From Voice ~ Topics: criticism, current affairs, signage
Hockey Moms Deserve Better (Design)
Now that the national conventions have concluded and the confetti has been swept away, a few thoughts linger about their imagery. Although much has been written about the campaign graphics used by both parties, a particular focus has been placed on a new demographic: hockey moms. With the GOP convention labeled a “hit” by some and a “disaster” by others, those handwritten “Hockey Moms for Palin” signs, standing out among the hordes of commercially printed McCain/Palin fliers held high by their beaming delegates, fall into the latter category.
A “hockey mom” at the Republican National Convention (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images).
When I first noticed those arts-and-craftsy creations, I didn’t give them much thought. But now, it strikes me how, well, juvenile they are: large, rectangular pieces of white paperboard with letters painted on in red and blue, in a scrawl seemingly done by a preschooler who has barely learned how to write the letters “S” and “N” forward.
What does that say about the hockey moms? Should we assume they made the signs, or that Junior was asked to create them, to proudly display his artistic (dis)abilities? The truth is that no one—at either convention—is allowed to bring their own signs. Instead “handmade” signs are made by the hands of others, and then are handed out to the people you see at the convention. For the hockey moms, someone made their signs to resemble either the handiwork of an innocent child or an overworked, exhausted parent.
A misspelled sign captured by NBC News.
Those who create these signs are unlikely to be professional artists. But why do they lack even the basic ability to determine how large or small a few words must be written to fill up a page and seem to have used their non-dominant hand (or foot) to paint these very important words—leaving the signs looking so utterly careless? Despite the patriotic colors of the words—nearly always red and blue—the beautiful hues of the flag do little to mask the shoddiness of those signs. In fact, words are occasionally misspelled, such as “Mavrick.”
The term “hockey mom” (see also “soccer mom”) implies a woman with several children, each one involved in several extracurricular activities. She exhausts herself making sandwiches and chauffeuring each child from game to lesson, smiling all the while. She has little time for herself or for something as unimportant as a lil’ ol’ sign for a lil’ ol’ convention. Or at least, that is the image that’s being portrayed.
Perhaps if those multitalented, multitasking hockey moms made their own signs, they would look a lot better. I can only imagine that a parent who helps a child with homework, art and science projects and the like, would know how to write big letters on a big sheet of paper and make it look halfway decent.
Holding up a sign that looks messy, to some, seems to convey a feeling of home-sweet-home simplicity. But as a woman, I find it insulting that proud hockey moms would be expected to display bad design to represent themselves. It’s an image that I don’t care to see in 2008—a year in which one mom ran for president and another is running for vice president. The “Gee, I’m just a mom, so this here finger-painted sign is all I really know how to do. Now, won’tcha vote for my guy?” story feels tired and outdated. In this era, women should elevate themselves and represent themselves with pride, not unprofessionalism. With elections today being so visually appealing and slick, these signs seem like a throwback (and a setback).
An array of “handmade” signs at the RNC (photos: NYDailyNews.com).
I’m not saying these signs have to be designed by an artist, embossed in metallic ink and framed. Just make it look good for national, and international, television. This is how an entire demographic is being represented to the country and beyond. I would think the organizers of the convention, as well as the moms, hold their candidate in higher regard. Although audiences may be charmed by their uncontrived appearance (being unaware, of course, that the signs were created for them, rather than by them), I think we can do better.
Design matters on all levels, especially to women. Hockey moms thoughtfully design their homes and yards to portray a positive image. They dress their children well and maintain their own appearance. So, when they appear in front of many millions of viewers, that same positive image should be portrayed. (Could you imagine if, say, the “for sale” sign on their homes had the same elementary-school approach?) Convention organizers should realize that.
Michigan hockey moms (photo: Marina Castillo).
Maybe I’m jumping way too deep into the psyche of viewers. But on the other hand, that’s just what psychology in advertising attempts to do: make a subconscious impact. It’s like product placement, hoping viewers unwittingly choose to drink a Pepsi after seeing Brad Pitt with a cool one on a movie screen. In fact, what is a political convention but a four-day advertisement for each party and each brand of American?
That said, if we continue to act as though hockey moms are really hokey and unsophisticated, then we’re dumbing down the image of everyday women everywhere. As a woman, a voter and a viewer, I’d like to see better—for myself, this country and for the sake of good design.
