
From my humble point of view, the newly launched 2012 Olympics logo [as shown] is a design disaster without a shadow of doubt. Prior to receiving critics and detrimental comments, it is also defended by a panel of rhetoricians. As impactful as its design, the hideous logo received comments from forums [photoshopCAFE] such as "This is the most premitive design work I've seen since barney rubble decided to draw a dinasour for his kids."
Costing a preposterous amount of £400,000, Lord Coe stated this, "It’s not a logo, it’s a brand that will take us forward for the next five years," Why would such an established design team jeopardize its brand name by creating this "logo"?
It is not a blatant error. If you notice the secluded intention behind this "masterplan", it is more of a marketing strategy or a popularity act. Now I could understand why Lord Coe quoted "it's a brand that will take us forward for the next five years." Indeed it will. In the past, how many could actually remember the logo for the Olympics? If i showed you one, could u state the year and its location? But with this new strategy, it will be remembered not only for the coming five years, but also for decades to come as it topped up as the most hideous logo in history. And with all the turbulence that came in relative with it, I guess the strategy is working after all.
Everyone thought it is a horribly designed logo designed by a team who does'nt know heck about designing, but if you check out the comittee who designed it
http://www.wolffolins.com/ ...They produce masterpieces for companies like unilever and such, why would they do this? To me, its nothing more than a master plot. If you did'nt realise it yet, now you just did. By me even writing about it is contributing to the success of their plan.