http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/jan/10/rio-brand-olympic-games-logos

For visual-art’s sake, I’ll admit it is different, provocative, and a conversation-generator… an “example” of existing successful creations. Most folk are not art-connoisseurs and don’t care about the “science” of graphic/visual-art. I’ll assume the general-public will find the choice for London 2012… questionable.

In conclusion, the Olympic event should define the logo and hopefully… not the other way around.

I also rather like the Athens one. A nice hand-drawn touch.

Vancouver 2010 — I remember the outburst in the design community when this logo first came out. “Too many colours!” I didn’t particularly care for it at first, but it grew on me. The inukshuk is a landmark in British Columbia, and there are several Native tribes in BC alone. I cannot stress how much the Natives have suffered in Canada what with the Indian Act (1876) and so on, so for them to be represented on a grand scale for a world event was wonderful.

London 2012 — I hate it. I can’t understand it, it clashes, it’s one of those outrageously expensive abstract things (statues, paintings, etc) that people ooh and ahh over in hip highbrow shindigs. They like to instill “meaning” into it, and in this case it took a year apparently to get the logo “just right” (ha) but it’s still just abstract art that no one gets but supposedly has “meaning!”.