What do political poster designs say?
This Ward Sutton/New York Times slideshow analyzes the messages underlying the design of current and recent campaign stickers and posters. There's some good, thoughtful stuff here -- plus: funny.
Link
(via Warren Ellis)
the latest
latest episodes
Such an obvious omission. No shot at Hillary for political corruption. Maybe inevitable corp shill?
Dan667, these are critiques of graphic design in the campaign, not in-depth examinations of re-hashed 90's paranoia.
You guys really need to get over this persecution complex thing. Seriously.
Santa, if you're listening, I'd like a Presidential Election in 2008 that focuses on whether or not the candidates are qualified to undertake the often boring task of governing effectively. Not logo design, not like-ability, not elect-ability -- effective government. TIA.
As a designer, I think this critique made some interesting observations, but also took some rather cheap, highly subjective shots. (quelle surprise!)
The Obama logo (branding, if you will), is nowhere near as unsophisticated as the reviewer implies. It's actually clever and memorable and works well as a recognizable mark (similar to how the 2004 "W" is described later on in the piece).
Meh.
I found this illuminating, they are of course one persons opinion, but informed ones based on understanding of aspects of graphic design. I remember an article during I believe the last election that told of the Republicans in power occasionally spending money to specifically find ways to use their language and symbolism more effectively. While Democrats in power tended to spend money/time on social programs and the like, and because of this in a lot of ways the Democrats were in essence losing out on the language and symbolism, which was hurting them in the minds of the populace, or so the article had alluded to. In a way this is the same thing, people using models and theories of communication to bring across an image about the candidate in question, which language and symbolism plays an integral part of.
It's all about winning for the Republicans.
And then destroying the government and stealing as much as possible.
so many campaign signs have the WORST typography. it never lines up properly, and people always feel the need to use more than one font when it's not at all necessary. it grates on me as a designer.
Hellary? Such pungent wit. Seriously, though, Giuliani's the Devil.
I agree with #4 JIMWICh. Obama's logo might be slightly unconventional when it comes to candidates' logos and might look more appropriate if he's selling dairy products, but it surely catches the eye for escaping the "CANDIDATE NAME"'"YEAR" template.
Also, the font choice for hillary isn't all that "interesting". A lot of serif fonts have their lowecase "L" resembling ones. Heck, even old typewriters used "l" for ones. If they managed to add anything with a "g" a bit over and left to the "ll", then it surely would be interesting (even if more appropriate to Rudy). And I doubt that choosing her first name is being on a "first name basis with the candidate". Most people wouldn't go with "Rodham" and "Clinton" is still a bit of a dirty name.
Well.... it would be very hard for things to get any *worse* than they are now.
Giuliani's got more skeletons in his closet than he knows what to do with. Is this relevant to his ability go govern? Probably not, but it will definitely hurt his chances. His social views are also quite a bit more tolerable than every other republican on the planet, although if I had to pick an NYC mayor to be president, it'd be Bloomberg. Compared to Bush, he's still an angel.
Hillary's weaknesses are somewhat hard to pick out. For starters, she's not very likable, which (believe it or not) is a rather important characteristic for a head of state to have. If I had to peg any one weakness on her, it's that she's got a vaguely undefined platform, and that she will likely try far too hard to please everyone, resulting in a stagnant 1-term presidency. Still, it wouldn't be hell.
Obama's my favorite mainstream candidate at the moment. His "lack of experience" might very well in fact be his biggest selling point. He's not a product of the system, and he built up his base the old-fashioned way.
My favorite candidate overall is Mike Gravel, although he doesn't stand a chance of being elected. As much as I'd love to love Ron Paul, I simply can't bring myself to do it -- he'd make state governments far more powerful, which could potentially be a "very bad thing" down the road.
I loved the commentary on Hillary's banner.
Another blog did a similarly humorous commentary on political photos. First with the Democrats:
http://charlestonphilosopher.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/fun-with-major-media-political-photos-part-1/
Then with the Republicans:
http://charlestonphilosopher.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/fun-with-major-media-political-photos-part-2/
All of the typical off-topic political thread jacking aside (looking at your #1, 6, 12 and the rest), I agree with #4.
Some marks have head-scratching aspects and some fail completely to communicate to the average viewer, which happens to be everyone in the country. And yes, its not rocket science to get your name out there on a piece of paper that is simple, incisive and appealing. A whole lot of designers do that for people everyday.
Mr Ward made some decent points but most were nit picks or his reading too far into the 'tea leaves' of design for the sake of article content (a failure in its own right, ever for the 'funnies').
How long is BoingBoing going to let "Steve Balmer" spam up the comments section? Not long, one hopes.
I agree that most were nit picky comments, but some were right on target. Sometimes the simplest designs are really the hardest to conceive.
But there did seem to be some obvious slant with the glorification over Hillary Clinton's design. Is he trying to get hired on the campaign or something?
And to comment on what SCHMOD, Ron Paul is a much better candidate than any of the current crop on both sides. Re-read your constitution about the 10th Amendment.
Speaking as someone in Illinois, Obama ground zero, I think his campaign iconography is very effective. Obama is running on "hope" as a buzzword (title of his book, theme in much of his literature and his stump speeches) so the "sunrise O" seems like a smart move.
I do think it would be funny if Obama starting just using an "O" and Hillary with her double "1's". Binary humor.
Elysian, FakeSteveBallmer is gone. Sorry about the delay.
The Obama logo has been regarded as one of the best logos ever by those in the business. As Sutton comments, McCain’s logo looks unfinished. And Hillary’s typeface gives off a feel of comfort and confidence, quite opposite of Bush/Cheney’s ’04 macho typeface. With people wanting change, Hillary’s campaign logo gave it to them.
Ad Age even crowned Obama’s campaign as “Marketer of the Year,” beating out Apple and Zappos.