Monday, June 11, 2007



I don't understand the fuss about the 2012 Olympic logo.

It's not that I think the logo is amazing, it's that I have no idea what a 'good' logo would look like. I am also prepared to speculate that if those complaining loudest about it now had been honestly polled a fortnight ago, they would have been fairly apathetic about the issue. The logo controversy is part of a wider problem in Britain - people feel passionately about the Olympics, both for and against hosting it, but because there was no debate about whether applying would be a good idea at the time the decision was made, totally irrelevant and unimportant decisions like how the logo should look become disproportionately important as people with a vested interest in doing so use them as a stick with which to beat the government. Maybe there is a good case for demand-revealing referenda here. Personally, I suspect the government is not so much guilty of 'bad logo' as 'bad press relations' - would anyone really have cared if the logo had just emerged, quietly and unannounced, on official literature, as a fait accompli, instead of being trumpeted as a major achievement on the evening news?

'London' is spelled 'London', not 'london'...
And, to be fair, it does look like something one of my 12 year old students could have come up with, for a hell of a lot lessmoney I'd warrant. And I mean the student who is bottom of the art class at that.
Dyslexic dog vomit?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?