-
Young volunteers at the RNC designed the posters. I watched as they handed them out to people. They offered me one, however, I had my hands full as I was taking pictures. People were happy to have a hand made or printed sign as long they were able to wave something. The Hockey moms had nothing to do with creating the signs so lets not be so quick to judge them. Being at the RNC was overwhelming, thousands of people, elbow to elbow and then someone comes around with a pile of signs and pretty much asks which one you want. You get caught up in the moment and a sign is the last thing people are concerned with. I have a Design Degree out of California and A Masters in Counseling Psychology and in a million years, a sign should not be the biggest concern with an election as important as the one we are facing.
Marina Castillo -
doesn't anyone else understand the obvious connection here. poor design IS a small town value. save the black and white helvetica poster for the arugula eaters.
-
I agree that while the signs may have been made with the best intentions, this is a race for our nation's highest office! I have also tried to use the McCain campaign website and it is frustrating and prone to error. I find this oversight of a website a bit frightening considering the task ahead.
Design experience or no design experience, Americans are astute visual communicators, and we all deserve better. -
Design quality aside, it's just so insincere and dishonest. Not at all the spirit of what handmade signs are meant to represent. Dare we call it fraud? Isn't this like getting email from a spammer masquerading as your bank - pretending to be something they're not for their own gain.
-
While I see your point about the signs not being made by the sign holders, I respectfully disagree with your "fraud" conclusion. The reality is that there are so many events and so much to do that there is a team of volunteers who make signs to represent the different supporters. No one is made to hold the signs and they are free to create their own. This is simply a convenience for attendees and they choose what they feel is an acurate representation of what they want to portray.
-
I think that most of the posted comments are missing the authors intended mark. She's not judging hockey moms, just the people that make signs for them. Also, to say that small towns value poor design is disconnected. To the general audience, recognizing a "good design" usually isn't a conscious thought anyhow. People react to messages, and it's presentation(graphic design, typography, etc.) gives it power.
I agree with Yamuna. In my opinion, poorly hand-made signs don't exactly fit the rhetoric of a presidential race. And since you can't bring your own signs to a convention, what does it say about the person holding the sign when their favorite candidates nick-name is spelled wrong? -
Am I the only one that thinks the handmade signs were a clever marketing strategy? Aren't they trying to reach the average person? Don't slick designs convey elitism? Isn't this type of subtle communication what design is all about?
-
Wish I had read the link in the article first. It points out that Obama staffers have used the same strategy in the past, an important (and balancing) point that this blog post fails to mention.
-
You're picking on hand-made signs? Really? Should we condemn sports fans for flashing crappy hand-painted signs at games? Or should they stop being "juvenile" and do the respectable thing, and have a designer design them? Designers have a bad reputation for blindly leaning left, (we're supposed to be open minded and unbiased, remember?) and this critism seems like a thinly veiled cheap shot at the GOP campaign and a very good woman.
-
Are you kidding? I can't even believe someone took the time to research and write this article. The posters were made in true American spirit and ingenuity. I don't give a rat's a** if they were designed and printed, unless you want donations and tax dollars to pay for it. Somebody made them by hand and they are legible. To me the RNC had all the ear marks of a pep rally in high school, fun and full of energy. Where as the DNC trashed thousands of "printed" and "paid" for American flags. Give me a break and get off your designing high horse!
-
An inappropriate comment has been removed from this discussion. Please be respectful of others when posting comments in this forum.
-
I would like to start by saying that this is my first time visiting the AIGA site. I followed a link here expecting to find some great articles on design. Instead, I find this. The time I have spent reading this article is time that I, regrettably, can never get back. I hope you are proud of yourself. I am leaving this site, never to return.
By the way, since we are going to nitpick to death, in the first sentence of the sixth paragraph you wrote "owns", which, of course, should be "own". -
As a designer and active AIGA member, I do not have a problem with hand-made signs. They can often be even more individual, expressive and passionate than a highly concepted and well executed sign.
What I do have a problem with is that they were not held by the creators of the sign. And as stated in this article, that if Hockey Moms had produced the signs perhaps the signs would be even more expressive and passionate and look less like signs made to "look" like they were expressive and hand made.
While I understand the point made above that people were not forced to hold them and are frequently happy to take part in a celebration of a cause they believe in, in this case the signs were representing "hockey moms" and were not held by hockey moms. (Are hockey moms across America ok with this? Are they in fact "for Palin"?) So in this case the passion and expressiveness of hand painted signs were not actually representing the group the signs were touting.
