ISO50

Yeah, i did not like the London one at first— there is something about it though, it has defiantly grown on me. 1984-1992 are the worst in my opinion- they just remind me off IT company logo’s IBM, Microsoft etc.. Helsinki and Melbourne are 2 i really like out of these lot.

Your right, that opening ceremony was off the hook crazy— i do however know how they did most of the big LCD’s/Projections, i’m pretty certain these guys done it, Electric Canvas (http://www.theelectriccanvas.com.au/) Amazing stuff and a whole lot of pixels.

’64, ’68, ’76 & ’80 ftw.

At least the 2012 isn’t a city skyline silhouette, or worse a plan view of the Thames. But it’s too fashionable for my taste.

There is something about seeing the entire progression of logos that makes the London 2012 logo look pretty good, or at least like it fits. All the logos seem to represent certain design ideals at that point in time and that is what it looks like the London designers were trying to do, instead of mimicking the 60’s or 80’s logos.

i think the 2012 logo has been really blown out of proportion. i mean its no iso50 design, but it is still better than the atlanta one. geeze, and people want a 90’s resurgance! whyyyyyy????????!!??!?!

this was a great post of some very iconic logos. thanks for posting all of this!

You know, I also like the London more than any other logo post-1988.

personally i am thrilled that the london 2012 logo is not bland! the last 4/5 logos are very middle of the road. I think its a shame the logo that makes the rounds everywhere is the pink and yellow version, which is just one of many options. Also its not just a static logo, but something that works pretty well in motion.

I’m sorry but the London 2012 logo still looks like Lisa Simpson giving some dude a BJ.

Love or hate it the London 2012 logo really shows where design is headed. The next big design look is ugly, and the 2012 logo is a prime example. Say good by to layered, beautiful design. I think we’ll start to see more and more stuff that looks like your 5 year old nephew drew it in a cheep vector app.

Where are the winter olympic logos?

1. After watching the opening ceremonies, China shown me that beside copy and paste, China has man power and labor.
2. Where are all the designers? The Olympic Logo design gets worst every year.

The 1980’s logo looks like it could be listed right next to one of your ISO50 posters, amazing how design trends come and go.

Helsinki is surprisingly weak. I guess it’s “modern” but so what? If a similar logo were submitted by the Chinese for 2008 you would all be saying how boring it is.

Rome 1960 is great! The use of shading is a strange move but it works. I like how it’s an anti-modernist logo in 1960.

Mexico 68 is obviously the gold standard here. The best Olympic logo by a long shot. I can’t believe anyone is actually defending Montreal 76 though. It’s such an ugly generic piece of crap. It’s exactly as generic in a mid 70s way as all of those crappy mid 90s logos. It reminds me of something like McDonalds signage circa 1980. And the ’80 logo isn’t much better. These designers were still just riffing off of the amazing Mexico ’68 logo all of these years later.

I also don’t see how Seoul is “inexplicably bad” yet LA ’84 gets a pass. Not that it’s great or anything but I see a pretty consistent run of mediocrity starting with Montreal 76 and running all the way up to the present.

I think this just comes down to where the cutoff lies in your personal taste for the styles of different decades. Can anyone explain why Athens 04 is somehow intrinsically bad from a design point of view but Montreal isn’t?

No logos for Winter Games?

i spent hours pouring over some hoity toity blog a year or so ago (?) about that 2012 logo. there were some very interesting things said, but at the end of the day i feel that my BS detector cuts through all the cerebral musings and it just doesn’t feel good. i dunno, i actually don’t have a hate on for the 2012 part, except i don’t understand why the 2 has been decapitated, but the main thing that just kills it for me is the ‘n’ and the ‘d’ in london. friggin’ terrible.

I agree that Mexico is the standout. On the other hand I dislike Montreal – I’ve seen it before and it’s always annoyed me. I’ve always liked the Barcelona logo because it’s bright and dynamic, and moving away from the corporate feel of the 80s logos. I’m not a fan of the London logo, although I think it’s interesting that it’s moved away from using the Olympic colours.

’64 is unbeatable.

bleh @ ’84 and on…
i wonder what happened.

Dude… you just lost all respect for complimenting that logo. That hurts.

