GBModerator Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 The PyeongChang 2018 Olympic organizing committee launched its new emblem simultaneously under a tent at Alpensia in PyeongChang and in a theatre in Seoul, South View the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Wow...designed in Paint? This is pretty sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 THAT's Horrible. A 6 year old could have done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 I quite like it. The idea that the shapes can be reconfigured to make other forms etc sounds quite exciting. I think there's a graphical elegance about it -- it's clinical and restrained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Reviews are worse than "mixed". The fact that this joke is supposed to represent "passion" is even more laughable. "Sterility" makes more sense. The reason Olympuc logos have recently been greeted with negative reactions is that THEY ARE BAD. It's not as though people dislike anything new and then decide they love it later. I still dislike London and Sochi's logo's, I think Rio's is a big step down from their bid logo (which was fantastic), but it's still passable. I will hate Pyeonchang in 2018 as much as I do today. The trend is towards lousy Olympic design. That's all there is to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Reviews are worse than "mixed". The fact that this joke is supposed to represent "passion" is even more laughable. "Sterility" makes more sense. The reason Olympuc logos have recently been greeted with negative reactions is that THEY ARE BAD. It's not as though people dislike anything new and then decide they love it later. I still dislike London and Sochi's logo's, I think Rio's is a big step down from their bid logo (which was fantastic), but it's still passable. I will hate Pyeonchang in 2018 as much as I do today. The trend is towards lousy Olympic design. That's all there is to it. What objective criteria exists for making/determining that this logo is bad? Isn't it just a case that you don't like it thus that makes it bad? I mean, is there clinical proof that that this logo will adversely affect PC's games? If not, then the logo can't really be bad if it fulfills its purpose whilst simultaneously not detrimentally affect the running of the games. I could justify the logo as bad if there was a worldwide backlash against it and that resulted in people hating PC and subsequently not buying tickets to the games etc. But as it stands, I just think its yet another graphic, hich many may find ugly etc. But I can't say it's bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 It's bad because a logo should ideally be easily identifiable with the brand it's associated with without the need for the brand's name to be displayed. There are several logos from past Olympic Games which one could easily link with the city or even just the nation without the need for the city's name to be displayed. People in general can get a vague idea of which games this logo is for and so forth. The logo alone hardly achieves that. Not to mention for most international viewers, the conceived meanings and messages which are underlying in this "logo" are not so easily identifiable. They should easily be identifiable, as has been achieved with many logos in the past, even Seoul's 1988 Summer Olympics logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 What objective criteria exists for making/determining that this logo is bad? Isn't it just a case that you don't like it thus that makes it bad? I mean, is there clinical proof that that this logo will adversely affect PC's games? If not, then the logo can't really be bad if it fulfills its purpose whilst simultaneously not detrimentally affect the running of the games. I could justify the logo as bad if there was a worldwide backlash against it and that resulted in people hating PC and subsequently not buying tickets to the games etc. But as it stands, I just think its yet another graphic, hich many may find ugly etc. But I can't say it's bad. These arguments constantly come up on GB. Aesthetic considerations never contain "clinical proof". There's no such thing. That said, Michaelangelo's David is a masterpiece and your 4 year old's clay camel is not. How can I dare to say this? There's no clinical proof! PC's logo has no kinetic energy or charisma. It is static and totally without graphic weight or distinction. It conjures no emotion. Just because PC's Games can succeed in spite of their logo (after all, London did), just because the world is not going to boycott the Games, does not make the logo good. I work in the design field. People who ask for "clinical proof" that something is good or bad are clearly not designers. Design doesn't work like drug testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 It's bad because a logo should ideally be easily identifiable with the brand it's associated with without the need for the brand's name to be displayed. There are several logos from past Olympic Games which one could easily link with the city or even just the nation without the need for the city's name to be displayed. People in general can get a vague idea of which games this logo is for and so forth. The logo alone hardly achieves that. Not