After 14 months of brainstorming, consulting, "brand positioning" and costing some £400,000 , they have produced a design and have announced:-
The new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible. It will work with new technology and across traditional and new media networks.
It will become London 2012's visual icon, instantly recognisable amongst all age groups, all around the world. It will establish the character and identity of the London 2012 Games and what the Games will symbolise nationally and internationally."
Some people have greeted the new design as bold, daring and breaking the mould of previous, and what some have said were more conservative, Olympic logo designs.
Not everyone has been kind, Stephen Bayley wrote in the Telegraph "Mesmerised as if confronting a nasty incident in traffic, we gaze at the Olympic logo. It is a puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal."
As shown above there are versions of the logo using different colours and some animated examples have also been on.
Is the logo a dynamic colouration and daring asymmetry reflecting the rich texture of the world's cosmopolis; or does it represent an outrageously expensive logo that, like the Games themselves, is a dated concept of more interest to politicians than to people?
