Tonight on NPR, they said the logo was a variety of colors inspired by Britain's graffiti. Thus, there was controversy. But they want more than a logo. They want to represent beyond a commercialized logo. . .
2007-06-05 18:13:41 · 4 answers · asked by myself 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Read more at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/6722763.stm
I have to say that it is damn ugly. People will not be gardening in a shirt with this logo, because they will not want anyone to see them wearing it.
But hey, it only cost $800,000. And it is going to evolve before 2012 rolls around.
2007-06-05 18:46:09 · answer #1 · answered by Simon T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honestly the logo is butt-ugly in my opinion. It looks like something I would've concocted in high school art class after a night of binge drinking with the marching band.
Edit-Lindsey: don't blame the pikeys, now. Dey dun nuffin too yeh. ;)
2007-06-06 01:16:49 · answer #2 · answered by scrambled_egg81 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's the dumbest looking thing ever. I didn't even realize that it said "2012" until they pointed it out on the news, and half the news anchors hadn't realized it either.
2007-06-06 01:16:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
England: At least we're not Ireland
2007-06-06 01:18:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