Few seem to have noted that the logo designs very much follow the dominant schools of thought of their time. You’ll note the jarring design change between ’88 and ’92 (right about the time populist post-modern aesthetics entered the arena – speaking of arenas, check out Barcelona’s Olympic Stadium design and contrast it with the space age designs of Tokyo, Munich and Montreal…this explains a lot). L.A. and Seoul, though still “Modern”, carry transitional elements: they are not purely abstract forms (as are ’72 and ’76), nor are they as pared down as their 70s predecessors…they are simple and geometric, yes, but slightly “tarted up” as much early 80s po-mo design was, yet, as the Olympics are a highly conservative entity, the designers no doubt still felt the need to cling to the dominant idea of a logo (ie; a simple shape, minimal as possible). To argue that designs are “bad” or “good” relies on taking into account the sensibility of the time, and asking ourselves, what is the logo supposed to do? Though I am personally a fan of ’64-’76 (because I’m a freakazoid Modernist) I have to pause and measure each logo as a design idea within the design hegemony of its time and ask, “Is it successful? Why or why not?” Case in point: though I’m not a fan of it, I think Barcelona’s logo is highly successful. Atlanta is cluttered (because it is trying to communicate too many ideas and to allude to too much at once), Sydney is derivative of Barcelona and, similar to Atlanta, overburdened (too many boomerang references). Both Athens and Beijing work because they return to the minimalism we normally ascribe to logos, though their forms are classical and not really all that groundbreaking as design statements.

I really like the Atlanta one. I can’t see why it gets hated on so much. It looks good in passing but there’s more to find if you take it in…I like it.

I have a theory that the designer of the 2012 logo knew he didn’t need to spend too much time on it…because if the Mayans were right we’re all gonna die in a fire anyway. :P

Russia. hands down. they invented graphic design and apparently the best olympic logo in over a century.

win mexico…decidedly

I prefer Montreal, ’76. And that Chicago logo is just awesome.
I think Sydney’s and Barcelona’s logos are really aweful. And I don’t see the beauty in London’s new logo either.

I have to agree with some of the comments, I consider Mexico ’68 to be the best. For me it has a 60’s aesthetic but the design is also quite loud, much like the late 60’s so I think it’s fitting. I’m not offended by Montreal like the others; that screams 70’s to me. Any of the logos with dancing/leaping individuals are unimaginative. Eve, I’m totally jealous of your flea market find.

LONDON GT IHT TWICE NOT FAIR ~!!!!!~

BRING IHT TO NZ MICHAETL PHEPLZ SUK

Reading the comments below is very interesting, most people like the Mexico 68, why, because its completely different, there’s a consistent format to each logo, and doesn’t really express the true nature of the host city with the possible exception of Sydney 2000.

Why is that, many reason I guess, conservative approach, lack balls from the Olympic organisers, or dare i say bad design!

The one thing you can say about the London 2012 identity it bucks the trend, Lord Coe said “We don’t do bland – this is not a bland city”

It’s a refreshing, vibrant logo and last Sunday, cutting through a well rehearse, staged managed, corporate end of games show piece the logo blaze into life, full of attiude, dymamnis, colour and fun. This what london will be like.

Its not a thing of beauty granted, but it captures the essence of a thriving, bustling, multicultral, vibrant city. I believe its the only Olympic logo that has conveyed the true spirit of the host city, and as the brand rolls out over the coming months, you will agree it’s up there with the best of them.

Wow that Chicago old logo is beautiful…”gradients on a logo” rule breaking and all. Reminds me of something like a fantasy book cover. The newer one is nice too – but that old one is just awesome. The London reminds me of a throw back to the movie “Class Act” with Kid n Play. Early 90s design isn’t without its tragedies.

Mexico 68 is my favorite.

Tokyo 64 and Montreal 76 by far the best Olympic logos of the century. Timeless. There was a comment about how these modernist logos don’t really capture the flavo(u)r of the host city. Not true. (Well, I can’t comment on Tokyo 64 since I have never been there, and wasn’t born yet at that time, but …) Montreal 76 is awesome. aerodin’s posted link is helpful. Canada in the 70s was really embracing modern minimalist art and architecture. The logo really reflects the time, the place and the Olympic connection is so strong. The rings, the podiums, and am I the only one to see a hint of the maple leaf in that logo? Not to mention the strongest logo to apply to Olympic merch, which was becoming extremely important when considering a final design.

as technology evolves, the design becomes less meaningful and less refined. i like the 64, 68, 72, 80. It is apleasure to see the design periphery of these times, especially mexico and germany. In times where designers build and steer global brands it seems to be unimportant to analyse and reflect in issues of form, function, color, typography and (the bad word…) tradition.