At first glance, the London 2012 Olympics logo does not say unity or anything remotely close to the Olympic mission. It is hard to look at, and as editor Terri Stone states, jagged. But then, I am not from jolly olde London. What do the British graphmeisters say?

Meanwhile... children are starving in Ethiopia.

i2eye wrote - "This logo is great comapared to the 2010 Vancouver logo. See: www.vancouver2010.com for something really scary. Their logo says even less about that host city than London's."

I can't disagree more - see this url - http://www.vancouver2010.com/en/LookVancouver2010/Vancouver2010OlympicGamesEmblem

I think the official logo truly sucks. It has no character whatsoever. It's just a random shape tossed up there like the latest "modern art". It doesn't even give either "London" or the Olympics a major visual place. If you missed the Olympic rings logo within, it could represent almost anything.

I don't like it!

Lee Eschen

This logo is great comapared to the 2010 Vancouver logo. See: www.vancouver2010.com for something really scary. Their logo says even less about that host city than London's.

To put it nicely, this logo looks VERY amateur and is not an appropriate reflection of London designers. It is also illegible (for the reader who asked "I see ZOR; what does it stand for???", it is intended to be 2012) If adults can't see that how are the youth that they were targeting going to?

I'm beginning to think that this decade will be remembered as a low point in logo design. I can't remember another period with as many dogs (and I'm older than the editor).

The logo they've selected says NOTHING about London -the spirit, diversity or icons of the great city. I agree with you that Ryan J. Fuller's version speaks to those of us who consider London a second home.

As a resident of another major metropolis...the London logo reminds me of the graffitti seen (and still being seen) on buildings, subway trains and elsewhere. The best of it was/is great...the worst...well just bad. I can see how this logo can pull apart and identify venues and so forth...but it is too complicated, dated and saddest if all - it looks like the result of a committe decision. It is memorable in the same way a toothache is not easily forgotten.

"Dynamical" is likely not a real word yet...but I agree with jkantor. Here's a logomark that breaks most every classical rule and IMO gets away with it. I admit that without the labels, it would lose its identification. But I saw it first and foremost as an oddly configured map of the city (is that the Thames running awkwardly through it?) I believe this should have a chance to live: stirring controversy precisely the way Frank Lloyd Wright might have gone at it.

What a waste of time and valuable resources. There are so many talented designers out there, how could this be the final identity?!!

What a sad, sad day for design.

One word: Yikes! This design is pretty off-putting and more than likely designed by a camel committee. What's the conceptual intention here? Landmasses colliding, dancing placards, a crack-fueled hallucination? Correct me but isn’t the intention of the games to promote spirited competition without xenophobic rancor? This logo design features jagged shapes against jagged shapes; symbols of strife in ANY culture. The implied disjointed movement indicates struggle AGAINST harmony. And the colors are straight out of a Crayola box.
The substitute designs (one is mildly amusing the other really fuddy-duddy) represent a very weak response from the design community. C’mon people, break out some real ideas even if it’s not for a payday. The misguided Olympic trustees might be embarrassed by riches enough to change this horrific thing. I’m gonna do my bit. Bad design diminishes us all, commercially and spiritually.

My first conjured vision of the logo was the Rock'em Sock'em Robots boxing game. Block robots fighting it out. But Randy the Rooster here at work sees an adult act with the male on the left and a woman on the right.

Unbelievable ...

"Dynamical" is likely not a real word yet...but I agree with jkantor. Here's a logomark that breaks most every classical rule and IMO gets away with it. I admit that without the labels, it would lose its identification. But I saw it first and foremost as an oddly configured map of the city (is that the Thames running awkwardly through it?) I believe this should have a chance to live: stirring controversy precisely the way Frank Lloyd Wright might have gone at it.

where is the focus suppose to be??? It makes me nauseous!

How can they look at themselves in the mirror each morning and be proud of that project? They can, however, look at themselves in awe that they pulled off the greatest heist in years...400,000 pounds. The designers should be ashamed of themselves.

I can not tell anymore because i am stanned and speechles in horror.

All the hoopla and awards go to British design these days. But it's garbage. All vintage line drawings of birds, girls and butterflies with neon colors splashed willy-nilly. I'm 43, considered old, I suppose, but bad design is bad design. The Olympics logo could not be worse. In five years it will be just as bad.

Anyone who has designed a mark that has to pass a committee has to really take a stand to sell it. I would be more interested in seeing the evolution that resulted in this mark. It seems to reflect the plans to radically develop that part of London as well as the plan to have all the olympic stadium locations clustered together in a central group that is even within walking distance of each other. It would work well large or small and can be recognizable broken into pieces or used as a background for individual game icons. Works for me. EGraphicDesign

I received a notice from HP this morning for free downloads of LightScribe, one of the designs called "graffiti" has a similar look. Hmmm, does anyone think graffiti is what the designers were reaching for?

While a few have (in my opinion) overly intellectualized the merit of the logo design, the general consensus I get is that it's bad. Horrid is my adjective of choice.

Despite the "intellectual" arguments made on the logo's behalf, if it takes a PhD to understand the concept, or worse, a news byte from the Today Show, it is a failed piece of work. You can make as many lofty statements as you want, but if it looks like a lemon, and smells like a lemon, it's a lemon. And in this case, a very, VERY, expensive lemon.

After reading the first entry of this feedback, I decided to look for myself. Here is a link to a nice article ... we should ALL read it http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/london_2012/article1909770.ece

. . . is a great visual representation of pain.

I really hope that this logo is the product of an unwavering, inflexible olympic committee than the best work of the designer who created it. It's atrocious, unreadable, and leaves no real impression of the importance of the event or the stature of the grand city it's being held in.