05.06.07
Rounded thoughts on page three

Our initial views on the much discussed new Olympic work are in today’s Guardian.

The piece in full is reproduced below.

mj_guardian_pic

Designing the Olympics logo is tough. Most commentators agree it’s only been done well four times, and even that’s being generous. For twenty years we’ve been drowning in a sea of running men and brushstrokes.

Until yesterday there were basically two ways to do it - either spend years crafting a classic ‘system’ or do something late but gloriously ‘now’ and don’t give two hoots about it being ‘then’.

The best examples of the former would be Tokyo (1964) and Munich (1972). Tokyo’s brilliant scheme opened the world’s eyes to Japanese design, Munich’s took 5 years but still bears close scrutiny 35 years later. As a contrast Mexico and Los Angeles (1968 and 1984) were fast and frenetic but nicely timed – Mexico’s rings were tailor made for op art, LA’s fluorescence perfectly post-modern.

London’s identity tries a new route – pick a vigorous style, cross your fingers and hope like hell that it’ll still be relevant in the next decade.

It’s trying to be ‘vibrant’ and ‘youthful’. The website suggests you download bits for your children to colour in, neatly ticking that ‘child involvement’ box. When animated it has an edginess not normally associated with the Olympics.

To some it’s 30 year old California graphics. To others it’s reminiscent of early Dire Straits videos or old ads for Studio Line hair gel. It’s got an oddly ‘punk’ quality to it. Like punk, I’m pretty sure a lot of people are going to hate it.

I think it’s a spiky update of the ribbon idea it’s replaced and it animates fairly well. But, like the MTV logo it echoes, when the wiggling and the wobbling dies down you’re left with a logo that’s really, well, quite odd. And a logo we’ll have to live with for five years, one month and 22 days.

By Michael Johnson

Latest thoughts