Want More Info?


Powered by Rollyo



« Is Islam Violent? | Funding Moderation | Main | Salvaged Faith Baptized in Arial Black RS Exam Bloomers »

June 06, 2007

Comments

Makeesha

as a designer and a bit of a provocative person, I like disturbing. I like progressive. I like daring. This is just bad (my opinion of course). So will we look back and say "wow, they really knew what they were doing"? I doubt it. If so, I'll be sad about the direction of design.

but hey, it's art right? it's all subjective anyway.

becky

On the news tonight here in the States, they said this logo cost $1 million dollars. The story also noted that the budget for bringing the Olympics to London has already gone over and that this may create an increase in taxes. Are y'all getting your money's worth?

nic

It ain’t no Munich.

It’s shit. Yet another Wolff Olins car-crash. The last time they did this was with the first Abbey rebrand and before that, the tate. They’ve got a history of doing it.

This certainly isn’t experimental, it’s just poor

Kester

Interesting. Didn't know it was them. The Abbey thing was shocking too... Lucky they got taken over and it switched again. Any successes to base the experiments on?

nic

Do you mean successes in sporting visual identities or successes in identities in general?

Munich is the benchmark, but it comes from another time– top-down, holistic and imperialistic.

I’m fascinated at the moment by the potential of identities formed around ‘affinities’ or ‘shared diagrams’. How is a whole or ‘one’ formed without annihilating difference? Munich is the exact opposite, it applies a sheen or gloss over the whole in order to give the impression of unity– very prescriptive.

Affinities are more about cybernetic coalitions and patterns, aggregate for a while, and then move on to something else. I suppose it comes from the notion that there is no fixed human identity, we are all in the process of becoming. Visual identities should reflect this same fluidity.

It has fascinating implications as it challenges the very notion of consistency at the heart of design; and also opens up other possibilities for communicating identity. It would be lovely to explore identities that focus on processes, engineering procedures and patterns.

Makeesha

I agree nic, that would be lovely.

Kester

I was actually wondering if that agency had had successful experiments in the past...

Interesting thoughts though... Will have to have a bit more detail though. In lay-man's terms?

nic

Wolff Olins last credible identity was probably Orange phones. That team is long gone now– moved on. That's the problem with design, that's the Faustian deal you make with the agency. The work forevever remains associated with the agency and talent comes and goes.
I don't think people who comission design are really aware of this. A good company will continue to attract gifted designers and the quality of output will roughly remain the same. Yet this does'nt last for long, everyone has their 'purple-patch' and then it's back to producing 'prison art'!

The real problem with Wolff Olins is that their a corporate machine and they deal with banal corporate clients. They are never going to take risks or be experimental, that's just not what they do. Actually, the other problem is that they're not attracting the talent either.

Good design is the curation of flow, the controlling of "shir". How users, designers, clients and (roadies and U-jobbers) all interact and make together– for better or worse.

nic

Wolff Olins last credible identity was probably Orange phones. That team is long gone now– moved on. That's the problem with design, that's the Faustian deal you make with the agency. The work forevever remains associated with the agency and talent comes and goes.
I don't think people who comission design are really aware of this. A good company will continue to attract gifted designers and the quality of output will roughly remain the same. Yet this does'nt last for long, everyone has their 'purple-patch' and then it's back to producing 'prison art'!

The real problem with Wolff Olins is that their a corporate machine and they deal with banal corporate clients. They are never going to take risks or be experimental, that's just not what they do. Actually, the other problem is that they're not attracting the talent either.

Good design is the curation of flow, the controlling of "shir". How users, designers, clients and (roadies and U-jobbers) all interact and make together– for better or worse.

kester

"The real problem with Wolff Olins is that their a corporate machine and they deal with banal corporate clients. They are never going to take risks or be experimental, that's just not what they do."

Doesn't that contradict the fact that they've created this? Wasn't this clearly a risk?

Wonder where the do you think the ideas came from - some sort of Tiswas nostalgia? Personally I think they just went down a blind alley after Coe had won the bid with lots in their presentation about impacting 'street' kids.

nic

Not really a contradiction. The confusion comes as they are presenting something that is poorly executed as ‘edgy’– mistaking naivety for creativity.

Makeesha

exactly nic. Just because something is weird or badly executed doesn't make it edgy. But again, I'm sure some would argue that's an opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Endorsed by...

See all Endorsements...
and reviews.

Tip Jar

Tip Jar