As a self-proclaimed amateur graphic designer, I have a few pet peeves. Fonts would be a big one, and designing craptastic logos would be another. Please take a mo to view this short video so YOU don’t become a victim!
Now that you’ve been schooled on what fonts NOT to use, I’ll move on to the topic of logos. One of the ugliest and most public logos today (and you’ll be seeing more of it in the coming months) is the 2012 London Olympic Games disaster.
Would you believe that London’s Olympic Committee paid someone the equivalent of $800,000 (£400,000) to design that glob of bile? To the question of how much the Olympic logo cost, one intellectual on Answers.com responded: “$800,000 worth it?…. I THINK NOT… i could do a better job drawing a logo for 2012 with my c*ck.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. In fact, I was inspired to submit an alternative logo that is similar, yet seemingly more fitting:
What would the Olympic Games be without a mascot? London decided to go with these fellows.
No, they aren’t revamped cyclops Teletubbies. These would be Wenlock & Mandeville. WTF are they, you ask? The Guardian (U.K.) online publication explains. “Organisers have unveiled their mascots – creatures supposedly fashioned from droplets of steel used to build the stadium.” Additionally, “With a metallic finish, a single large eye made out of a camera lens, a London taxi light on their heads and the Olympic rings represented as friendship bracelets on their wrists, they resemble characters dreamed up for a Pixar animation.” Really? They look more like a nightmare to me.
London, had you won the Summer Olympics bid in 1982, this logo might have been a tad more appropriate, but I would’ve expected more out of you. Perhaps teal and purple, too? Instead, if you look closely, it looks more like Lisa Simpson is giving her brother a B.J. Thanks for that visual.
END!
Filed under: Uncategorized Tagged: | 2012 Olympics, Font, Logo, London, Olympic Games
