I'm in between number 3 and 4 on the top row. 4 is more conventional, but 3 could be amazing when applied to the motion components of the Olympic collateral. As far as voting for the logo goes, I don't know how smart that solution ultimately will be. Sure, they may avoid the problems that London experienced with their logo (which still has yet to grow on me) but they now create an entirely new set of problems; namely non-designers choosing a logo that they have no insight into. There are arguments on both sides, and I concede that ultimately the "people" of the city, and indeed the nation, will be represented by the chosen mark, but does it give them the right to make that final decision? I mean, did they get to vote on the athletes representing them on the fields, or the performers at the opening ceremonies? WHy weren't they consulted on the budget or asked to weigh in on the architecture of the new buildings that always seem to pop up when a city is chosen for the Olympics. I think voting on the logo only trivializes an already under-appreciated artform. It's so easy to post some .jpgs up on a site and make people feel like they're part of a process that it must seem like a win-win for the Olympic Committee, but tell that to the designer that has to produce the monstrosity that ends up being selected.

in my junior design class the other day students brought in a large set of nearly random identity marks. we then ordered them from best to worst. an interesting discussion followed on what makes a mark "good" or "bad" as they went through the sorting process. anyway, the london 2012 mark happened to be in the bunch, and it ended up dead last. what were the issues with the chicago 2016 logo, i haven't heard that story.

BAd bad BAD bAd baD BAD and Bad. Awful horrific abhorrent... and i'm talking about all of them. Nothing is useful, keep working