Image 1 retrieved from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/213358101071712122/
Image 2 retrieved from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/521643569310826627/
Both city logos conceptualise the idea that all are welcome, both brand identities are inviting. This is clearly evident in the “I Amsterdam” logo through the statement and play on words, for the person reading it, wether they are local or international, they read this as they are part of the city, I am Amsterdam. In the Brazil logo, the circle created by all the colours represents a worldly feel, a uniting symbol of equilibrium. The many colours represents the many people, coming and going, the excitement and vibrancy the city evokes and is proud of. Both very similar in this sense however both executed this through different approaches. The Amsterdam logo is very simple, with minimal use of colour, with just the use of a matt red, this balances out with their simple message while also using the white and the red from their flag colours. Also noted the large scale 3D logo is placed outdoors, so the blue sky completes the flag colours. The brazil logo uses many colours, suggesting the many walks of life and also staying true the the Brazilian way with bright blue, green and yellow the colours of the countries flag. Both boasting patriotism yet inviting and welcoming tourism and business. The expression this logo showcases is non-conservative and is respectful of differences, it is unexpected, out there and free. In comparison to the Amsterdam logo, which is neatly arranged giving off a conservative calmness and also the value of innovation. The re-branding of Amsterdam perhaps was a way to stray away from the idea that it is a place of drugs and sex and more that it is an urban city suitable to I’ve and work or study. These logos are essential in branding cities and communicating to the greater world the essence of the city and who they intend to attract. In the reading by Glickfeld when discussing the Melbourne’s new M logo and the controversy surrounding its unveil Glickfeld states “The problem really is that this new identity is not visionary … The “design local” issue arises mainly because the new identity conveys no feel for Melbourne’s, unique soul, and Metropolitan spaces are often valued for being hives of activity. The brief for the representation of Melbourne apparently asked for this aspect of the city to be made explicit. Although the quirky proportions of the Melbourne M lend it some character and its geometric form makes it look modern, the graphic style of the logo is undeniably slick and corporate.” (Glickfeld, 2010) This argument highlights the importance of a city logo and wether of not it has stayed true to the cities core values and represents the direction it intends to go forward in, whether or not it represents those who are welcome, those who reside and while at the same time ultimately delivers on this communication.
E. Glickfeld, (2010). On logophobia Volume 69, (3rd ed). Meanjin Quaterly.