巨 brand 難為
… … 毋忘六四
posted by 學子 @ 5:58 am
13 comments
5.6.07
About Me
- Name: 學子
- Location: 敦倫 ☞ 康港
生於斯長於斯半變種康港人，同時愛好及厭惡本土文化。關心視覺污染，提倡視覺及精神環保；反思憤世嫉俗後，覺得應該繼續，並且藉終生學習去了解世界及開拓自我空間，full-time 燃點光明，part-time 咒詛黑暗。但願成為一名「唔乞人憎嘅設計人」。 (本 blog 部份內容屬家長指引類別，敬請留意。)
13 Comments:
College new brief :
DESIGN AN ALTERNATIVE OLYMPICS LOGO
Haaa haaa haaa ~~~ !!!
{{ X D
Found it on college on-line blackboard today, posted by Professor Phil Baines … …
‘This is shit, but have a look and see what you think ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/6718243.stm’
off topic
唔知中國仲想用佢個所謂
文化/長遠歷史/東方氣息/古代/紅色/故宮/等等
既feel去sell佢自己sell到幾時呢
激讚!真係好嘉年華(中學果隻XD)!
-----
off topic
「唔知中國仲想用佢個所謂
文化/長遠歷史/東方氣息/古代/紅色/故宮/等等
既feel去sell佢自己sell到幾時呢」
我想這個太難答，但我反而覺得這些不要緊，重點在於官方能否將其想說的表達(最好就「美觀」啦)。
我想，同樣的問題，一樣可以跟法國提問(當然，我沒說鐵塔紅白藍這些就是好材料)。
Bad bad bad execution. But do not deny the bold and unconventional thinking of the team in Wolff Olins. Well, it's London, it's 5 years later. Let's shake away all those fancy curves and human figures in the Olympic-logo-perception. Without the strong will to be provocative and original, there wouldn't be surprising logos like Unilever, (RED), Tate etc. from them. Just wondering what's wrong with the designer.
This logo is long way from being perfect, everyone agrees. But I somehow appreciate the Olympic Committee who stick to it despite the mean crtics from the British public. Don't forget how many good projects were put on hold or even recall due to those conservative public (e.g. V&A new extension by Daniel Libeskind, British Airway tail painting by Landor).
好 80 年代 ~ 正呀 !!!!!!
真係 true bad taste 當道！唔得佢死！
即管睇佢點 evolve 法啦。雖則話死唔改啫，計我話，改硬！
sorry I didn't post my name as I was new to blog, so didn't quite know the mechanisim.
so 莘莘學子 you meant my quote of those logos like Unilever, (RED), Tate Modern are bad taste? What's following is a bit off topic, but worth discussing, I think.
I do appreciate Wolff Olins for their unconventional works.
- 'Tate Modern' has a living logo that appears to be different everytime. It was a new thinking back then;
- 'Unilever' breaks the logo-should-be-simple myth and prove to work;
- '(RED)' plays only with words not marks, still controversial but emotional;
we designers are always to ask unquestionable questions and challenge pre-conceptions. I hope people are more open to new things instead of just criticising.
The 2012 logo is bad in execution, but the idea of kid-drawing-like or graffiti-like concept is good. Says who the Olympic Game has to be solem? It's a new world now, and only in cities like London could try this kinds of bold approach. I couldn't hate the Beijing Olympic logo more as it contains no substains and surprise at all in it.
Big events like this are the best opportunities to provoke new ideology, stir up controverse and step into new world. But too many have been wasted due to bureaucratic or conservative thinking.
We always complain our boss or clients of being too conservative. However, are we sometimes also too confined in our own mind-space?
我認同Seb Coe 以及Tony Blair 的方針
因為佢地一咁講，我立刻會反思到底是不是自己沒有forward thinking
即使那個logo 水準不行，整個branding campaign 若果能夠令人反思，已經大大的成功
學子's comment is so funny xD
for me, the london logo looks like some new distort tertis game logo, isn't it?
jigsaw jigsaw, how come it doesn't fit!?
設計人常言道創新反叛，遇着今云大破格卻群起聲討，看來真的有點於理不合。客人保守就被行家臭駡，今次玩前衛「咁都得」，又苦了設計者被唱，究竟這是否「係又鬧唔係又鬧」？
學子覺得，真的不應全怪責 Wolff Olins。一件設計品，尤其大單嘢，是設計者和客戶共同的產物，兩邊皆有責任。但究竟這「No go」背後有乜內情則不得而知了。
「No go」最大的缺點在於過份抽象，留下了太多思考空界予受眾，成為了一個性格 (形象) 與訊息皆不鮮明的符號，接近「無里頭」「亂噏」。甚麼「針對青年人」「人人有份」，講到底，都係「行嘢」；難道不高舉類似旗幟，人們會誤會奧運是「純為老人 (成人) 而設」「專業運動員獨享」嗎？跟世界盃一樣，奧運不必多提，經已是全人類活動吧。
醜怪而不實用，反而令人難忘、引起關注、觸發討論，如果這些「好處」是作者「專登的」，學子心服口服。但事後先孔明，那，倒不如認真地考慮朿冊封董生為「康港民主之父」吧！
其實即使要"前衛", "破格", "創新", 可以有一個更好既execution. 而家我諗個問題唔係在於"前衛"與保守派既單純鬥爭.
well, I've heard it described as "Lisa Simpson giving head"...
Just dropping by 'cause of your comments on the toledo plagarism (?) post
Post a Comment
<< Home