Milton Glaser Analyzes Olympic Logo Design Through The Ages - Eye On Design

06.08.
2016
MltonGlaserAnalyzesOlympcLogoDesgnThroughtheAges|EyeonDesgn
Graphic design
On a Scale from 1-100, Milton Glaser Rates Every

Single Olympic Logo Design inHistory
Not very successful.
By Emily Gosling
August 1, 2016
Theres been much controversy recently around Olympic logo design, but
lets not forget the rich and varying narrative the Games graphic design
has weaved over the decades. Ahead of Rio 2016, who better to cast their
eyes and critical judgement over the good, the bad, and the ugly of logo
design for Olympics past, present, and future than Milton Glaser? Here he
is.
Paris Summer Olympics 1924

Bad beginning, the elements are unrelated visually and the imagery is
confusing. The surprinted lettering is unreadable.
Score: 20 out of 100
https://eyeondesgn.aga.org/mltonglaseranalyzesolympclogodesgnthroughtheages/
1/26
06.08.2016
Lake Placid Winter Olympics 1932

The imagery is clear, but not elegant. The color is e ective, and helps
understanding. The typography is peculiar and unpleasant.
Los Angeles Summer Olympics 1932

A visual disaster; combining the rings, a laurel leaf and the American
shield in an overlapping pattern is impossible. The typography goes on its
own unrelated way.
2/26
06.08.2016
Garmisch-Partenkirchen Winter Olympics 1936

Banal and without any graphic intensity, but at least understandable.
Berlin Summer Olympics 1936

Strange and lacking focus. The Olympic rings become subordinated to the
eagle and bell forms. The spirit of the Olympics is totally absent.
3/26
06.08.2016
St. Moritz Winter Olympics 1948

A curious solution that looks like a travel brochure cover. All the elements
refuse to relate to one another. The e ect is ordinary and dull.
London Summer Olympics 1948

This logo reveals that not all images will work together. The rings and
parliament remain unrelated. The typography is sad.
4/26
06.08.2016
Oslo Winter Olympics 1952

The architectural form behind the rings remains a mystery, but
overlapping them has little merit. There is no excitement here.
Helsinki Summer Olympics 1952

The peculiarity between the architecture and the rings in this case
becomes strangely memorable. At best it is clear. The combination of blue
and white is pleasant.
Score: 40 out 100
5/26
06.08.2016
Cortina dAmpezzo Winter Olympics 1956

The natural rendering of the mountains combines well with the Olympic
rings. The complex edge of the logo creates some energy, but the
complexity is unpleasant. There is an all-over sense of fussiness.
Score: 45 out 100
Melbourne and Stockholm Summer Olympics 1956

Resembles a bookplate more than an Olympic event. Too many elements
involved; the torch, the continent, the rings, the lozenge, and laurel
leaves. Too much of everything.
6/26
06.08.2016
Squaw Valley, California Winter 1960

Not bad. The star form is distinctive and unusual. It contains the rings
e ectively and plays well against the circle of typography. It has a fresh
look to it.
Score: 80 out 100
Rome Summer Olympics 1960

Combining the symbol of Rome, the date and the rings in a single
sculptural image works here. It has strength and memorability.
Score: 80 out 100
7/26
06.08.2016
Innsbruck Winter Olympics 1964

A clear arrangement of elements although the white form which is
derived from the coat of arms of Innsbruck would be incomprehensible to
the average viewer. The typography really doesnt want to curve around
that way.
Tokyo Summer Olympics 1964

Appropriately redacted and without any confusion. The parts t.
Score: 92 out 100
8/26
06.08.2016
Grenoble Winter Olympics 1968

The mark seems overly decorative with the ower form conveying little
information. It feels more like a fashion event than a sport competition.
Mexico Summer 1968

The graphic idea is strong, but the detail of execution creates an
illegibleelement where the 68 engage the Olympic rings. On the other
hand, there is a visual excitement here.
9/26
06.08.2016
Sapporo Winter 1972

All the visual elements are put together in a clear and convincing layout.
The stylized snow ake design adds distinction because it deviates from
the other familiar elements of Olympic communications.
Munich Summer 1972
10/26
06.08.2016
This graphic icon eliminates all the historical references of the Olympics,
most notably the rings. It is a powerful abstraction, but could be used for
almost any event. Because it seems unfocused on expressing the Olympics
its hard to relate its e ectiveness.
Montreal Summer 1976

In this case the rings have been transformed into the initial M for
Montreal. This fact is of course impossible to understand by virtue of the
logo itself. Does it matter if you can see the M? I think not. Nevertheless
the mark is professional and clear. Perhaps more appropriate for a
manufacturer of paper towels.
11/26
06.08.2016
Lake Placid Winter 1980

The origin of this mark was a reference to the Olympic column on the left
combined with a mountain rangein the Adirondacks. It produces a
peculiar and nally unrecognizable form. It has some graphic energy, but
the meaning is obscure and di cult to justify.
Moscow Summer 1980

The Russian tower topped by a star and supported by the rings create an
attenuated and unusual image. The typography is clearly added on,
unrelated to the image. Not very successful.
12/26
06.08.2016
Sarajevo Winter 1984

The introduction of a snow ake-like image seems to have a more editorial
content than is obvious;we are puzzled by the peculiar construction of
the snow ake and wonder about its meaning. Fortunately the
combination of the rings and the words Sarajevo 84 are
straightforward.
Los Angeles Summer 1984

The moving stars is e ectively done and unexpected. The other elements
are directly added and do not feel out of place.
13/26
06.08.2016
Calgary Winter 1988

Justi cation for the trademark is the letter C and Canada.
Unfortunately the resulting form looks more Islamic than Olympic.
Seoul Summer 1988

