Reply #147: Some thoughts...

[Northwind]

Let's discuss for a moment the nature of symbols. What I am seeing in this thread is a lot of confusion regrading the nature iof symbols. A symbol is not the same thing as an icon. A symbol is not in itself descriptive of that for which it stands. Moreover, the best, most enduring symbols are very simple. More than 3 individual visual elements and colors and it simply does not work. To use an axiom, "less is more."

Consider 2 things.

First, everyone's favorite. The swastika. The swastika originally had nothing to do with Nazism or german nationalist movements. It is a very ancient symbol, found in a few variatons in several cultures (http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/15/151.html>click here for reference). When the Nazis were developing a symbol for the party and their movement, they did not sit around with someone saying, "oh, we need a picture of a blonde blue-eyed guy to make sure people know what we are!" They used a symbol with some fairly vague cultural meanings of strength, and made it mean what it came to mean. It became a glyph that stood for what they believed in. So much so that its original meaning (which had no connotations of nationalism or brutality at all) is lost to most of the planet. They did not try to make a minimalist illustration of their party manifesto. Rather, they took a symbol that looks good on a flag and makes a snappy lapel pin or armband and made it their own. Symbol first, meaning later.

Second, more contemporary. The Nabisco "thing". You know, this thing:



Even without the name in the middle, everyone knows what this means. It means Nabisco. Now what about that thing has anything to do wit crackers or cookies? Nothing. But when you look at it, you think Nabisco junk food. Oreos. Nilla Wafers. Ritz Crackers. Chips Ahoy. And so on. When making this logo, did they do an illustration of cookies or crackers, or even someone eating? No, they made this "thing." Incidentally, it is actually identified as "The Thing" in internal corporate marketing literature. Again, the lesson is, symbol first, meaning later.

A good symbol will catch the eye. A really good one will catch the eye and be just interesting enough to make the observer ask what it means. If you do it right, eventually no one has to ask what it means anymore, because "everyone knows that."

Most of then ideas being presented here suffer from an effort to include too much information. We need to stop thinking in such concrete terms. This should not be some insider hieroglyph or visual manifesto, but simply a symbol that identifies this one group of people, something that can be stuck on a bumper or worn on a tshirt.

The only other consideration is the audience. Remember who you are playing to. Think of what emotions can be stirred in the use of color and symbolism. Do not make an out and out effort to piss anyone off. To do so is pointless. This is an identifier, not a statement in and of itself.

A note on color. This is American politics. It must include either red, blue, or both. Red I avoided because (ironically) of dual communist/red state connections. Using the colors of other nations will make people immedately dismiss you in this country, as will failing to use the colors of this nation. Attempting to take a treasured symbol already used by one group (such as confederate battle flags) will do the same.

Flame away.

My own contribution (also posted above):