2012 Olympic Logo Political Economy

I don’t claim to be an expert in the art of graphic design, but like many others, I’ve found the 2012 London Olympic logo visually challenging. It’s become the butt of jokes worldwide (see clip). Contrast the London logo with that for the 2008 Beijing Games. The former avoids primary colors and presents no reference to the town of London or the United Kingdom. In contrast, the latter is in primary colors and makes a clever spin on Chinese hieroglyphics representing an athlete—its font alone leaves little room for misinterpreting just which country is hosting the Games. Earlier on, forty-eight thousand folks signed an online petition to have this abomination logo changed to something better. Say, something that looks like it wasn’t designed by four-year olds, although I may be belittling their drawing skills excessively.

London Mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone suggested that the designers of this thing shouldn’t be paid a whopping £400,000 (almost $800K) for their doodlings. In any event, calls for it to be rescinded have gone unheeded. Almost expectedly, a chorus of interested parties have voiced their tacit support for the logo. All in all, they probably consider it a sunken cost for a project gone awry somewhere down the line. In private, however, I am sure that they too were gagging incredulously at this stupendous waste of money. First up is PM Blair:

INTERVIEWER: The logo has been criticised heavily in the last week. What is your opinion? Do you like it?

BLAIR: Do you know something? I have obviously thought about what I would say when I was asked this question, I mean it has either been great or awful, but which it is, I don't know. I am hopeless at telling these things. And it has got people talking, for sure. And I think probably the important thing is let's give it a bit of time and see how it settles in. Because I am always useless at judging these types of things, but sometimes you need to make really something that makes people sit up and take notice, and it has certainly done that.

Unsurprisingly, IOC Chairman Dennis Oswald claims that he just “loves” the logo:

The chairman of the International Olympic Committee has pledged support for the controversial London 2012 logo.

Speaking at the end of a three-day visit, Dennis Oswald told journalists he "loved it."

During their visit, inspectors received a full report on the row over the new brand and logo.

Mr Oswald also said preparations were "on time and on track" and that Britain's 2012 preparations would prove to be a model for future host cities.

Commenting on the new logo, Mr Oswald said: "I love it. It's very simple. We have a fantastic logo, it's very creative, very young and very dynamic. I'm very enthusiastic about it."

The most galling statements, however, come from the creators of this logo. They emerged in this weekend's Sunday Telegraph, probably after hiding in a bunker somewhere to cover themselves from this fine swindle. They claim that the logo “doesn’t ask to liked.” Yes, well, very well and good. How the Games’ promoters are to sell memorabilia tied to this monstrosity is beyond me. Ugh:

The men behind the widely criticised 2012 Olympics logo have defended their "raw" design and said that creating something people would love was not their top priority.

Patrick Cox and Bryan Boylan of Wolff Ollins and Chris Townsend of the Games organising committee

Speaking for the first time since the controversial design was unveiled, Patrick Cox and Brian Boylan said they were proud of the design and even pleased about some of the criticism it attracted.

Mr Boylan, 61, the chairman of Wolff Olins, the Islington-based consultancy responsible for the £400,000 logo, insisted: "Let's be clear: we won't change the design at all. We are proud of it. It will go down in history. We have created something original in a world where it is increasingly difficult to make something different."

Mr Cox, 41, who led the design team that created the logo, said: "It wasn't created to be warm and fuzzy.

"Its design is intentionally raw, which means it doesn't immediately sit there and ask to be liked very much. It was meant to be something that did provoke a response, like the little thorn in the chair that gets you to breathe in, sit up and take notice…"

Mr Boylan, who was in overall charge of the "brand project", said: "I don't think brands need only to be loved any more. They need to be useful, in terms of providing participation and a platform for people to do things with them. I think that is what this is going to be remembered for."

He admitted he had been surprised by the intensity of the criticism, but said that his travels to Switzerland and Denmark in the last two weeks had convinced him that opinion was getting behind the design.

Asked whether most Britons would ever love it, Mr Boylan said: "We are not confident or unconfident. The public will judge."

Last week, Dennis Oswald, the chairman of the International Olympic Committee's Co-ordination Commission, backed the logo at the end of a three-day visit to London. "I love it. We have a fantastic logo," he said. "It's very creative, very young and very dynamic."

Chris Townsend, the commercial director of the Olympic Games organising committee, said he had been enthusiastic when shown the first drafts just before Christmas.

"The senior management team was unanimous. We saw other designs, but this was the one. The more the brand is understood, the more it will be loved."

He added: "We were creating something we hope reflects the spirit of our times, partly youthfulness, and also the sense of participation."

The logo is intended to be a "blank canvas", a set of blocks in which people can place images of their choice. It is hoped that a "non-commercial" version will be available next year for use by bodies such as amateur sports clubs.

Mr Cox added: "When people are saying that a child could have done it, or are coming up with their own designs, that's what we want: we want everyone to be able to do something with it." [Like toss it in the trashcan, probably.]