Discussion for article #232519
I didnât even notice the H on those buttons for Hillary and I thought TIME was something to do with Time Magazine when I first looked at them before reading through the article. It looks very masculine, of course with the all-important perfunctory Red, White and Blue, mandatory for almost any campaign. I get it now, but its not very inspiring. The minimalist look seems to be the newest of all fashions in graphics these days. And block letteringâŠseriously? Why not just put pant suits on that H. Yeah, its modern all right, but its also so staid, so EhâŠ
But the article makes a good point. Those swishes and all that pink and purple in female related iconography has really got to go. I realize Hillary needs something more than a cluttered Pinterest board to make an enticing but bold invitation into her campaign. In the world of commercial art and design, this has got to be a tough one. Faireyâs riff on '60âs Album art, was pure genius to attract both baby boomers and young people alike. That wonât work for HillaryâŠnor will graffiti art. Thereâs too much cognitive dissonance with that and her own persona.
Well good luck artists of all shapes and sizes. Youâve got your work cut out for you. Having to top the art-inspired campaign of Obamaâs, has certainly set the bar high this time.
One thing Hillary should stay away from is designing a cluttered website. But nor should she have one that looks like its all businessâŠa manly-manâs pitfall in advertising. I so much dislike that sterile look.
I liked the Girls Effect video but Iâm not sure that style is up to the level of a national campaign for the presidency. Its more suitable for a Department of Health and Human Services website if anything. WellâŠgood luck. Food for thought.
4 Likes
When I saw those buttons, my thought was that Time magazine had done a new logo, which was inspiring you to talk about design. In a million years, I would never have gotten to Hillary. So not every professional effort is a move forward. (Sure, an hour is no time, but what on earth is that âtimeâ doing in there??)
4 Likes
Honestly, they should look to Robert Reich, not as the former Labor Secretary, but as a cartoonist and someone who is clearly associated with all things Clinton. His video explainers describing the state of our economy are really quite good. The intricacies and yet the simplicity of his presentations are a good place to start. He has a natural whimsy to his art and his cartoons look spontaneous and fresh.
4 Likes
âKenesha Sneed, a Los Angeles-based designer, emphasized that sheâd like to see a design that doesnât shy away from making Hillaryâs sex a centerpieceâ
I hope they stay away from this approach. I donât see any potential benefit to incorporating gender into any possible Hillary campaign identity. Itâs too trivial for what the broader message should stand for, which I see as a message of transcendence and looking beyond her gender at far more important issues. The right is going to hammer the dog whistle machine like youâve never seen before, and itâs going to take a door of lead 60 feet thick to contain their sexism if Hillary ends up the front runner/nominee. The optics of her pushing past all of that has the potential to make a far bigger statement to those who notice. Utilizing âsex [as a] centerpieceâ points straight back to why so many feminist organizationsâ marketing material looks like pink, curvy nightmares. Footnoting her gender is petty and antithetical to feminism. Move away from gender and focus on fresh, relevant and positive.
3 Likes
I can remember when the appeal of feminism was visceral, existential and experimental, and had nothing to do with marketing, and hadnât morphed into achieving a Glass Ceiling for a woman or two.
I have no doubt that Hilary Clinton will draw all the misogynistic ire of the right, and no hope that her ascendance - in and of itself - will fundamentally change anything.
1 Like
You seem pretty knowledgeable on this subject â are/were you in the business?
1 Like
Arts and media was my minor in college. Those were the days before there was an internet or the existence of DIY websites and home-based computer art programs in graphics and illustration for commercial and personal use.
All the stuff we relate to today had its modern, recognizable genesis out of the graphic studios in Hollywood and commercial advertising on Madison Ave. Most of it comes straight to us in the 20th century, even as it relates to a good deal of political campaigning and messaging. The psychology behind advertising became a field all to itself in the modern ageâŠWhich colors, what fonts, whatâs the message it all conveys. Good old Lincoln didnât have any of that shit to contend with. Pamphlets, sloganeering and speeches, for the most part, worked just fine in his day. The obsession wasnât there. It wasnât necessary. It wasnât valued like we seem to put on it now. And yet, what we have today is considered progressâŠSometimes thatâs a real laugh.
As a student, I was more interested in the history of artâs long-standing influence on society rather than modern mediaâs approach to consumerism in my studies. I personally still like to create art for my own enjoyment (amusement? sanity?) but Iâm not exactly ready for prime time, if you know what I meanâŠ
BTW, nice of you to ask. Now I hope youâre not sorry you did?
1 Like
No, Iâve enjoyed your posts on many subjects and this topic was a bit different than the typical political back-and-forth we usually engage in here.
I worked with a few graphic designers over the years and I always found the work of the good ones â and their explanations of the approaches they took and the choices they made â fascinating and informative. Itâs a medium that can communicate its message powerfully and through the subconscious, and I always find the explanations of its mechanism interesting.
1 Like
i agree with the article content. though young at heart, i am part of the aging feminist demographic. i do not need a symbol or a graphic. I am solidly there. I do yearn for a younger movement to arise, full of energy, vigor and sure, with a logo.(bit of snark there, but not too serious).
more than a logo or an ad campaign, the movement needs to be authentic, though, not contrived. young feminists, male and female, need to speak and act with fervor and cause.
truly iconic âgraphicsâ envelop authentic movements and become brands because people embrace them. the peace sign, the Obama hope logo. those come from the pool, the people, not from the focus group.
yes, young uns, it is time for you to kick it.
btw the 'time â buttons? personal opinion egghhhh. i donât think those are going anywhere, except as a political button. they do not involve the viewer. nothing about them inspires or engages.
1 Like
I am not a marketer-type and so this sort of argument tends not to move me very much, but I do see the validity of the authorâs point. Still, I canât help but believe that the power of the underlying idea is the driving force, with the success of the advertising campaign dependent upon it (at least when it comes to something important like feminism; I realize you can also successfully market empty ideas and useless products). The Girl Effect video is a very good example. That the basic idea had been around for a while and hadnât gained any traction is important, yes. But at the same time, it is a simple and very powerful point, distilling a lot of different arguments about feminism, the interdependence of society, etc. So the groundwork for the success of the video is established by the strength of its message. In this case, then, we have a very different situation than we do with the question of how best to market Hillaryâs presidential campaign.
One another point, seemingly unrelated but actually not: âToo many womenâs organizations have clichĂ©, homogenous logos.â Argh! The word here is not âcliche,â it is âclicheDâ; itâs an adjective, modifying âlogos.â Now I know this is not a misprint, since this usage is too ubiquitous. Picayune? Who cares? Sure, but you can say exactly the same thing about a discussion of the details of design. Itâs a question of aesthetics. When I read that sentence I wasnât thinking about adjectives and nouns at all, but this word immediately jumped out to me as WRONGâas intentionally, annoyingly wrong, an attempt to mimic the casual speech of the ordinary person (sort of like throwing in, âI was like, huh?â).
OK, I care more about words than visuals so Iâm bias (just thought Iâd throw that in there since, yes, I have seen the substitution of âbiasâ for âbiasedâ creeping in more and more frequently). But Iâm not the only one. In fact, this article is very nicely written and was aesthetically pleasing to read so obviously the author cares too. But these sorts of little details matter.
This article made me aware that I fully expect the Hillary campaign to be dull and boring visually. I would take it as a very positive development if she (her handlers) proved me wrong.
1 Like
Lol @ those buttons.
Go on Elance, and pay $100 for redesign.
How about dusting off the ERA logo? How about shoving them down the Republicansâ throats?
I thought those were designs advertising a Time Magazine book about the Twin Towers.