I thought this video was really cool. I didn't realize that the icons for the Olympics were developed so early on, 1936 to be exact.
They are a smart development for international design because anyone, from any country can "read" them. I love the idea of there simplicity. It's crazy to think that so many sets have been developed for the Olympics, since the events stay the same. Steven Heller, the author of this video claims that only few of the sets have reached success, including the 1968 Mexico Olympics and the 1972 Munich games. As well as the more recent 2008 Bejing games & the 2004 Athens games.
It seems hard to me to develop a new set every 2 or so years, because the icons are already so simple & beautiful & I guess this is the challenge. What I see in the icons that Steven calls successful is a little bit of the host country showing through. Bejing's used flowy lines, similar to their handwriting. Athens are slightly primitive. And Mexico's were psychedelic.
All in all, I think the designers of the Olympic icons take on a challenging undertaking and must strive to be unique. At the same time they have to look back to why selective past icons were successful and draw from that.
Using the same idea of human forms as pictograms for the olympics every two years, while trying to make them a little bit different, or stand out from the previous years would be so difficult. There isn't a ton to work with, and I'm sure that for the olympics they have amazing designers working on the pictograms. Little variations of something that is already so simple is a huge and difficult task. It was cool to see in the video how they have already been changed in the past, and it was pretty obvious the ones that worked and the ones that didn't. It will be really interesting to see how designers will continue to evolve the symbols, if the symbols will change entirely (to perhaps text), or if they will continue to go back and use previous years symbols. It's really cool to see the evolution of them already, and will definitely take a closer look at what is used from this point on.
It is interesting how in depth you can go into with an Icon. It is also wildly confusing how far off you can get when trying to deliver such a simple message. Working to design the pictograms that were shown in the video is an impressive and challenging feet. I think it would be interesting to see a whole class come up with a deviation of the original Munich designs. It is so hard to simplify things sometimes.
Pictograms are such a huge part of today's global culture, that I completely understand the artistic frustrations of trying to reinvent these icons. The typical "restroom style" icons have been around for decades, and like Anna said, I can't imagine having to revisit these simple forms for the same sports every 2-4 years! I knew that they were incorporated into every olympic games, but they've never really stood out to me as great examples of icons. I don't know that I would agree with Steven Heller when he praises the Beijing and Athens olympic pictograms. Out of all the examples that he showed, I don't think any of them were as effectively clean and succinct as those that were done in the 1930s or 1970s. So although we've reinvented aesthetics year after year, I don't think that any huge improvements have been made.
1. What design issues are you interested in? 2. What is your dream collaboration? 3. Compare your fashion style to your GD style. 4. What is your ideal work environment? 5. Response to Ira Glass on good taste. 6. Write a story
I thought this video was really cool. I didn't realize that the icons for the Olympics were developed so early on, 1936 to be exact.
ReplyDeleteThey are a smart development for international design because anyone, from any country can "read" them. I love the idea of there simplicity. It's crazy to think that so many sets have been developed for the Olympics, since the events stay the same. Steven Heller, the author of this video claims that only few of the sets have reached success, including the 1968 Mexico Olympics and the 1972 Munich games. As well as the more recent 2008 Bejing games & the 2004 Athens games.
It seems hard to me to develop a new set every 2 or so years, because the icons are already so simple & beautiful & I guess this is the challenge. What I see in the icons that Steven calls successful is a little bit of the host country showing through. Bejing's used flowy lines, similar to their handwriting. Athens are slightly primitive. And Mexico's were psychedelic.
All in all, I think the designers of the Olympic icons take on a challenging undertaking and must strive to be unique. At the same time they have to look back to why selective past icons were successful and draw from that.
Using the same idea of human forms as pictograms for the olympics every two years, while trying to make them a little bit different, or stand out from the previous years would be so difficult. There isn't a ton to work with, and I'm sure that for the olympics they have amazing designers working on the pictograms. Little variations of something that is already so simple is a huge and difficult task. It was cool to see in the video how they have already been changed in the past, and it was pretty obvious the ones that worked and the ones that didn't.
ReplyDeleteIt will be really interesting to see how designers will continue to evolve the symbols, if the symbols will change entirely (to perhaps text), or if they will continue to go back and use previous years symbols. It's really cool to see the evolution of them already, and will definitely take a closer look at what is used from this point on.
It is interesting how in depth you can go into with an Icon. It is also wildly confusing how far off you can get when trying to deliver such a simple message. Working to design the pictograms that were shown in the video is an impressive and challenging feet. I think it would be interesting to see a whole class come up with a deviation of the original Munich designs. It is so hard to simplify things sometimes.
ReplyDeletePictograms are such a huge part of today's global culture, that I completely understand the artistic frustrations of trying to reinvent these icons. The typical "restroom style" icons have been around for decades, and like Anna said, I can't imagine having to revisit these simple forms for the same sports every 2-4 years! I knew that they were incorporated into every olympic games, but they've never really stood out to me as great examples of icons. I don't know that I would agree with Steven Heller when he praises the Beijing and Athens olympic pictograms. Out of all the examples that he showed, I don't think any of them were as effectively clean and succinct as those that were done in the 1930s or 1970s. So although we've reinvented aesthetics year after year, I don't think that any huge improvements have been made.
ReplyDelete