To me this seems like a manufactured gesture to make their campaign appear more grass-roots. Which has to make me laugh considering how much the McCain/Palin team has bashed Obama's experience as a community organizer when here they are trying to mimic organized grass roots community support just for an audience. -
Dear Editor,
It is not uncommon that foreigners, non-Americans, Europeans, and people like British comedian Russell Brand are very opinionated about our country. I feel that is completely relevant to the article, nor is it inappropriate to ask if the author of this article is an American or not. -
So the "hockey moms" didn't make the sign.
The RNC did.
Obama supporters hold well crafted and printed signs. His design is well placed and his brand is well established. He also has a football stadium full of people, with his props, and giant well orchestrated visuals.
McCain has tried to make the "celebrity" of Obama an issue.
Wait a minute... that means the hand painted signs are part of the McCain camps way of creating differentiation - making the signs of Obama seem manufactured and McCain's seem handmade.
So, in fact - it is good design. Maybe not well executed design but it is doing what it is supposed to do... reaching an audience that can relate to the way it was "created" - by hand, by someone who cared.
J.B. -
Mr. Anonymous, thank you for pointing out that typo. It's now been fixed.
Regarding the removed comment: the author's bio states that she lives in New York City, and her essay says that she is a voter. The question of whether or not she is American (posed without any context except for the appearance of her name) could only be construed as disrespectful.
Like many of the readers on this forum, Yamuna Ramachandran is an AIGA member. She submitted this article through the "Contribute an article" site feature. Her essay is timely and adds another point of view (a nonpartisan one) to the current debate about how women are portrayed, and raises the question of how design might play a part in that.
AIGA welcomes differences of opinion and further insights. But please ensure that comments are on-topic and considerate of all who might be reading them. -
Poor design is a small town value? I feel bad for any designer who grew up in, works in or lives in a small town. I love Helvetica and arugula. Why bring a delicious vegetable into this melee??
I consider this fraudulent because they are handmade signs which the reader then assumes were made by the person holding it. I assume those women are Hockey Moms which may or may not be true. The Obama ones are ever so slightly less fraudulent since they say "Workers for Obama", "Students for Obama" and "Obama March 4". It's a little safer to assume the people holding them do work and could be students. Still shady.
"Slick signs" do not portray elitism - they portray education.
American author or not, it's not relevant, Rachel. That's what makes journalism great is that it's not OpEd, it's supposed to be unbiased and report on a situation. -
Thank you Sue for clarifying AIGA's position on leaving comments. I do understand the implications of partisan views. I do have to say that the readers "voice" is not so non-partisan. As a designer, I ask lots of questions so as to arrive to a logical and fitting conclusion. Therefore the same process applies to the person who wrote the article. I trust that AIGA or any other reporting agency takes into account not impose a bent one way or the other. Frankly, I found the tone of this article about portraying the McCain camp as "home-sweet-home simplicity" according to their design standards or lack thereof.
To quote the author:
"Should we assume they made the signs, or that Junior was asked to create them, to proudly display his artistic (dis)abilities?"
Derogatory comment.
"handiwork of an innocent child or an overworked, exhausted parent."
The signs may well speak to the MAJORITY of Americans or at least the ones who CHOOSE to have children.
"Holding up a sign that looks messy, to some, seems to convey a feeling of home-sweet-home simplicity. But as a woman, I find it insulting that proud hockey moms would be expected to display bad design to represent themselves. It’s an image that I don’t care to see in 2008—a year in which one mom ran for president and another is running for vice president. The “Gee, I’m just a mom, so this here finger-painted sign is all I really know how to do. Now, won’tcha vote for my guy?” story feels tired and outdated. In this era, women should elevate themselves and represent themselves with pride, not unprofessionalism. With elections today being so visually appealing and slick, these signs seem like a throwback (and a setback)."
So you find it insulting. Then dear, go volunteer your time and money to provide them perfect signs. Messy with misappropriated colors and mis-spellings all contribute to the fact that America is tired. Maybe that's the message. This whole paragraph is full of arrogance and ignorance.
"Maybe I’m jumping way too deep into the psyche of viewers."
Uh? Yeah, you are.
"It’s like product placement, hoping viewers unwittingly choose to drink a Pepsi after seeing Brad Pitt with a cool one on a movie screen."
