London 2012 Olympics logo

[סּ_סּ]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

I like the logo which was shown on the news yesterday made by the guy and it replaces some of the letters with numbers. it was sleek and clever.

lol the advert for the logo goes into the fail test for seziures millions of times. keepin the epelectics down maaan.

I don't really mind this logo it's certianly diffrent.

[Starshot]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

Meh, I think it looks good.

Then again, I'm a sucker for vector art.

[bmah]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

Whoa, I must be really slow, but I just realized that the pink jigsaw pieces are actually shaped vaguely like the numbers 2012.

has anybody else seen the animations for it?

LOL, yeah, it reminds me of club discoes way back when. It also reminds me of confetti randomly scattered across my TV screen.

[JurseyRider734]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

To expand on the message behind the art,

(this is what I see, not a fact, but just after looking at the piece for a couple of seconds)

the artist could be portraying a certain type of unity. Notice how each shape is a different size and shape and each piece is separated from the other, yet they are all conjoined together by the yellow border. Perhaps a symbol of peace and companionship.

Personally, I don't think they'd spend a great deal of money for some person to just throw together a few shapes with out a meaning behind it. You're all kind of judging the book by its cover.

edit: yeah and the shapes also make 2012 rofl

[User6773]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

I think it's pretty cool. It's something new, different, and kind of funky.

Like the music video for "Money For Nothing"? Cause that's what the logo kind of reminds me of. And the promo video that gave people seizures even seemed to steal from the "guitar player" section of the video where the entire band is dressed in neon lights. Anyone older than 18 or so should know what I'm talking about.

Kind of pop-art style.

The Olympics are not about "pop art." They're about the absolute mastery of a physical art and the complete discipline of mind and body. And the occasional doping scandal. But we try to forget about that when the John Williams music is going during the opening ceremonies.

It's simple yet intricate.

The previous logo was simple yet intricate - did you notice that the bands of color going through the "O"s in the logo flow in a similar shape to the river Thames in London? This logo is just random.

I think if you actually try to study the piece, the artist tried to express something by creating it this way.

"I'm horribly ****ing overpaid"?

[Windscarredfaith]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

Totally agreed with chardish. The Olympics aren't here for a logo that was influenced through pop-art or anything else. It's mostly about symbolism.

For example, the 2008 Olympics in China (image below) has a logo that is actually a Chinese character Jing (京) and it has a ton of symbolism in it if you look it up.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

To expand on the message behind the art,

(this is what I see, not a fact, but just after looking at the piece for a couple of seconds)

the artist could be portraying a certain type of unity. Notice how each shape is a different size and shape and each piece is separated from the other, yet they are all conjoined together by the yellow border. Perhaps a symbol of peace and companionship.

Personally, I don't think they'd spend a great deal of money for some person to just throw together a few shapes with out a meaning behind it. You're all kind of judging the book by its cover.

edit: yeah and the shapes also make 2012 rofl

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO.

What you are doing is exactly why I hate the art world. You make up some bullsh*t excuse as to why I should like it...because it has a deeper meaning. So what? That doesn't change the fact that it looks like sh*t.

A piece of art/logo should stand on it's own. It should be aesthetically pleasing upon first sight...it shouldn't make the world cringe in horror.

[User6773]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

Personally, I don't think they'd spend a great deal of money for some person to just throw together a few shapes with out a meaning behind it.

IT MUST BE GOOD BECAUSE IT COST $800,000

You're all kind of judging the book by its cover.

And you're judging it by its price tag.

[JurseyRider734]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

It doesn't make ME cringe in horror. I never said that "it's ****ty, but these are the reasons why you should like it:" I said that I didn't think it's bad, I think it's something different and these are some of the things I see in the art piece that help me understand why it could have been chosen and why the artist designed it as so. Also, why does it matter if it's pop art, Chardish? Pop art may not be the most well-received type of movement but there's something about it that I enjoy and the same goes for the logo.

It might not be the best logo I've ever seen, but I don't find it to be so horrendous as to start a huge debate over because it's different.

And I'm not judging anything by its price tag. Someone commented on how it was expensive, I don't find it to be reasonable for someone to spend that kind of money if there wasn't an objective. It doesn't matter to me if it cost $4 or $800k, almost all artists put meaning behind their work.

ps <chardish> hold on let me bash everything you say even if you didn't mean it that way because my ideas are right and impenetrable just like my views on religion

[Tokzic]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO.

What you are doing is exactly why I hate the art world. You make up some bullsh*t excuse as to why I should like it...because it has a deeper meaning. So what? That doesn't change the fact that it looks like sh*t.

A piece of art/logo should stand on it's own. It should be aesthetically pleasing upon first sight...it shouldn't make the world cringe in horror.

see this is where the two kinds of art part ways

get ready i'm about to start using grammar and scientific terms

On the one hand, you have Pretty Art. Pretty Art is pretty. Everyone likes Pretty Art.

On the other hand, you have Thought Art. Thought Art can be Pretty Art, but the best Thought Art usually isn't Pretty Art.

I did a project on some British *** who did Thought Art and I was really blown away. One piece he did, which had an unsightly long name (The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Somebody Living? Something like that), was a dead shark in a box. He bought it from some fisherman for $20 000, then he put it in a box, and he sold it for a ridiculous sum of a couple million.

I forget the exact symbolism behind the piece, but the shark represented death and was supposed to invoke your natural sensations to it when viewed. Kind of like playing pretend that a shark was going to eat you.

My favourite thing of his though was some piece whose name escapes me. It was basically two boxes (he liked boxes). One box had a cultivation of thousands of maggots. These maggots would turn into flies, when they could fly into the other box. It contained a rotting cow head and a bug zapper.

Basically it represented society. In the little youth box, the maggots are fed sugar water and are brought up without a care in the world, then they fly into the whole world and have to live off of much less pleasant things (???) and all the while have the impending threat of being zapped.

Or something.

Hold on, I'll try finding a Wiki link. And his name, for that matter.

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

Damien Hirst. That was it.

He likes corpses. Especially corpses that are cut in half.

if you're too lazy to check the wiki basically all of his art involves corpses or drugs or boxes

also he has a piece which is two cow corpses having sex and it got banned for making viewers vomit lmao

[Tokzic]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

in any case that logo is garbage

[chunky_cheese]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

"I can redo that logo in 10 minutes"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oicBOVZcO4Y

[jchinzilla]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

i kind of agree with jurs in that it is something new and unique, "funky" as she said. it looks different and stands out

...but that kind of art isn't something that should be associated with the olympics. the jigsaw-y pink shapes are definitely not representative of London 2012 Olympics, imho

[Tokzic]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

"I can redo that logo in 10 minutes"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oicBOVZcO4Y

uh

good logos are generally recreated very easily

so this doesn't make much of a point

[Afrobean]

Re: London 2012 Olympics logo

"I can redo that logo in 10 minutes"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oicBOVZcO4Y

me too

here's mine



ok i admit it... i'm just bored.

ps i have that in 1550x1725 res as well ^_~

Let me rephrase that:

Hey look I recreated this logo quickly and easily and even did so in super high resolution. This serves as proof as to why the logo isn't so great, along with the fact that it looks like something from the 80s.

@tokzic: not that simple. It shouldn't be so easily creatable with such basic tools.