Is it perhaps an exploded version of the sofa where Jowell and Livingstone concocted their figures(from that point of view i suppose it could be an exploded backof a fag packet)

Ye gods, Aaron...

The Olympic logo is no doubt very appropriate although it appears rather steroidal. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the steroids appear to be tending towards a 5 ring structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid

 

Finger on the pulse, GG, finger on the pulse. You`ve got the vibe, man. Respec`! 

Looking at the following:



what do we see? It strikes me as follows:

a) There are two large Zs - indicative of boredom and sleep,
b) There is one ugly chevron to remind us all of London traffic jams,
c) There is the written word "london" (not only misspelt because it lacks an upper-case L, but also by its presence indicative of a false assumption that nobody knows otherwise where the games are supposed to be held in 2012),
d) There is a very out-of-place Olympics symbol - the only CURVED feature on the logo - seemingly placed there through some sort of legal-come-moral "obligation", and
e) the offensive and garish colours have nothing to do with anything remotely "green" (and was not one of the strengths of the bid supposed to be REGENERATION?).

Nothing, but nothing about the Olympics moves in zig-zags or straight lines - whether things thrown, people who run, divers who dive, swimmers who swim, javelins that fly, balls that are kicked, or even (dare we say it) spectators who travel on the Jubilee Line. IT'S A COMPLETE NONESENSE.

How much, I ask, were the so-called "designers" PAID for this absurdity?

Baz <GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR>!

P.S. I take it that the letters "TM" to the right are the designer's joke, and that for "Trade Mark" we have to understand "Tame Money"!

I think I may be misunderstandig the situation.

To me personally everything about it is atrocious: colour,shape, failure to communicate clearly.

But when I compare it with so many images in contemporary advertising , I  see similarities: in particular,  the deliberate presentation of something which looks wrong ,faulty or shabby as if it were attractive and praiseworthy.


Maybe this is what young people today  actually want to see. What do I know? After all,so many aspects of life today are inexplicable to me:

 people talking incessantly on mobile phones,even when in company with a third party, or performing a task normally expected to demand their  concentration;

people wearing clothes with large unexplained words printed on them,or paying extra for something which   advertises the name of the manufacturer;and perhaps worst of all

people paying to inflict on themselves and on me noises which   I cannot imagine anyone even tolerating,let alone choosing to hear.

But since I can't do anything about any of this,the best thing is just to ignore it as much as I can,and devote my remaining years to what I want to see, do,and wear.

I don't think you are misunderstanding anything smittims - I think it's the Olympic Committee that is misunderstanding everything. If they wondered what young people of today liked, they should have tried to find out by showing some imagination...

The real tragedy here is that they went straight for the "business", "big spending" strategy, thinking possibly a) they would have done the research, and b) if it costs £400,000 it must be "good".

What they should have done is what the Royal Mint did a couple of years ago: the RM advertised a competition for designers to provide new designs for its new coins. This immediately opened up the field to "education" and "enterprise", as well as to established designers. They offered substantial cash prizes (but nothing like £400,000), and provided a clear list of house rules.

By going straight for "business", and commissioning this ghastly logo from an already-established designer, they have immediately ruled out a tangible way of getting young people involved from the outset. Instead they have been content to agree a fee that would buy a large house (!) even before viewing the product that has been delivered. No wonder they have their backs to the wall, and now HAVE to defend it for all their worth.

Had the whole thing been promoted as the Royal Mint did (and they could have sought their advice if they had thought to do so), they would have had a) real input from younger aspirants - instead of being merely "informed" by a firm of designers what young people these days want, and b) a large number of really interesting ideas to consider - at no real cost.

This is surely a really poor way to organise this major event (and we all remember the way the bid was promoted - remember all those young people shown, and the ways in which the Olympics grabbed their imaginations and spurred them on to achievement?).

2 out of 10 (maximum) here as far as I'm concerned (even before viewing the logo).

Baz