Then by all means go ahead invite Brad Pitt and Pepsi to sponsor the Chauvinistic Pig Obama and see where that gets him. These ideals you are speaking of are on the fringe of American society. So don't act like you know better than us Hockey Mom's. The real grit of America. Plus it is not Brad Pitt that is running for President is it? Nor is it his budget the RNC is using to campaign with either. Good grief this isn't a popularity contest. It is a respectful process for the office of the PRESIDENT of the United States.
In conclusion, I do not hold to the fact that just because someone has the right to vote makes them American. It is how one thinks and acts that makes them American. -
Erik,
"Slick signs" do not portray elitism - they portray education.
American author or not, it's not relevant, Rachel. That's what makes journalism great is that it's not OpEd, it's supposed to be unbiased and report on a situation.
So if 2+2=4 we should conclude that the statement that slick signs = education and a journalists' background and beliefs doesn't affect opinions and how they "voice" their articles then you go on ahead "Alice" and keep chasing the white rabbit.
Poor arguement. Slick Signs = Education. Good grief. -
Mr. Anonymous
You wrote: The time I have spent reading this article is time that I, regrettably, can never get back. I hope you are proud of yourself. I am leaving this site, never to return.
Since you'll never return you probably won't read this. But. . . aside from the fact that you have every right to not like the content of this site, I find your comment to be typical of blog-whine - readers who feel it is their obligation to denigrate without leaving anything constructive in return. Other commenters - pro or con - express valid viewpoints in ways that are thoughtful and respectful, not to mentioned signed. Not signing your comment, a habit among hit and run flame throwers, is little more than cowardly. -
At least everything is spelled right :)
-
Erik,
I completely disagree with you. This isn't about what you feel this is about what "they" the small town voters feel. Taking your equation:
"Slick signs" do not portray elitism - they portray education.
I could say that many designers who use handmade type are uneducated people. Please do not make me call Sagmeister or any other to tell them that they are uneducated for using handmade type.
Coming from a small town in West Virginia people do like well designed objects and graphics, but they also feel obliged to the old handmade ways. That is a comfort level to them. Old Americana crafts that make that connection with hometown ways, a rally at the high school football game, and a connection with people.
You seem to think your way of design is the only way, you have to put yourself in place of target audience. It is not that they are "uneducated" for liking these signs as you eluded to- they are portraying the opposite of corporate feel and well executed design of the Obama brand. They are portraying what America is to them and they want to see those signs - as crude as they are. -
J.B., I couldn't agree more.
I think what makes design great is understanding your audenience and the unwritten message you are trying to portray. Obviously, there is a strong equation that something being handwritten is seen as a more personal touch. When mail comes in mass-printed envelopes, I generally disregard (unless it's a bill, of course.) However, if something is personally addressed to me I will at least peruse it because someone took the initiative to specialize it for me.
In my view, "slick signs"=slick politician=distrust. Conversely, homemade signs=hometown values and reaching out to mainstream America. Whatever your view on how the signs were made, that is my personal perception of the subconcious sign design message. -
J.B. - I believe I removed almost all personal feelings in my response, so no, it's not about what I feel, it's about what I was taught. I agree that small towns feel obligated or more comfortable around that craft level of design. If you think it's not crafting, then feel free to redefine it. But once someone is educated on what is good design and bad design, they start to appreciate the effort that goes into anything from a stamp on a letter to an annual report. I see about 10 seconds worth of effort and thought put into those signs. This isn't elitist since anyone can go to any library and grab a book on art. Many choose not to. Do not blame me for choosing to explore and educate myself in the world of design when others haven't. That being said, there IS a place for handmade type. It screams genuine, heartfelt sentiment from it's creator which is a complete lie here. A public stage where nothing but the truth should be spoken is not the place for underhanded tactics. That goes for both sides as I noted.
Rachel - You claim my argument is weak? You cite a fictional novel and a one-liner from Charles Schultz. Remove your personal opinion and emotion from this argument. If you're going to chastise the author for being unbiased, I'd expect you to to be a bigger person with your comments.
"Hockey Mom's. The real grit of America."
And now you have offended every American who is not a Hockey Mom.
The Presidential election should NOT be a popularity contest, I fully agree. A classic example of a popularity contest would be something like a high school senior class president....where handmade signs litter the halls and rarely speak to the actual political topics. Ironic, huh?
