So Vancouver has a new 2010 Olympics logo. . . And, as usual, Canadians aren’t happy. What’s to complain about?

It looks Canadian to me! It smiles, even though you can’t tell why. It has a politically correct stance to it. As a two-dimensional design it smiles to the “right”. As a potentially humungous three dimensional Canada Goose type sculpture it would smile to the “left” too - so that’s good, that’s Canadian. . . Its outstretched arms are all embracing. So that’s “nice” too. It's stance is reminiscent of a goal-tender? Hmmmm? Now, that's a stretch of the imagination! Rather, it appears to have a potbelly, thick legs and be more akin to an inactive tv-watching type. So I guess that makes “him” a good symbol for a sizable portion of our society: i.e.: sedentary, plump and pleasant.

Oh, but you say it’s supposed to represent a “sports event" - be an Olympic type thingy - representing ALL Canadians???” Oh!!!!! Then, no, I don’t think it works. Seriously: What IS a logo’s purpose?

• Since the first caveman wall coverings, a logo has always been a symbol, a design which unites by representing similarities within a collective - not the differences within that community.
• A logo must symbolize what is like-minded in “all” of the represented units in a group.
• A logo should be generic enough to leave no one feeling “left out” - even “dissing” by ignoring even one individual unit or group, within a communal context, is a no-no.
• Good logos are generally the result of extensive research.
• Logos, overall, should represent the “activity” or community being promoted - in this case, the Olympic Games. From a design sense one would presume that qualifiers such as movement, activity, thrust, daring, power, competitiveness, strength, unity, etc. would have been considered viable descriptives of a potential design. The concept of being welcoming - (which is the adamant defense of the unveiled logo) is generally a given in any worthy design. It is therefore not something to consider as desperately as it seems to have been in this particular presentation.

Nonetheless, the welcome context seems to predominate in both the minds of the Games people and the designers. This bizarre need to emphasize a literal “welcome” is somewhat visually strange. The 1998 Nagano logo - in all of its lively cherry blossom petal dance - was a perfect identifier of a specific host group and said welcome without “saying so”. I guess the 21st century is not as visually literate as our computer screens would pretend we are. But sadly, the very fact that “welcome” is being promoted with such intensity conveys more a situation of national insecurity than self-assurance.

Last but not least (visual literacy aside) as a possible symbol of our athletes. Well, cute, cuddly and cushiony does not say muscle power or “potential medal winners”. Sorry! - 27-04-05