to mention for most international viewers, the conceived meanings and messages which are underlying in this "logo" are not so easily identifiable. They should easily be identifiable, as has been achieved with many logos in the past, even Seoul's 1988 Summer Olympics logo. Completely disagree. There's no clinical proof of your assertion and moreover, no proof that this logo will hinder PC. When dealing with different cultures, there's very rarely the ability that something can be reduced to such a common denominator that all of humanity will know about't absolutely and instantly recognize it -- what could South Korea have used which everyone would have immediately recognized bar some folk clued up on South Korean culture? . How many people understood the Rennie Mackintosh references in Glasgow 2014's logo? How many people immediately understood the Gaudi references in Barcelona's logo? The ultimate litmus test is in my opinion: does this logo negatively affect PC's operations? If it does then this logo is the work of Satan. I mean, lots of people could hate it and think it's ugly, but will that result in an adverse reaction to PC's games? How many ppl slagged off London's logo? Millions! But London in no way, shape or form were the games hindered by the logo many called puerile. Their merchandise sold well. They covered their costs. The ran an exemplary games etc. These arguments constantly come up on GB. Aesthetic considerations never contain "clinical proof". There's no such thing. That said, Michaelangelo's David is a masterpiece and your 4 year old's clay camel is not. How can I dare to say this? There's no clinical proof! PC's logo has no kinetic energy or charisma. It is static and totally without graphic weight or distinction. It conjures no emotion. Just because PC's Games can succeed in spite of their logo (after all, London did), just because the world is not going to boycott the Games, does not make the logo good. I work in the design field. People who ask for "clinical proof" that something is good or bad are clearly not designers. Design doesn't work like drug testing. Right. But by the same token it doesn't make it bad either. And since the games will function well, doesn't the weight of proof seem to suggest that the logo, at the very least isn't bad merely because it doesn't detrimentally affect the overall operations? It might be ugly as f*ck to some people but that's just an aesthetic consideration. I mean, PC could produce a really offensive logo which offended humanity and called for boycott's etc. That would be bad. An extreme example I know but just to illustrate what the outcome of a bad logo could achieve. What we have here is a logo some (maybe most) dislike but will tolerate.Nothing bad will come of it. Completely disagree. There's no clinical proof of your assertion and moreover, no proof that this logo will hinder PC. When dealing with different cultures, there's very rarely the ability that something can be reduced to such a common denominator that all of humanity will know about't absolutely and instantly recognize it -- what could South Korea have used which everyone would have immediately recognized bar some folk clued up on South Korean culture? . How many people understood the Rennie Mackintosh references in Glasgow 2014's logo? How many people immediately understood the Gaudi references in Barcelona's logo? The ultimate litmus test is in my opinion: does this logo negatively affect PC's operations? If it does then this logo is the work of Satan. I mean, lots of people could hate it and think it's ugly, but will that result in an adverse reaction to PC's games? How many ppl slagged off London's logo? Millions! But London in no way, shape or form were the games hindered by the logo many called puerile. Their merchandise sold well. They covered their costs. The ran an exemplary games etc. Right. But by the same token it doesn't make it bad either. And since the games will function well, doesn't the weight of proof seem to suggest that the logo, at the very least isn't bad merely because it doesn't detrimentally affect the overall operations? It might be ugly as f*ck to some people but that's just an aesthetic consideration. I mean, PC could produce a really offensive logo which offended humanity and called for boycott's etc. That would be bad. An extreme example I know but just to illustrate what the outcome of a bad logo could achieve. What we have here is a logo some (maybe most) dislike but will tolerate.Nothing bad will come of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 You make it sound as though the only thing that matters is Games operations. If that's true, why bother with any kind of logo at all? It sounds totally irrelevant to you. Fine. The Games can succeed regardless, but why not succeed with an attractive, memorable logo rather than a bland, sterile one? I appreciate beauty. Personally, I'd much prefer to attend an Olympic Games that is attractively designed. Of course I'll still watch the Games along with the rest of the world, but why be ugly if you have the chance to be beautiful? I get the sense you don't value good design and therefore don't care what PC's logo looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 You make it sound as though the