Often the topic of heated debate, the Olympic logo and identity system is an important component of the way we perceive The Games. This year the Vancouver 2010 arena & spatial design is all about vivid, saturated blues and greens, graphic textures, and wavy, tentacle-like forms that intertwine and surround a figure performing the sport at hand. On the other hand, the Vancouver 2010 logo is done in bright, primary hues and speaks to the Inuit culture of the Canadian Arctic.
Named Ilanaaq, the symbol is a graphic, modern representation of the inukshuk – stacked rock forms that native tribes built to provide landmarks and direction throughout the Canadian landscape. Ilanaaq means “friend,” so the logo is meant to be “a friend that warmly welcomes the people of the world with open arms every day,” according to the official website of the Vancouver Games.
Um, what? OK, so I can absolutely see the resemblance between this Ilanaaq character and the inukshuk sculptures, and the rationale for this logo is totally valid. The host city should absolutely celebrate the culture of its country – that’s what The Olympics are all about! – pride in your country and the fact that you are going to kick your competitor’s ass in the name of [insert country here].
That being said, there is a very poor connection between this culture-rich mark and the rest of the Olympic identity system. What’s with the complete switch in style and the void-of-meaning free-flowing blue & green shapes that overshadow the logo? Sure, the friend-focus of the logo is a little cheesy (but who doesn’t love cheese!?), and it’s head kind of looks like a green Pac-Man (I wish I could take credit for that, but I read it here: http://www.topnews.in/usa/vancouver-2010-olympic-logo-under-eye-storm-23564) but at least there’s some relevant meaning behind it!
Don’t get me wrong; the blue and green designs are beautiful to look at, and there is obviously a nice big maple leaf reference in the poster artwork, but that’s it. Boo. I have to agree with Art museum curator David Ross, who pointed out on The Colbert Report that the 2010 Olympics graphic identity contains no strong reference to sports, history, or the spirit of competition. It is completely irrelevant to what it is meant to represent.
Which brings me to the London 2012 logo. I’m sure many of you caught the Chicago Tribune article published over a year ago comparing the tentative Chicago 2016 logo to the London 2012 mark, which was approved! Eesh. This thing is a disaster. What IS it??? The official website for London 2012 claims the following: “Our emblem is simple, distinct, bold and buzzing with energy. Its form is inclusive yet consistent and has incredible flexibility to encourage access and participation. It can communicate with anyone from commercial organizations to kids playing sport. It feels young in spirit. Full of confidence, certainty and opportunity.”
Again, I ask, what IS it? No heroic figure. No reference to UK culture. It looks like someone took a big fat sharpie marker and tried to see if the tip worked. Yeah London, the marker works. Now use it to draw something else.
The logo for Beijing 2008 had excellent, sound connections to Chinese culture. Called “Dancing Beijing,” this obvious tribute to Chinese culture includes the color red, part of the country’s national identity and a symbol of good luck, plus similarities to Chinese writing characters. Others suggest that the dancing figure resembles a Chinese dragon or even a runner crossing the finish line (see Wikipedia’s entry on Dancing Beijing”). Bravo, Beijing!
In my book, Dancing Beijing and Ilanaaq are definite medalists in the logo category. London…not so much – not even a bronze. Enjoy the 2010 Olympics, and remember, this is a VISUAL event! Watch The Games and don’t forget to keep your eyes peeled for winners…and losers…in the event of Olympic design.
