I don’t know how many of you are aware what has happened in Vancouver yesterday.
Because I’m a typophile regular of sorts I wanted to use this forum to inform you of some views and make mention that The GDC (Society of Graphic Designers of Canada) and members, Canadian designers alike are all in the midst of a very big mess and wish for your support in letters or emails. The address to write to is email@example.com. Anyone who is a member of AIGA, ICOGRADA or any other country association would be helpful in our mission because frankly this is an international issue — one that the Olympic Committee may continue to implement in the future if not stopped now.
VANOC (Vancover Olympic Committee for 2010) and Mr. John Furlong (Chair) has decided that it should be a wonderful idea to open a beauty contest for the next Olympic emblem — open to anyone 19 years of age and older. Their deﬁnition of a “professional” at the press conference. They are asking for entrants to attend a design conference for a fee of $150, — the submissions are “free” and the winning design to be granted $25,000 — an insult for such an organization.
The 2010 Winter Olympic Committee has really launched this CONTEST to design the
logo! I got wind of it through our GDC listserve and the news. Some senior GDC members, Yves Rouselle,
Matt Warburton and Jim Skipp along with Pamela Lee attended the press
conference. As you can imagine all hell broke loose. The press and
the Olympic Committee don’t get it. They think we are all hobbyists, that we run craft shops.
As Canadian designers; members of the associations, we abide by strict by-laws prohibiting us from speculative work much in the same way the AIGA and ICOGRADA agree that spec work is exploitative and beneﬁts no one. We are mounting a force to hit the press; our president, Matt Warbuton has been on the news and radio in the last 24 hours, in an eﬀort to stop all this.
You can read more here:
You can see the VANOC info here:
We look forward to hearing one day soon that the 2010
committee realized their error in judgement and puts out a proper RFP thanks
to the design education of real professionals everywhere.
You know how much of an insult this is. I would appreciate that this thread not be wasted on debate of speculative work and related issues and/or whether the idea has merit or not.
Simply if you support the idea that what VANOC is doing is wrong please send a letter.
As our BC Chapter Secretary, Mr Sigrid Albert, MGDC put it:
I want to register my opposition to the Olympics “emblem” design competition
as well. I propose that the VANOC is a) lazy, b) cheap, and c) ignorant.
a) Lazy, because they seem to believe they will save themselves time by not
going through a proper RFP and preselection of qualiﬁed studios. IMO, the
only way to hold a professional competition, if they must have one, is to
select a handful of studios after review of qualiﬁcations, give time for
brieﬁng and questions to each studio, establish a budget for each studio to
submit a design, and commit to the full design development process with the
winning studio at a price established through a proposal by the winning
studio, not an amount of VANOC’s choosing. Sounds like a lot of work though.
Better have an open contest (and don’t kid yourselves, anyone who thinks
themselves a designer will participate!) and sift through 1,000 entries for
weeks or months. But wait, what about the time it takes to establish a
selection committee, and criteria for selection? Or let’s just skip all that
- maybe it’ll be a daughter-in-law of Mr. Furlong who will make the ﬁnal
choice? Jane has always been very artistic!
c) Cheap, because they think they will save money holding an open
competition. As Mr. Furlong correctly points out, he can’t pay 1,000
designers for their entries. But apparently he thinks that just by the sheer
quantity of entries a winning design has got to be in there somewhere, like
a needle in a haystack? Maybe it will be, but will Jane ﬁnd it? And what
about the process of making the emblem work with its many applications? A
professional ﬁrm with signiﬁcant capabilities will have to be hired at
that point — at equally signiﬁcant expense which will make the original
prize seem rather small in comparison — to make the winning emblem “work”.
At the very latest, a proper selection process will have to be established
then. Why not now?
b) Ignorant, because of the above wrong assumptions. Ignorant, because they
think design is a talent, is just a brief moment of inspiration, and does
not also require education, experience, and hard work. Ignorant, because
they are calling it an “illustration” (according to the Globe and Mail
article), not a logo, a brand, or an identity.
Thanks for the ﬂoor.
Letters of Support to put an end to the Olympic Committee's logo challenge