Creative leadership and the shock of the new

The London Olympic logo is launched to a barrage of criticism. Pointless? Puerile? A waste of money? Maybe. Or maybe it’s a sign of the shock of the new, the first reaction encountered by many acts of creative leadership.

The logo for the London 2012 Games will become ubiquitous. But you won’t find it replicated here for legal reasons.

I can’t say my first reactions to the new logo are particularly positive. But I don’t particularly dislike it, either. In some contrast, the pattern of dismay, outrage, and anger that accompanied its public appearance seemed to have much to do with an outburst against artistic efforts that challenge tradition. The shock of the new.

Culturally, it’s close to cliché to talk of the Shock of the New. If you can spare the time out of your life, there’s Robert Hughes’s epic explorations of the topic. The great ideas he touches on make the experience worthwhile. His laboured delivery is (just about) compensated for by his materials. His work has saved the rest of us a lot of effort digging up examples of the shock of the new.

Innovators have suffered the raging of ‘consumers’ for millenia. In ancient times there was rioting as modernizers challenged the conventions of classical Greek drama.

One of the most widespread reactions to a new idea is denial.

It can’t be done.

Like travelling faster than thirty miles an hour
space flight
ships made out of steel
a mass market for computing machines
Rites of Spring,
The Beatles
T S Eliot and poems that don’t go dumpty dumpty
Picasso

OK, a recent addition to the illustrious list, Shockofthenew even if the official website does a good job triggering off some of those reactions against the new from me …

So what about the logo?

I can just about remember an old measure of creative preference. [Anyone out there able to help on this?] One of the zillions of
pen-and-paper tests. So-called creatives (the flakes) seemed to appreciate more complex, less symmetrical stimuli. And yes, less creative subjects tested rather liked nice symmetrical designs such as squares (these were unkindly called straights or squares). I’m risking getting into all sorts of judgemental deep waters here. The point is, that architects, designers, and other graphic arts professionals are a bit different from many people in their enthusiasm for complexity, zigginess and zagginess. Incidentally, other professionals like quantity surveyors, not to mention members of the House of Windsor often find the zigginess of architects, their extreme quirky-gerkhiness, very stressful … Unlike design-winning artists, these critics tend to be card-carrying non-flakes.

The idea must have been seen as a winner at Wolf Ollins, a great and creative design agency. It may yet fail to overcome the shock of the new. But whatever it is, the concept isn’t naïve. Such judgement would be what Picasso faced when accused of being naïve dauber, or to be a bit parochial, L S Lowry for long held to be someone who could only paint matchstick figures.

The fate of the logo may yet offer insights into the nature and trials of creative leaders and the processes of creative leadership.

Footnote

The actual logo is protected under extremely strict intellectual property rules. Rather than risk tangling with the lawyers, I have left the logo of this blog, although you can see it on the site on using our brand.

Advertisement