Let the Symbolic Games Begin
Recent critiques of Olympic Games imagery have understated the difference between identity and symbol.
A game’s identity embodies a specific place and time, while its symbols are placeless and timeless. London 2012’s jagged neon constitutes those games’ identity, while the International Olympic Committee’s five rings are the institution’s enduring symbol of global unity. The IOC insists on this distinction, laying claim to its symbols explicitly, which triggered the recent rethink of Chicago’s Olympic bid.
Designers wax poetic about identities past like Mexico ’68 and Munich ’72. Their beautiful, Modernist aesthetics notwithstanding, these identities did not become widely beloved by designers or the public until after those games concluded.
Critics, in the excitement of newsmaking, have rushed to judgment. They’re writing history before it’s happened.
They’re forgetting that the games these identities signify haven’t happened yet. How the London 2012 and Chicago 2016 identities interact with their respective events and audiences will ultimately determine whether they are lasting, valuable marks or not.
Ugly or beautiful, these identities will ultimately belong to us. We will wear and trade them. We will merchandise and trash them. We will honor and deride them. They will belong to us the way celebrities do, the way monuments do, the way media spectacles do. Years from now, I suspect different opinions will prevail.
Rob Giampietro is a principal of Giampietro+Smith and a board member of AIGA/NY. He teaches at Parsons The New School for Design and the Rhode Island School of Design. More of Rob's design writing can be found at linedandunlined.com. Joon Mo Kang is a graphic designer, illustrator, and formally champion of “The 2005 World Graphic Design Foosball Championship.” More information at joonswebsite.com and WGDFC.
Remarks 9 total remarks were added before the post was closed.
Alfonso
Let's not forget, though, that the Chicago identity applies only to the candidacy. Chicago is still an applicant city, and once it has been granted olympic approval (that's IF it is selected), chances are a new identity will be cooked up for the actual events.
Thus, it seems to me that it is perfectly relevant to discuss the Chicago identity and others applicable only to candidate cities openly.
Your argument is still applicable to the London 2012 identity, but I fail to see the lack of relevance in discussing its appropriateness, its aesthetic value, its application or its performance under the relentless scrutiny of the fax machine, among many other aspects.
I just don't think we necessarily have to wait for it to fulfill its final purpose to discuss it in depth.
Travis Gertz
Gah! London's logo reminds me of about half my childhood wardrobe. While it may be horrifying for some now, back then it was the shiznit to wear crazy angular display faces, wildly clashing patterns, and ultra loud fluorescent colors.
Trends are cyclical and as much as I hate to see, I'm already seeing similar styles crop up among the hipster population.
I personally think the 2012 logo is quite daring. I think as we get closer to 2012, the logo will seem less hideous, and hopefully more relevant to that period of time.
James
Er no actually, it's just plain ugly.
This is a shame as though London is still a dirty city, it is not ugly. I don't see the point of commissioning just about the oldest design firm in the UK, if you are after a cutting edge young hip hop logo. It's a Dads dancing at the disco logo. I am looking forward to the 2012 games with much anticipation, as the Olympics always excite and inspire me. The logo does not.
I hate it.
Dennis Eusebio
Can anyone tell me why Chicago had to change the logo from a torch to a sky? While both are good, I'm sure most designers agree that the original logo was brilliant.
Keller
The Olympic Committee changed the rules—Chicago was no longer allowed to use a torch.
Mike Rivera
What's your point Mr. Giampietro? You lament that critics "have rushed to judgment" about the logo's aesthetic qualities before giving it time to percolate and before the games actually take place. But then you go on to say we inevitably "will honor and deride" it since it's now part of our collective culture. I think you spent six paragraphs disproving your own opinion.
Michael McWatters
I remember when Verizon launched its identity. I hated it, detested it...that oversized checkmark and Zorro Z!
Now, several years later, it is part of the visual landscape. Every day, I see it on service vehicles, payphones, billboards, billing statements, storefronts...every time I make a call it's on my phone.
I'm used to it. I don't like it, but it doesn't affect me the way it once did. Perhaps the same wil be true of the 2012 Olympics mark. That doesn't mean it's a good design, only that we ultimately get used to that which we see on a regular basis.
Matt Sung
After working on a couple pitches for the Olympics, I must say that designing something for such large scale and diverse cultural event is no easy task. These graphic representations and the mascots that support them really are just another form of advertising. Their campaigns meant to gather excitement and support from all those around the world. How successful these campaigns are or not, we first remember the athletes and the historic moments that they captured.