[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/gd/ - Graphic Design

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Additional supported file types are: PDF
  • There are 18 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: lmaoo.jpg (72 KB, 640x714)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
2012 London Olympics
>>
>>366396
Not even a bad logo
>>
>>350007
>>
>>366396
I actually really like this one. No clue why it gets so much shit
>>
>>366396
>>
File: graphic-design.jpg (136 KB, 460x290)
136 KB
136 KB JPG
>>366411
it's very interesting on its own, but IMO it was not appropriate for the context. something so edgy couldn't fly well with a global event for general audience which your average Joe watches. and IMO it doesn't say "London" at all.
>>
>>366417
It was relevant at the time. There was a lot of olympic branding and advertisement all over Britain in the year leading up to it, the design became pretty common and seemed to attract public eye.
>>
>>366444
relevant? maybe, depends on what you mean. appropriate? wouldn't say so. many hated it for how edgy it was. could as well slap brutalism there next time.
>>
>>366396
Every time I doubt my talents, I remember this shit exists
>>
I don't hate it, but it feels like something you'd see on a Nickelodeon t-shirt from 1995.
>>
>>366417
>doesn't say "London" at all
It's right there
>>
>>366396
I can't tell what it's even supposed to look like. Unless it's a dude getting sucked off.
>>
>>366415
How sneedesque
>>
>>366537
I mean the image itself. compare it to most other identities, they reflect the location quite well. London 2012 doesn't do it at all.
>>
>>366587
Sydney 2000 and Beijing 2008 are the best ones.
>>
>>366587
>Atlanta 1996
This one is nostalgic for me, personally. It's nice to know it's a good design on top of that.
>>
>>366587
Pretty much every other olympic logo looks like it's been taken off some generic stock logo website.
>>
>>366590
you like that lil guy running huh
>>
>>366614
that's a dumb opinion. nearly all these logos are relevant to their locations and reflect olympics well. and yeah, they're simple, duh. welcome to graphic design.
>>
>>366396
The second 2 is trash but it's not that bad.
>>
>multicult dystopian police state arab spreekillers and child transexual prostitutes and gay sodomites city rapidly wiping out its heritage goes with clashing pomo fagbug eyesore

now imagine short pudgy round inbredfaced burgeouse englishman or woman with double chin signing this saying high-pitched "..cheeeeeeers!"
>>
>>366723
it looks like brush strokes, and I like the font they chose. Personally I like 1980 and Rio.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.