the innovation or the appeal. Had it been used more ubiquitously perhaps some sort of continuity and visual identity would have emerged. Although there may have been some ideas in that direction, I didn't see them implemented. Frankly, I think minimizing the logo was a good call.

As for PC, I just don't really see much potential to go anywhere. The logo is not particularly flexible and looks truly terrible in single color format. Sure they can go for a colored stick figure look. I guess that will be different, but not wonderful.

None of this will mar the Games, but nor does it help. Why not make the world more beautiful and more functional if you have the chance? Why do something that is, at best, neutral?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Istanbul is awarded to host the SOG they'd also follow the pattern and use those intricate islamic patterns (with Ottoman style) to conceptualize the Olympic spirit.

That would be refreshing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued what a 'beautiful' logo is (I don't mean this despairingly!) but what I think has been 'missing' in terms of what Athensfan considers is the marriage of a logo to a brand, in that how successful is a logo in creating a brand world around it? Whilst logos can look 'beautiful' or aesthetically pleasing, how does the rest of the collateral associated with the product look? I think cracking that relationship is the key to a successful branding operation.

I'm still ambivalent on 2018. It's a lot better in terms of brand recognition than the bid brand, but as I said its simplicity could be its downfall. It's just 'too' associated with the Olympic and IOC brand for me to discern the difference. It will be a very odd experience if they use these colours for their look, almost an Olympiced Olympic venue. Will the rings have enough clarity against all the elements? What exactly 'is' the message behind this? If the colours really are traditional Korean, is that what Korea is trying to portray themselves as at these Games? It all seems very mixed message.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this will mar the Games, but nor does it help. Why not make the world more beautiful and more functional if you have the chance?

Go to London now and see how much is left of the logo and branding you dislike so much. This stuff's transient, seen everywhere for a month, and then it won't be seen much ever again (unless you're a right weirdo and spend your time posting In Olympic logo threads). It can afford to shock and grate and be loud and brash and not necessarily beautiful. You talk about it in unnecessarily grandiose terms - it's not there to improve the world or the host city or anything like that!

And actually, I'd disagree that a non-traditional approach "doesn't help" the Games. As I said above, London's angular asymettrical Look "helped" its Games just as much as Athens' classical Look helped theirs. They both set the tone perfectly for their Games.

Now, if we're talking about Olympic architecture, I'd agree with you. If you build something that's going to be there for years you make sure it's not polarising and that it fits seamlessly into its surroundings. But that's quite different because people actually have to live with it.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to London now and see how much is left of the logo and branding you dislike so much. This stuff's transient, seen everywhere for a month, and then it won't be seen much ever again (unless you're a right weirdo and spend your time posting In Olympic logo threads). It can afford to shock and grate and be loud and brash and not necessarily beautiful. You talk about it in unnecessarily grandiose terms - it's not there to improve the world or the host city or anything like that!

And actually, I'd disagree that a non-traditional approach "doesn't help" the Games. As I said above, London's angular asymettrical Look "helped" its Games just as much as Athens' classical Look helped theirs. They both set the tone perfectly for their Games.

Now, if we're talking about Olympic architecture, I'd agree with you. If you build something that's going to be there for years you make sure it's not polarising and that it fits seamlessly into its surroundings. But that's quite different because people actually have to live with it.

Then why spend millions decorating the city? If you're going to invest all that time and expense, why not make it count? Mediocrity doesn't justify the outlay of resources.

Besides, the Games are only two weeks every four years. If you use the argument that the look can be lackluster because it's only in place briefly, why not apply the same reasoning to everything? Venues. Transportation. It's only two weeks. Who really cares? Why not offer the best possible at every turn?

For the record, London's look did turn out better than I expected. I don't care for the logo and I don't think intersecting lines are innovative in the least, but the look added some color and helped to create an atmosphere. I believe it could've been far better, but the end result was still ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why spend millions decorating the city? If you're going to invest all that time and expense, why not make it count? Mediocrity doesn't justify the outlay of resources....

...Besides, the Games are only two weeks every four years. If you use the argument that the look can be lackluster because it's only in place briefly, why not apply the same reasoning to everything?

Who's talking about mediocrity? You've completely and utterly misunderstood me. I wouldn't excuse a lacklustre or mediocre look or logo anymore than you would. That's why I don't like PC's new logo!

What I'm saying is a logo or a Look can afford to be more brash, more edgy, less traditionally beautiful because it's only there briefly, NOT that because it's only there briefly it can be mediocre. More adventurous design is more polarising by its nature and you can get away with more innovative and interesting things if what you're designing isn't going to be part of the landscape forever. That was my point.

Would I want London to be bathed in shards of yellow and orange and pink permanently? No! Was it beautiful in any traditional sense? No! But it wasn't mediocre and it was absolutely spot on for getting the city into the right spirit and reflecting what our Games were about. My point was, you don't have that leeway if you're designing something permanent.

Edited by RobH
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're famous! A Korean blogger captures our reaction to the logo:

http://blog.daum.net/fyeong3/3096

Scroll down and you'll see some familiar names. The Korean blogger has called our reaction the "North American" response.

But he left out the best posts by me and runningrings.

He cut me out, too. Obviously a censored "quote."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's talking about mediocrity? You've completely and utterly misunderstood me. I wouldn't excuse a lacklustre or mediocre look or logo anymore than you would. That's why I don't like PC's new logo!

What I'm saying is a logo or a Look can afford to be more brash, more edgy, less traditionally beautiful because it's only there briefly, NOT that because it's only there briefly it can be mediocre. More adventurous design is more polarising by its nature and you can get away with more innovative and interesting things if what you're designing isn't going to be part of the landscape forever. That was my point.

Would I want London to be bathed in shards of yellow and orange and pink permanently? No! Was it beautiful in any traditional sense? No! But it wasn't mediocre and it was absolutely spot on for getting the city into the right spirit and reflecting what our Games were about. My point was, you don't have that leeway if you're designing something permanent.

I did misunderstand you. My sincere apologies.

I think you may be misunderstanding me as well. I do not have a mental picture of "traditional beauty" to which I feel all Olympics should subscribe. I was using the word "beauty" as an umbrella term to describe aesthetic merit irrespective of style.

You can have killer looks that are brash and bold or minimalistic and elegant or fun and quirky or rich and dramatic. There's no one way to do it.

I think LA 84 was brash and bold, but I felt LA's version was more successful than London's because it had more visual interest, more thought behind it and created more exciting visual environments.

Again, London was fine and I was pleasantly surprised. But if one only hosts an Olympics once every few decades and if one is going to spend astronomical sums to do so, why not aspire to something better than "fine"? Good design doesn't have to be expensive.

Getting back to PC, it's just hard to love anything about it. It's different. The photos won't get confused with other Games, but that's about all I can say for it.

Sometimes I wonder if designers are secretly afraid they cannot create something visually pleasing so they work off a cerebral construct instead and argue that the result is somehow more sophisticated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...