Originally posted by rickmiles85
I read on the BBC that this was the winner from about 10,000 applicants or somethng like that. Id hate to see the ones which were declined if this is the quality of the winner. Its absoloutly c$$p! With the quality of some photo and graphical programs such as Adobe Photoshop im almost certain they could design a better logo than that! ...
Using high quality computer software does not make anyone a better designer. It just makes it easier to beam your crap designs worldwide!
Take a moment to think of the technical aspects of creating a logo that will be displayed on everything from supergiant billboards to matchboxes, and the problems that entails.
Then take a moment to think of all the different colour reproduction methods that will be used to recreate this logo on all these different media.
There is more to logo design than simply 'something that looks good'
I think it has a lot going for it. Not overly fanciful or complex, easily recognisable from a distance, will work on flat and curved surfaces, still legible with colour dropouts, doesn't require close registration for colour separation etc. etc.
It's not going to make everyone go "wow what a logo" but that is not the purpose of logo after all.
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—