Designs on the White House
- Posted by: RyanBowman , JustinGabbard
- on August 9, 2007 at 5:49 pm
You know the story. President starts war. President appears on aircraft carrier dressed in a pilot costume and declares in front of a “Mission Accomplished” sign that war is over. President goes home and watches in denial as 3,000 more Americans die in so-called finished war. It’s been told and retold a thousand times, like a creation myth in reverse. But there is one aspect we have ignored all this time.
Remember that infamous sign? The one that was supposedly a spontaneous act by sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln? (An utterly believable claim, by the way, since, as we all know, aircraft carriers are designed for two things: war and large-scale-banner printing). There are clues buried in its awkwardly out-of-place font, secrets in the over-the-top patriotism that oozes from its plastic sheen. The bizarre and horrific design is not only representative of the Bush presidency but also a warning to us, the American people: We allow bad designers into the White House at our own peril.
| Quote: |
| One way of looking at the current Bush presidency is as a failure of design. |
This should come as no surprise. We are asked every day to make sense of complicated codes, to intuitively understand the difference between chartreuse and yellow, ellipses and ovals, serif and sans serif. Our experiences are mediated by images, and these images are almost universal, a sort of visual Esperanto we understand just from living in today’s world. Good design uses the grammar of these images to invoke a specific and representative message; it fits and we know it. Bad design is jumbled, unclear and projects confusion; it doesn’t fit and we can tell.
For politicians, design is the language they use to corroborate themselves, to confirm their public persona with the perfect color combination or the right font. It’s like an instant stump speech. And like those speeches, it can get boring and monotonous—all stars and stripes but no personality, no message. Indeed, one way of looking at the current Bush presidency is as a failure of design. A failure, that is, to understand the mood and will of the people. As we count down his days in office , it’s time to look closely at the way the candidates to replace him present themselves—because it does matter, and God knows the last thing we need is another one of those blasted banners, let alone another of those blasted wars.
Democrats
HILLARY CLINTON
A ruthlessly efficient (and no doubt relentlessly focus-grouped) combination of the campaign logos of the past two presidents: The waving, stylized flag from that other Clinton and the one name simplicity from Bush, George W.
JOHN EDWARDS
Strong, considered, and competent but patently unexciting. The Shrek-green streak is a strange and slightly desperate echo of the 1976/80 Carter/Mondale campaigns.
BARACK OBAMA
Beautiful but empty. Tries hard to avoid the traditional vocabulary of political design but ends up using the same familiar tropes—patriotic colors, red and white stripes, heavy handed Steinbeckian symbolism, and even a font named Perpetua.
Republicans
RUDOLPH GIULIANI
A simple and confident creation for the candidate so often described as a political Oreo cookie: hard Republican-red cookie outside, soft Democratic-blue cream-filling in the middle.
JOHN McCAIN
So blatantly militaristic, the tagline might as well be “An Army of One.”
MITT ROMNEY
Safe and superficial. The disembodied ghost of an eagle is awkwardly placed and makes the whole thing seem overwrought.
DISCUSSION: 6 Comments
Nice analysis! A colleague of mine wrote a series of critiques like this recently. I think you’re absolutely right. Our candidates are increasingly under pressure to campaign to a design conscious nation. It started when televised media came around and kicked all the ugly candidates out of running for office. Now that we are becoming increasingly concerned with personal style and customization, it’s becoming essential for candidates and the entire election process to be increasingly stylized and style-conscious. But this can get dangerous. Hiring the President based on the aesthetic appeal of his/her propaganda leaves us just as susceptible to putting the richest, sneakiest candidate in the White House as any other voting strategy, unconscious or not.
Here is a link to the sign that appeared on the Abraham Lincoln:
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/images/bushlies.jpg
I like what you have to say. There’s a brief article at Portfolio that supports your assessment. Check it out at
http://www.portfolio.com/slideshows/2007/08/logos-slideshow
It’s interesting that you’ve taken the deductive approach and Bridges, over at Portfolio takes an inductive approach. To me it seems you both reach similar conclusions, but through different means.
Ron Paul?
The most interesting question for me is what half-hearted “candidate” Fred Thompson’s logo will look like. And, if it isn’t something like this hasn’t he missed a trick?
Anne: I agree completely, when we judge presidential candidates based on style and aesthetics alone, its an empty decision (even if the pressures of today’s merciless stream of visuals–YouTube, CNN, etc.–means we are unlikely to see another sweaty Richard Nixon-esque televised debate anytime soon). But I guess what I am arguing is that we should look at these logo’s for more than their prettyness, that we should read them as texts in the same way we scrutinize their speeches–that design matters not because its beautiful (though that helps of course) but because it represents/means something more.
Also, I am nothing if not here to serve:
Ron Paul
Like many of the candidates, Paul has many ‘official’ logos and it makes a difference which logo you pick. His most recent one, the sparse little blue and red number on his website is interesting because it is basically a lesson on how to design a unlogo. It ignores all of the sophisticated embroidery of the more mainstream candidates and clearly hasn’t been touched by a designer (though his website is surprisingly robust–though this may have more to do with the strong following his brand of internet-friendly libertarianism naturally attracts). This kind of undesign can go two ways really, he is either strangely naive (see this NY Times Magazine article) or blessedly free of the need to personally stylize himself. Either way, its an interesting case….
Bill Richardson
I can’t shake the feeling that his strange but elegant red and white sinusoidal curve is the logo for a professional sports team…the Cowboys? The Patriots? In any case, it has that same whitewashed, bland feel to it. More importantly, the star/curve is moving backwards and gives the whole composition a slightly confused demeanor.
I guess when someone wants to be president they have to go out there with what works. Obviously Hillary has studied what works. It also tells me she will probably ask Bill what to do when she’s president. That’s a good thing.
Edwards rising star is telling me he views himself as a candidate who won’t win. It’s the little star trying to climb to the heavens. The little star that could. But it will burn out before it stops the asteroid. I’m sure of it.
Obama actually took a chance at least. He is the one new-styled candidate in the bunch. Putting America inside a zero could be taken the wrong way though. Overthinking by Americans could kill a logo and a presidential bid.
Giuliani’s just looks like he did it himself. I personally want a president who gets some help from some really smart people. He’s either cheap or thinks he knows how to work Illustrator. One’s a good presidential trait. The other, not so much.
McCain should have put a gun where the star is. Or a nuclear warhead.
Romney believes that Eagles look tough so people will think he’s got a logo like Hillary’s logo, but tougher. Eagles are manly, Hillary has claws. I don’t know where I’m going with this one. I’m just saying, “It’s on.”