I agree this article was written with a biased mentality underneath and it showed through. But to call someone un-American because of it is a low blow. What would make you think that exactly? -
Erik,
Ok, the "Hockey Moms" catagory may be a bit too elite so let's just say "Moms. The real grit of America."
To quote you,
"A classic example of a popularity contest would be something like a high school senior class president....where handmade signs litter the halls and rarely speak to the actual political topics. Ironic, huh?"
Yes, maybe so, but Obama's camp is more guilty of this scenerio by ACTUALLY throwing away thousands of American flags and littered them along dumpsters after the DNC in Colorado. So who did themselves the greater disservice then? Actions not words say more than any slick and shiny card could ever portray and any American who is worth their salt knows it.
I did not call her un-American! I was asking if she is American. Huge difference. I will quote myself from an earlier post to refresh my stance.
"It is not uncommon that foreigners, non-Americans, Europeans, and people like British comedian Russell Brand are very opinionated about our country. I feel that is completely relevant to the article, nor is it inappropriate to ask if the author of this article is an American or not." -
Rachel -
Dad's mean nothing to America? I guess Founding Fathers just sounded better than Making Mothers, hehe.
You keep making this a political "Blue vs Red" issue. It's really not to me. Please stop the mud slinging, ok? The issue is "Were the handmade signs at the RNC making the right statement"? I have agreed that the design spoke to small towns. The next question is why is that? I think the reasoning I have heard is because people feel they are genuine and a certain honesty to them. When I see a handmade sign, I see the time and effort it took for the assumed holder of it to make it, which is a lie in this case (by both parties, not just McCain). That's upsetting to me that both parties would agree to a faux-honesty all in the name of winning.
So, if it's not uncommon, then your double-negative should really read, "It is common that foreigners, non-Americans, Europeans....are very opinionated about our country." Are you an international relations expert too? Are you very opinionated the political tactics of Italy, China, Mexico, etc, because you're a foreigner to them?
And sure, what Obama's campaign did after the DNC with flags was pretty bad. But it's not the topic at hand and this is not the arena to discuss one candidates misdoings over the others, right? It's a two-way street that does not belong here. -
Ok. A few things.
1. Erik. The presidential race, like it or not, has always been, and always will be a popularity contest. Whether it's public opinion, or political kickbacks, the person with the more popular message wins. Right?
2. Rachel. No offense, but when I see your comments I feel like I'm reading an excerpt from the manifesto of Douglas MacArthur. Just because someone has a different opinion, doesn't mean they need a crash course in understanding "Americanism". (Did I make up that word?)
3. Back to the signs. I live in a very small town and "good" or "bad" design doesn't exist as a concept. People don't have time to consider proper letter spacing, point size, rhetoric, or marketing but they like signs when they are fresh, new, and clean, just like everyone else. And to boot, there is a well respected firm that designed signage for a new building in my town. It had all the old-timers gossiping like high-schoolers. Picture this: clean steel panels, Garamond, and lovely foliage on either side. I still think that hand-made signs look strangely out of place at a DNC or RNC and neither of which were held in a small town. Unless someone catches a foul ball, or stops by the yard sale, I think that the potential beauty of a hand-made sign is misplaced. -
I am more interested in the discussion that revolves around the questions:
1. when you see someone holding up a homemade-looking sign at a political rally, do you think:
A. this person made this sign
B. this person's child made this sign
C. a party volunteer made this sign
and...2. does this affect how you perceive the candidate(s)?
Basically the discussion is about propaganda. Is it important to know who made these signs? What does it mean if viewers are affected by these design decisions?
The Republican party was engaging in some common propaganda tactics (perhaps going a little heavy handed...thus causing some to question the mechanism behind the message) and these visual tactics can be very effective. I do like to think that in this age of the Internet, we can cut through the artifice, and undermine the effectiveness of what is basically visual spin.
The image the Republicans were aiming to show was that, after less than one week out from her selection as the Republican vice presidential candidate, there is already a large, and fervent, fan base for Governer Palin. Did you believe it before? Do you believe it now? -
J.B. makes my point on #3 way before I wrote it. lol
-
So please tell me Erik what is "good design"?
If you can give me that metric I will humbly hold your opinions as fact.
Remember someone taught you what they thought was "good design".
