Stars treats me like I [censored] her daughter then pushed her home in a cart

[bozlax]

[The Jerk] The new logo is here! The new logo is here! [/Steve Martin]

ZOMG! The Flintstones met up with Soft Cell in 1986 and came up with this for London 2012.

[Buzz-cp]

[ QUOTE ]
[The Jerk] The new logo is here! The new logo is here! [/Steve Martin]

ZOMG! The Flintstones met up with Soft Cell in 1986 and came up with this for London 2012.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is pretty nasty! Either of my daughters could do something better.

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[The Jerk] The new logo is here! The new logo is here! [/Steve Martin]

ZOMG! The Flintstones met up with Soft Cell in 1986 and came up with this for London 2012.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is pretty nasty! Either of my daughters could do something better.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offence, but I can't even remember how often you hear this line at most exhibitions that feature modern art.

I'm not saying that I particularily like their design, but the constructive way to go about this is asking the artist what his idea about it was, and, based on that, trying to decide whether (a) his idea sucks, (b) his idea is cool, but the realisation sucks, (c) idea is cool and the way he got it on paper is pretty cool also, after some reflection, (d) one or both are kinda cool but can be improved upon by doing whatever.

[tyler_cracker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that I particularily like their design, but the constructive way to go about this is asking the artist what his idea about it was, and, based on that, trying to decide whether (a) his idea sucks, (b) his idea is cool, but the realisation sucks, (c) idea is cool and the way he got it on paper is pretty cool also, after some reflection, (d) one or both are kinda cool but can be improved upon by doing whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't art, though; it's a logo. its purpose is very different.

i will now avoid a debate about the value of art that needs extra explanation/context to be meaningful.

[WillS]

£400,000 for a logo that looks like a bunch of polygons performing a sexually lude act on another bunch of polygons.

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that I particularily like their design, but the constructive way to go about this is asking the artist what his idea about it was, and, based on that, trying to decide whether (a) his idea sucks, (b) his idea is cool, but the realisation sucks, (c) idea is cool and the way he got it on paper is pretty cool also, after some reflection, (d) one or both are kinda cool but can be improved upon by doing whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't art, though; it's a logo. its purpose is very different.

i will now avoid a debate about the value of art that needs extra explanation/context to be meaningful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but just because you or I or North-Americans or South-Koreans don't immediately get the message of some logo doesn't mean there isn't a witty/funny/intelligent/whatever point to it. Same as with art.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
£400,000 for a logo that looks like a bunch of polygons performing a sexually lude act on another bunch of polygons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Errrr .... and that does not capture the essense of being british [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[kerowo]

Meh. I hate it when an artist has to explain his work, it's a visual thing, it shouldn't need the explanation. At first glance I didn't even see 2012, which could be my old eyes or an aversion to Salmon, but it's a pretty boring logo. I'm surprised they didn't get more nationalistic and show something more iconically London, like curry...

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I hate it when an artist has to explain his work,

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like being told a joke by a 7-year-old.

"Do ya get it? Huh? Do ya? It's soooooooo funny!"

[tyler_cracker]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but just because you or I or North-Americans or South-Koreans don't immediately get the message of some logo doesn't mean there isn't a witty/funny/intelligent/whatever point to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, but it does mean that it sucks.