only thing that matters is Games operations. If that's true, why bother with any kind of logo at all? It sounds totally irrelevant to you. Fine. The Games can succeed regardless, but why not succeed with an attractive, memorable logo rather than a bland, sterile one? I appreciate beauty. Personally, I'd much prefer to attend an Olympic Games that is attractively designed. Of course I'll still watch the Games along with the rest of the world, but why be ugly if you have the chance to be beautiful? *I get the sense you don't value good design and therefore don't care what PC's logo looks like. I have opinions on aesthetics too. Something's I like, something's I hate etc.I like the aesthetic quality of this logo. Some don't. Fair enough. I just thought it interesting that people call it bad -- so I asked what makes it bad and the truth is that we can't really prove it to be bad. Our sense of it being bad stems from us not liking it, not that it is actually bad/detrimental to the games themselves. There's going to be a problem regardless of what is produced -- what is an attractive, memorable logo? Surely, if anyone at all dislikes the logo regardless of if a majority likes it, then is can't be called totally memorable since not everyone likes it? Since aestehtics pertain tot he subjective nature of man, perhaps the best qualification of a logo's intrinsic worth is to what it extent it fulfils its purpose i.e to what extent it doesn't fracture the operation of sports movement etc. Clearly it can't be 'bad' enough to do that. Any way, just some thoughts. Since you are a designer (allegedly?) I thought you would have welcomed the discussion. Clearly not. I highlighted your last part. You're free to get whatever impression you want from me. I have impressions of you too -- namely one of a pseudo intellectual who acts like a somebody on wee online forums. But I digress. If I didn't have an interest in design, why would I have engaged in debate regarding the design of the logo asking for qualifications of opinions? Erm? Answers on a postcard please..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord David Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 I wonder if this logo cost the design firm 400,000 Won? Hmm... that makes around 350 bucks. Even that would be too much for just a mere couple of lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Gulp! What a horrible thing to wake up to. What could they have been thinking?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athensfan Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 I have opinions on aesthetics too. Something's I like, something's I hate etc.I like the aesthetic quality of this logo. Some don't. Fair enough. I just thought it interesting that people call it bad -- so I asked what makes it bad and the truth is that we can't really prove it to be bad. Our sense of it being bad stems from us not liking it, not that it is actually bad/detrimental to the games themselves. There's going to be a problem regardless of what is produced -- what is an attractive, memorable logo? Surely, if anyone at all dislikes the logo regardless of if a majority likes it, then is can't be called totally memorable since not everyone likes it? Since aestehtics pertain tot he subjective nature of man, perhaps the best qualification of a logo's intrinsic worth is to what it extent it fulfils its purpose i.e to what extent it doesn't fracture the operation of sports movement etc. Clearly it can't be 'bad' enough to do that. Any way, just some thoughts. Since you are a designer (allegedly?) I thought you would have welcomed the discussion. Clearly not. I highlighted your last part. You're free to get whatever impression you want from me. I have impressions of you too -- namely one of a pseudo intellectual who acts like a somebody on wee online forums. But I digress. If I didn't have an interest in design, why would I have engaged in debate regarding the design of the logo asking for qualifications of opinions? Erm? Answers on a postcard please..... Pretty unsavory, oaky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 I pretty sure the naysayers here would hate the Olympic Rings logo if seeing it for the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Pretty unsavory, oaky. Well, mocking someone's ability to judge design because you are a designer is unsavoury too. I only retorted back. For the record, I'm very interested in people's views on design/art/architecture etc. That's why I asked a question. It was all for discussion. Believe it or not, I was interested in your views too. But hey ho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 I pretty sure the naysayers here would hate the Olympic Rings logo if seeing it for the first time. At least the Olympic Rings have some sort of design to them that flow together nicely. This "logo" just looks like a couple of symbols on a couple of keys on a computer keyboard. How exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 At least the Olympic Rings have some sort of design to them that flow together nicely. This "logo" just looks like a couple of symbols on a couple of keys on a computer keyboard. How exciting. But it is just a couple of symbols. Thats the point. As I've mentioned before (and oaky has