For me it has always been feeling. You can sit and kern letters til your heart is content but sometimes you just know when something feels right. I would say a majority of designers always had an innate ability to create something - education lets you make better decisions it doesn't give you all the talent.
But I am getting off topic... I wonder how long it takes the graphic designers behind Obama's posters to finish their work. I will investigate to see if they spend hours kerning the letters between CHANGE and I will let you know. And if they don't? Does that make it bad design because they didn't spend the time to kern correctly?
I'll get back to you on that. I am pretty inspired by this post and conversation so I will post the answers on my website soon. -
Erik - Mud slinging? Founding fathers? Making mothers? Good grief or should I say Oh My or Goodness Gracious, or maybe something more inappropriate would appeal to your tastes then quoting Charlie Brown, or so you say I was doing?
The author of this article is speaking about women, mothers, and hockey moms. She did not bring up men in this instance.
The mud slinging started with the author. Re-read the article or should I re-post her quotes!
Here's is one of her derogatory comments:
"The 'Gee, I’m just a mom, so this here finger-painted sign is all I really know how to do. Now, won’tcha vote for my guy?' story feels tired and outdated. In this era, women should elevate themselves and represent themselves with pride, not unprofessionalism."
Who is she to say women should "elevate themselves" like she is the one to holds the standard or pica ruler. Palin is the physical embodiment of that very achievement.
Although the author of this article is bringing up a topic on design she should probably stick to designing and give up her moonlighting career of journalism.
JB - The answer lies between each letter. Who is the one who will be able to disKERN it? -
Good Lord, an article on sign graphics with a poorly camouflaged liberal bent.
"The 'Gee, I’m just a mom, so this here finger-painted sign is all I really know how to do. Now, won’tcha vote for my guy?' story feels tired and outdated. In this era, women should elevate themselves and represent themselves with pride, not unprofessionalism."
***
Elevate themselves to what you think you are? Pardon, but what I see in your article, is that age-old condition called "snobbery". Maybe you could critique Obama's styrofoam columns for us.
"The 'Gee, I’m just a set builder, so this here "styrofoam" column is all I really know how to do. Now, won’tcha vote for my guy?', really shows a lack of reality and artistic authenticity"
The Greek sculptors must be rolling in their graves having their work lowered to the level of styrofoam and presented for all the world to see. Really tacky and not very professional! -
Sigh...and here we go. You would rather attempt to discredit me then make your own point. It is a lot easier to prove someone wrong then prove yourself right, but I'll take the bait anyways and attempt to give you my definition of good design.
To me, good design directly and honestly communicates the intended message. This can be done directly (A stop sign with the word "stop" on it) and indirectly (the color red can be associated as danger or a warning). As it relates to this discussion, if McCain intended his audience for the signs to be small town voters, then he probably had a good idea with the campaign signs. But it wasn't honest. If you use a faux-handwritten font, what is the message you're trying to convey? There are tons of different messages and emotions that can be drawn from a handwritten font based on the context it's used, sure. In the context that McCain used handwriting (on a sign that most everyone associates with being homemade), it was not honest. And to me, that makes it a failed design.
I personally believe art history classes exist to give context and background to a piece of art so we can further connect and understand the message of the artist and the piece being examined. This gives us a higher appreciation of the work and personalizes it. Now that the context and background of these signs have been brought to light, I see that the message is untruthful.
I agree with you that good design will often come from a feeling. That feeling you get is a subconscious or conscious reaction that comes when you believe the message you are intending to say is going to be most clearly understood by the audience you intend. If not, then why go to design school? I would say 99.9% of designers did not have a full understanding of what they were doing and why they were doing it prior to going to school for it. To me, being a successful designer is not just designing, but it's knowing why you did things the way you did.
What does the time it takes have anything to do with it? The sign makers for the RNC may have taken 15 mins a sign and the DNC members may have designed Obama's CHANGE posters in 2 mins. It doesn't matter the time it takes, it matters if the intended message is honest and understood. If someone at the RNC of DNC was holding one of those signs but it read, "Graphic Designer for McCain!", wouldn't you feel misrepresented?
Nice plug for your website, too, haha!
Again, these are just my opinions and I'm more than open to listen or else why would I keep posting, right? I am by no means a veteran of the industry nor do I claim to know more than any of you. -
Rachel,
I agree the author hit below the belt with the article in more than a few places. But why stoop to that level in return? The author has no right to say women need to elevate themselves like she is the authority on the matter anymore so then you have the right to say hockey moms are the real grit of America.
