Dear Victor Meldrew,
I understand you 'don't believe it' and perhaps have one foot in the grave as regards branding techniques, but if you read on I'll tell you why you shouldn't be so quick to judge.
Harry Beck designed the London underground map in the 1930s. People of that time were up in arms - how could someone do that, no-one will understand such a stupid way of organising things - the man's mad, MAD I tell you... Now, the simplicity of the design is considered as an example of classic design. People have become used to it and has spawned so many similar maps worldwide.
Design is an art-form, it's very easy to produce something that everyone will accept - just copy others. To push the boundaries, to explore new things, techniques and technologies, you need a great mind. Someone who can identify the something in a picture, painting, sculpture or whatever and use it to create something unique.
Of course, some things are never accepted, other things (while not generally accepted) influence yet more things, creating things that are intensly beautiful - consider the Millau viaduct, don't you think this enormously graceful structure owes something to the influence of other bridges? Or perhaps you choose to think that this bridge is a monstrous carbunckle on the landscape. (It's a free society - you CAN have your own opinion!)
If you give the 2012 symbol time, it's possible that you might get used to it too. It may be that it is never accepted and dies a death, but please don't refuse to accept change just because you don't understand it yet.
We evolve through change and it's happening all the time.
2007-06-05 22:09:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by cornflake#1 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the whole thing is laughable.
Plus Britain has a pretty good reason to be up in arms about it when this unimaginative piece of scrawl cost 3/4 of a million to design....come on people, someone is definitely taking the people paying for this whole charade to the cleaners.
Oh hang on, it's going to be the rest of the country paying for this over-priced, over hyped event that nobody outside of London will see any benefit from.
I understand that art and design are constanstly changing but does it really cost THAT much money in reality to come up with a design. I work in the publishing/design industry and know many designers who could have come up with much better designs at a fraction of that cost.
Oh well, let Lord Coe's gravy train keep on rolling and let every corporate sponsor and business get their bread out and start dipping into our pockets.
2007-06-06 04:46:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by TorturedOne 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I agree, the London Underground sign is London simple but effective. As for the chosen design they are already in trouble with people getting seizures.
2007-06-06 04:42:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jim 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well...its horrible to be fair.
It looks like something from the 80's...the flashing gets on my wick (and the point of that is what?? It cant flash on a banner or T shirt!!!).
They wont get rid of it...but its a shame more people weren't invited to take part in the designing of it...it could have spurred up some interest in it & take the attention away from the shocking cost of running the games!
2007-06-06 04:43:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sarah H 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This logo has to look cool and alive in 2012 only time will tell if they made the right choice. It wouldn't be Britain if half the population weren't up in arms about something completely trivial .
2007-06-06 04:39:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Barry Von Leotard III 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I hated it yesterday, but today I saw it in a Lloyd's bank livery (fading green to blue) and it looked quite rational. Maybe that's the idea, to allow sponsors and such to mash it up for their purposes. Time will tell.
2007-06-06 04:48:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by drift::words 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
the logo they came out with is wack
2007-06-06 04:50:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