Comments on: Designs on the White House

By: annesgreat

annesgreat — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Katya

Katya — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Here is a link to the sign that appeared on the Abraham Lincoln:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/images/bushlies.jpg

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: firstname_lastname

firstname_lastname — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Ron Paul?

By: RyanBowman

RyanBowman — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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.

By: arnied

arnied — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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."