Trafalgar Square erupted in cheers in 2005 as thousands gathered there to see London win the bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympic games. It was a time of excitement and hope for the future in the UK.
Fast forward two years, and in 2007 the Olympic Organizing committee released their controversial logo.
Bosses of the 2012 Olympics were plunged into a fresh row last night after spending £400,000 on a controversial new logo for the London Games.
In a move billed as the most significant event since London beat Paris in 2005 in the race to host the Games, the organising committee unveiled a striking, jagged emblem as the official symbol for the Olympics.
Aimed at the younger, “internet generation”, it will will also be used as the logo for the Paralympics and will be crucial to hopes of raising private sponsorship for both events.
Based roughly on the figures 2012 and apparently inspired by graffiti artists, the image – which replaces an earlier logo devised for London’s bid to host the Games – was hailed as “dynamic” and “vibrant” by organisers.
Lord Coe, chairman of the London Games organising committee (Locog), said the new logo was “edgy” and appeared to suggest it was designed to provoke a strong reaction: “We don’t do bland – this is not a bland city. We weren’t going to come to you with a dull or dry corporate logo that would appear on a polo shirt and we’re all gardening in it a year’s time.”
Tony Blair raised hopes that the symbol would leave people “inspired to make a positive change in their life” while Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, praised it as a “truly innovative brand” that would appeal to the young.
But the logo, which cost £400,000 and took the best part of a year to be devised by brand consultants Wolff Olins, came up against widespread disapproval yesterday, with one Jewish person even ringing the BBC to complain that it was reminiscent of the infamous Nazi SS symbol.
Design guru Stephen Bayley condemned it as “a puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal”. Source
Though petitioned to change the logo and to justify the immense cost in its creation, the Olympic committee and creator Wolff Ollins stubbornly and steadfastly refused to allow a change in the logo.
Rik Clay, Ian Crane, and other alternative researchers were quick to point out a glaring message that could be revealed if the logo was simply rearranged slightly:
Official London 2012 Olympic Logo
Now, in 2010, they’ve created these strange mascots, and the backlash is very similar to the displeasure of 2007.
Though strange in form, and suspect in function, it is nearly certain they will remain as the marketing choice to ’inspire kids’ (whether to participate in sports or simply spend gobs of money on expensive merchandise is still debatable).
Though the creators have a message they wish to share with us in the design of ’Wenlock’ and ’Mandeville’, there can ever be a subtext to these designs, like in the logo, and it is interesting to speculate on what they would have us think or how they would have us behave when we see these symbols.
Though up to the viewer’s discretion, it becomes apparent that not all meanings will be evident to the casual observer. That is often the point of logos and mascots and symbols – the hidden meanings still penetrate the brain even if we’re not conscious of it.
Perhaps there is more to the public’s distaste of these mascots than sheer aesthetics alone.
Time will tell if the “few thousand pounds” spent on these walking symbols will pay off for their creators.
Sieg heil to you, too. Source