Re: London 2012 Olympics logo
Hmm...the pink logo.
Innovative? Yes.
Pleasing to look at? No.
*warning - upcoming $0.02*
When millions of people are watching the Olympics on TV, they're probably not going to pause to analyze the artistic aspect of the logo. Its anti-aesthetic quality is the first thing that they will register.
Then again, I don't know exactly how many art critics/connoisseurs actually watch the Olympics. Hurray for them, I suppose.
As for the rest of us, ditching the logo for a more appealing one would be in the best interest (moreso in respect to advertising than to the image of the Olympics). In any case, for most people the event isn't even supposed to be an artistic experience, unless they are of the type that tends to make abstract connections. But that requires thinking, which equals work. And nobody wants that, amirite?
Anyways...in simpler terms (rofl), the logo is a ridiculously ugly work of art. It's (somewhat) refreshing, but likely unnecessary...
Hmm...the pink logo.
Innovative? Yes.
Pleasing to look at? No.
*warning - upcoming $0.02*
When millions of people are watching the Olympics on TV, they're probably not going to pause to analyze the artistic aspect of the logo. Its anti-aesthetic quality is the first thing that they will register.
Then again, I don't know exactly how many art critics/connoisseurs actually watch the Olympics. Hurray for them, I suppose.
As for the rest of us, ditching the logo for a more appealing one would be in the best interest (moreso in respect to advertising than to the image of the Olympics). In any case, for most people the event isn't even supposed to be an artistic experience, unless they are of the type that tends to make abstract connections. But that requires thinking, which equals work. And nobody wants that, amirite?
Anyways...in simpler terms (rofl), the logo is a ridiculously ugly work of art. It's (somewhat) refreshing, but likely unnecessary...






Comment