Although the mark is unfamiliar, it has signi cant impact and relates to
the rings below. As a result, the entire visualization feels harmonious.
14/26
06.08.2016
Albertville Winter 1992

This design feels its trying too hard. The x over the ame with the blue
and red stroke below is confusing. The thin lines around the ame seem
extraneous. The mark has the bene t of being clear.
Barcelona Summer 1992

This mark is unexpectedly convincing. The 3 strokes representing the
human gure have a good scale relationship to the world Barcelona 92
and the rings.
15/26
06.08.2016
Lillehammer Winter 1994

Its very di cult to understand the white architectural image in the blue
box unless its a stadium. The idea of the aurora borealis was an
opportunity not to taken advantage of. Putting the words to Lillehammer
94 under the rings helps the coherence of the mark.
Atlanta Summer 1996

After one deduces that the image is of aGreek column supporting rey
stars, the feeling remains that the attempt is too clever for its own good.
16/26
06.08.2016
Finally it doesnt hold together as a single experience.

Nagano Winter 1998

The ower image made out of bodies in motion is convincing and active.
It feels like an event that you want to attend, and harmonized well with
the typography and the Olympic rings.
Sydney Summer 2000
17/26
06.08.2016
The gestural quality of the drawing and the typography makes the entire
mark feel harmonious.
Salt Lake City Winter 2002

The image of a snow ake is executed here to represent the sun over a
mountain and to re ect the colors of the local landscape. This may not be
attainable, but the mark is well executed and professional.
Athens Summer 2004

18/26
06.08.2016
The olive branch representing the games is executed in a fresh and

unexpected way. Because it looks less like a corporate logo, we feel more
a ectionate toward it. The blue feels right re ecting both the event and
Athens at the same time.
Torino Winter 2006

This mark is ambiguous and di cult to understand; a relationship to
technology is insu cient. It attempts to appear contemporary, but its
nally unconvincing.
19/26
06.08.2016
Beijing Summer 2008

The brush like quality of white gure on the red eld and the lettering
both convey the sense of Chinese calligraphy. The elements work together
without di culty.
Vancouver Winter 2010

The ambiguity of the central gure once again creates some di culty in
understanding. To most viewers I suspect it will not immediately or
inevitably represent Canada. In graphic terms, it is attractive and works
in the layout.
20/26
06.08.2016
London Summer 2012

Like all transgressions, this treatment causes controversy. As an assembly
of forms, I nd it unattractive. But, because of its aggression, it persists
in memory. It raises the old question of the struggle between novelty and
familiarity.
Sochi Winter Olympics 2014

This deviation from the assumptions of the historical Olympic logos
cannot be criticized within the same framework as all the others.
Although I must admit in my point of view, it seems inappropriate and
21/26
06.08.2016
unattractive. Consequently, I dont feel it generates a desire to attend the

event by virtue of its appearance onits own.
Rio Summer 2016

A presentation that looks fresh and contemporary. The athletes joining
hands at the top are executed in a way thatworks well with the other
elements. It feels like something new.
PyeongChang Winter 2018
22/26
06.08.2016
This design raises the old question of how important it is that the
references created by the symbol are understood by the audiences that
witness them. In this case, the complexity surrounding the origin of the
mark makes the understanding unlikely. Additionally, there is a sense of
fragmentation that interferes with understanding.
Tokyo Summer 2020

There is too much con ict about the nal choice for the Tokyo Olympics
2020 logo, but the issue has raised some fascinating questions about the
nature of plagiarism in the graphic arts.
Score: TBD
23/26
06.08.2016
Beijing Winter Olympics 2022

In this example, the attempt to unify the image and the number 2022 as
resulted in making the number 2 look like a Z when some problems are
solved, others are created. Understanding the meaning of the image at
the moment is di cult.
24/26
06.08.2016
25/26
06.08.2016
26/26

Milton Glaser Analyzes Olympic Logo Design Through The Ages - Eye On Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Milton Glaser Analyzes Olympic Logo Design Through The Ages - Eye On Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

06.08.

On a Scale from 1-100, Milton Glaser Rates Every

Paris Summer Olympics 1924

Lake Placid Winter Olympics 1932

Los Angeles Summer Olympics 1932

Garmisch-Partenkirchen Winter Olympics 1936

Berlin Summer Olympics 1936

St. Moritz Winter Olympics 1948

London Summer Olympics 1948

Oslo Winter Olympics 1952

Helsinki Summer Olympics 1952

Cortina dAmpezzo Winter Olympics 1956

Melbourne and Stockholm Summer Olympics 1956

Squaw Valley, California Winter 1960

Rome Summer Olympics 1960

Innsbruck Winter Olympics 1964

Tokyo Summer Olympics 1964

Grenoble Winter Olympics 1968

Mexico Summer 1968

Sapporo Winter 1972

Munich Summer 1972

Montreal Summer 1976

Lake Placid Winter 1980

Moscow Summer 1980

Sarajevo Winter 1984

Los Angeles Summer 1984

Calgary Winter 1988

Seoul Summer 1988

Albertville Winter 1992

Barcelona Summer 1992

Lillehammer Winter 1994

Atlanta Summer 1996

Finally it doesnt hold together as a single experience.

Nagano Winter 1998

Sydney Summer 2000

Salt Lake City Winter 2002

Athens Summer 2004

The olive branch representing the games is executed in a fresh and

Torino Winter 2006

Beijing Summer 2008

Vancouver Winter 2010

London Summer 2012

Sochi Winter Olympics 2014

unattractive. Consequently, I dont feel it generates a desire to attend the

Rio Summer 2016

PyeongChang Winter 2018

Tokyo Summer 2020

Beijing Winter Olympics 2022

You might also like