posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:25 PM
Leaving aside the "zionism", that logo looks terrible.
Reading the comments on some of the news reports about it makes me chuckle. There are quotes from the directors of the firm that designed the logo in
which they basically say that the fact that everyone is reacting so violently to it shows that their design challenges accepted norms and is therefore
inherently cool and free-spirited.
In Melbourne (Australia), we have a public space at one of the major intersections in the CBD, called "Federation Square". When the designs were
released, everyone said that they looked hideous, but the architect said it was innovative. When the place was built, people said it looked hideous,
but the architect - in a television documentary about the development - basically said that most people are morons who wouldn't know good design if
it bit them on the bum. International awards have, apparently, been won. And now, more than five years later, everyone I have ever spoken to about
it still thinks it looks hideous, although I discovered that, according to a survey of visitors to the square (the full results of which I can't seem
to find), "Approximately 90% of people surveyed reported liking all, or at least parts, of Federation Square." Surely the simple fact that you have
to make a qualification like "at least parts" should tell you something?
By the way, Federation square is still being built and re-built. But why, if it was already so brilliant? The latest change is a scaffolding that
obscures half of one of the buildings behind a wall of foliage. Funny, that.