mentioned also) this is a Korean specific design. We cannot expect every Olympics or international event logo to instantly resonate with all cultures. That is simply impossible. I think this logo is brilliant in that it lends itself to huge branding opportunities. Look at the logo video, see how the linear Olympic coloured sticks come to life and take on different forms. The potential for further branding is gigantic. I can't believe its just my and my old friend Oakydoky who are left defending it. It is nice to see eye to eye on some things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 I can't believe its just my and my old friend Oakydoky who are left defending it. It is nice to see eye to eye on some things. Tell me about it! Kinda like my (& Quakers) old friend Athensfan finally agreeing on something on how poor this logo really is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 But it is just a couple of symbols. Thats the point. As I've mentioned before (and oaky has mentioned also) this is a Korean specific design. We cannot expect every Olympics or international event logo to instantly resonate with all cultures. That is simply impossible. I think this logo is brilliant in that it lends itself to huge branding opportunities. Look at the logo video, see how the linear Olympic coloured sticks come to life and take on different forms. The potential for further branding is gigantic. I can't believe its just my and my old friend Oakydoky who are left defending it. It is nice to see eye to eye on some things. The one good thing I can say about the logo is that it definitely seems Korean. I did see the logo video.. still not convinced that will work so well as far as branding is concerned. That it's just these basic linear Olympic colored sticks as you put it, I'm not sure how much you can do with that, especially in 3D applications. It's too flat and simple to do much with. With Sochi's logo you wouldn't even try it. With London's logo, at least you could emboss it. But this.. I don't know how well it can be integrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 How anyone can defend a logo that looks like it was made on paint in 3 mins is beyond me. It can have a meaning but it looks like sh*t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 How anyone can defend a logo that looks like it was made on paint in 3 mins is beyond me. It can have a meaning but it looks like sh*t! The same could be said for the London, Vancouver, Barcelona, Montreal and Tokyo 64 logos, which were all minimal and basic designs in their own way. PC is no different - it's just aimed at the home crowd, which why there is this instant dismissive attitude on here. Give it time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 The same could be said for the London, Vancouver, Barcelona, Montreal and Tokyo 64 logos, which were all minimal and basic designs in their own way. PC is no different - it's just aimed at the home crowd, which why there is this instant dismissive attitude on here. Give it time. Sydney's wasn't all that complex either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FYI Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 I don't quite agree. Vancouver's, Sydney's, London's & Barcelona's still had substance. And while Montreal & Tokyo may have been bland, those Games were how many decades ago. I would think that in this day & age something more innovative could've been acheived while still trying to make the logo "Korean". I seriously doubt that this logo will grow on me. Sochi's hasn't, & it's been 4 years already since their mediocre, at best, logo came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningrings Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 I think this is a matter of the personal idea of what a logo should and should not be. I think the reason why I'm liking the PC logo is that it presents a new idea - it is representative of a greater brand to come. Also whoever said the PC18 logo can't be put into 3d as it is too simple - it already has been in the unveiling video, and it looked great! Sydney's wasn't all that complex either. No, but it was heavily stylised, which some are arguing the 2018 logo is not. Also Sydney's logo wasn't all that subtexty - it was pretty upfront. At first look, it had the Barcelona-esque athlete running with the torch, but within this you have boomerangs as the limbs of the athlete, a relevant, and perhaps corny reference to the Indigenous Australian hunting weapon, and in some way symbolic of the Olympics "coming back" to Australia, like a boomerang. On top of this is the Olympic flame from the runners torch, making the outline of the Opera House - a national icon. The colours are blood orange, yellow and blue - representing the desert centre of Australia, the beaches and the ocean that surrounds us. To top it off is the heavily stylised "Sydney 2000" freehand font, which complimented the carefree style of the logo perfectly. And that is pretty much all it was. I think it balanced the international audience appeal, without totally giving the Australian audience cultural cringe. Aussie bias aside, I think it captured Sydney and Australia brilliantly at the turn of the millennium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.