It’s important to distinguish between the bureaucratic process and the aesthetic result. The decision to call off the design competition for a logo for the Thessaloniki metro should be discussed separately from the end-result, which everyone will have a different opinion on.
The abrupt reversal of the planned procedure for proposals to be submitted is highly problematic in itself, pointing to the familiar patterns of patronage-driven interactions between the public sector and private entities. Typically, this involves one or more tenders issued as a formality, followed by a direct commission to fulfill the original, concealed intent. There is no other conclusion to come to when the cancellation of these tenders – effectively dismissing the efforts and trust of the professionals who mistakenly participated – lacks sufficient justification. The official explanation was that the competition “failed to yield fruit, because all the bids submitted by contestants were rejected.” But why were they rejected? Were they off-topic? Were they all inadequate? Is it possible for so many experienced professionals to fall short of the expectations of the decision makers who went on to find what they were looking for in a company that doesn’t even have an online presence to show its work? If so, how did they find this company and approve its work? Through telepathy?
As for the logo that was unveiled by Transport Minister Christos Staikouras last week, it would be best to avoid stating an opinion based on taste. It’s a dead-end conversation because everyone has different tastes and when they all come together, reason tends to go out the window. Taste is relevant to the drapes we choose for our homes. When we’re talking about a public project, more technical and professional criteria come into play. The Thessaloniki Metro logo is bad not because it’s ugly, but because it’s amateurish: a professional designer could explain why it’s too easy (and we don’t mean minimalist, but slapdash), put forward dozens of other logos that are way too similar and shed light on the basis of the design, which appears somewhat “off-the-shelf” rather than a custom solution for the client’s specific, ad hoc requirements. Even if there is some grouch who claims to like the uninspired, flattened Greek “m” (for “metro”) inside its incomplete circle, it clearly falls short of high graphic design standards. Put simply, instead of being thoughtfully designed, it feels slapped together.
There is another important parameter that needs to be considered as well: A logo does not act in isolation; it is intrinsically linked to the mechanisms and “language” of an overall visual identity. A logo’s purpose is not to stand as a static emblem, but to serve as a dominant, vital element of the metro, which is also directly or indirectly associated with a plethora of other related elements: its depiction on various materials (from posters to tickets), its placement in both physical and digital spaces, the broader visual sets it generates (in advertisements and service-related products, for example) and the narratives it conveys.
In order to judge the new logo, therefore, we need to see it in action; someone needs to show us its different applications, how it will be developed and the ideas that inspired it. That none of this has been presented to the public yet (save a completely cliched rationale) may be coincidental, but it may also be a sign that not a lot of work went into the project. “Big deal,” the cynics who don’t sweat the details may say. They overlook the fact that important experiences are made up of many small details – even if a hasty glance doesn’t take it all in at once.