So, a new logo has been launched for the London 2012 Olympic Games. Lord Coe says it was designed to appeal to young people. I can only assume he means the knife-weilding, feral youths we hear so much about, for the logo resembles nothing so much as a pile of broken glass.
I do applaud the London Games’ committment to inclusivity and the inspiration of youth… but it is cringe-incuding to read the attempts by Tessa Jowell, Ken Livingstone, Lord Coe, Colin Moynihan (the Chairman of the British Olympic Association) and the IOC President Jacque Rogge to claim that the Olympic values are somehow embodied in the graphic design. A new logo can never do that – especially one as simple as that unveiled today. In fact, logos and brands only accquire their wider meaning, only become symbolic, after the organisation proves to the public what its values are, through its deeds. The colourful rings already have those positive associations, so it is odd that they are sidelined in the London 2012 logo, and that the bold colours are abandoned in favour of a tasteless blue.
The logo also comes in ugly pink, violent orange, and bogey green, but all versions carry a clashing yellow border. Lord Coe says that the logo will ‘evolve’ between now and 2012, and I predict that the demise of this outline will be the first ‘evolution’. This would leave a monochrome logo, which will become instantly more versatile.
And I don’t like the font either.
Continue reading
Author: Robert (Page 266 of 328)
This stinker from a Times article comparing the British and Japanese monarchies:
Elizabeth II is England’s fifth female monarch.
- Mary I (1553-58);
- Elizabeth I (1558-1603);
- Mary II (1689-94);
- Anne (1702-14);
- Victoria (1837-1901);
- Elizabeth II (1952-present)
That makes the present Queen our sixth female monarch, not including Lady Jane Grey or the Empress Matilda.
Unless of course they mean monarchs of The United Kingdom… but since the Act of Union was in 1707, that would mean the list only numbers three, which would be doubly wrong.
Don’t worry – I’ve already written in.
The Times makes no such embarrassing errors regarding the number of female monarchs in the Japanese monarchy – it correctly reminds us that woman are barred from succession to the Crysanthemum Throne, something I have complained about before. Then, I argued that this law, at the very heart of a country’s political system, served to demean women and should be abolished. Looking at the list above, I might also point out to the Japanese that the reign of a woman often co-incides with some of the most successful periods in British history. Why not give it a try?
I have made some subtle changes to the design of this blog. I was getting slightly annoyed with my handwritten title, the enormity of which always ran the risk of being pretentious. I’ve replaced it with some half-hidden lettering instead.
A few more alterations are on their way. I had hoped to do them all together, and launch the new design to much fanfare. However, I really don’t have the time to make a concerted effort. Eventually I snapped and began making tweaks – expect a few more in the weeks to come.
A month-old article on OpenDemocracy.net has got me thinking again about differing levels of citizenship and equality in Israel. Laurence Louër highlights the growing minority of Arab Israelis, and how an increase in their numbers means an increase in their political power. This, he says, “is a challenge to the country’s very self-definition.”
Louër cites the legal organisation Adalah (with whom I have worked), who deal with Arab minority rights in Israel. Their campaigns centre around the fact that Arab citizens of Israel, be their Muslim, Christian or Druze, are not afforded equal rights as their Jewish fellow citizens. The charge, at its most ferocious, is one of apartheid. As I have found, this is a contentious word for a contentious issue – a more benign accusation might be something like ‘discrimination on the basis of ethnicity’. Either way, the complaint is that people are not all equal in the eyes of the law or the state.
Some might say that the inequalities are surely the result of social frictions, of the kind that we see in the UK. This might have some truth. Adalah’s complaint, however, is that the state also enshrines an imbalance in law. Inequalities are therefore magnified, ethnic conflict is exacerbated, and the idea of democracy is compromised.
To my mind (and Louër’s too), the most pertinent example of this inequality is the ‘Law of Return’, whereby anyone of Jewish origin may ‘make aliyah’ and take Israeli citizenship. No similar right is granted to those who might be relatives of Arab citizens, or indeed those who did, just a generation ago, actually live within the borders of what is now Israel. The justifications for this (when they are not biblical) cite the necessity of such a law to maintain the Jewish character of the state. I have written before on why I think states should not have an official religion or ethnicity. I also acknowledge that many see Arab Israeli issues as just once facet of the wider Palestinian population (indeed, Louër reminds us that most Arab Israelis define themselves as ‘Palestinian citizens of Israel’). For now, then, one observation:
Isn’t the ‘Law of Return‘ an example of Affirmative Action? The state is, after all, performing a kind of social engineering, seeking to influence its social demography. Certain ethnic groups are awarded preferential treatment, gaining admission by jumping the queue. The justification for this policy is that past injustices have been done to that group, and the preferential treatment redresses the balance. If the ‘Law of Return’ is indeed Affirmative Action, then don’t the arguments against Affirmative Action apply to the ‘Law of Return’ too? How do those who have made aliyah feel about jumping the queue?
One of Anthony Gormley’s Blind Light iron statues, silhouetted against the green grass of the National Theatre’s fly-tower, as sown by artists Ackroyd and Harvey.
Continue reading