Stay on topic though! This is about good design or not. What is your definition of good design and why do you think this was or wasn't, Rachel? -
Erik -
You said "And sure, what Obama's campaign did after the DNC with flags was pretty bad. But it's not the topic at hand and this is not the arena to discuss one candidates misdoings over the others, right? It's a two-way street that does not belong here."
There is one thing that never ceases to amaze me is that when the issue is turned around to show hypocrisy, the defense always says "its not the topic on hand." How convenient. The flags were printed material (signs) and then became waste. So much for slick design and use of funds. Pathetic! Hooray for McCain for rescuing them and reusing them, and much to their honor.
Design is more than a printed sign but I often factor in whether or not it can withstand time and use. As a young child I would watch my grandfather tinker in his garage making something from nothing. If he didn't have the part he'd make it. That is America(n) to me and McCain understands his audience obviously with "home-sweet-home simplicity". I approach design much in the same way. Hey and don't we all know that creating the most effective, simple designs are the most difficult. KISS!
To ALL of my colleagues, Cheers! Remember today is a day to Remember 9/11/01 -
Rachel,
Did the topic of sustainability come up even ONCE in the article? Nope. You didn't "turn the issue around", you changed it entirely to sustainability. And I do applaud McCain for doing that because it is something a responsible designer should consider now more than ever.
Please respond to anything I posted in my previous post which was directed to you and JB. -
Erik,
We agree on a lot from your last comment! However...
"There are tons of different messages and emotions that can be drawn from a handwritten font based on the context it's used, sure. In the context that McCain used handwriting (on a sign that most everyone associates with being homemade), it was not honest. And to me, that makes it a failed design."
I am glad you wrote it failed to you.
It failed to you because you know that it wasn't "honest-to-goodness" made by those who held it up - but given to them. How is this any different than a pep rally committee at a high school football game? Your still rooting for your team! What if they truly felt the way the sign said? The people who created those signs believe in what they believe in.They truly believe in their causes and they choose to hold up the sign. If they do - doesn't that make the message honest?
The people in the crowd at either convention were given signs to hold up both manufactured and handmade by their respective volunteers and given out. Handmade signs are supposed to show "local hometown support".
I am sure a majority of the people at either the DNC or RNC when asked "Does this sign look ugly?" would say "Yes" - if you asked them to hold it up they would also say "Yes". If the message is honest to the people holding it... the people writing it... then why is it not honest to you? Is it because you believe it was made to create a different impression? Well if it is - start looking at both candidates as trying to pull the wool over your eyes. The article states the Obama campaign has used similar tactics. So both are trying to convey the same ideas - which is true on so many levels. Such as the "change" mantra.
Handmade signs will resonate with the intended audience (middle America) more than the "designed" signs. I can agree that the design is poor - but they are not going after our vote - they want people to feel they are part of a team which has a lot of regular people rooting for them.
I think this article and the conversation brings up the message vs the medium. McLuhan would have a field day with this.
PS
Hey man anyway to get my work out there... even with a plug! -
JB,
The sign is different from that of a pep rally because you probably won't see a student holding a sign saying, "Teachers For John Adams High Football!" Most teachers probably support their school, but because it's handwritten it implies ownership and it doesn't make as much sense in the context it's displayed in (held by a 15 yr old student). Throw it on a wall and it makes more sense, right? Because those Hockey Mom signs are held by women, we ASSUME they're hockey moms and that's the type of dishonesty I don't approve of.
The context is very critical to the overall design.
The McCain campaign came up with a good idea, I agree there. I just don't like the manor in which is was deployed which was rooted in deception.
"If the message is honest to the people holding it... the people writing it... then why is it not honest to you?"
It might or might not be honest to the people holding it. If they're Hockey Moms, then it is. If they don't have any kids, then what gives them any right to speak for a demographic they don't belong to?
"Is it because you believe it was made to create a different impression?"
Yes. They were made to make people believe a false impression. It's false because it's handmade and the people holding it may or may not believe it. Like you said, they were probably just eager to help and when asked to hold one, they said yes. Now it's just propaganda, right?
Information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. -
I agree with assessment somewhat about the demographics so I am coming to a better understanding of your initial argument. Though I am inclined to agree with the "if they aren't hockey moms then they shouldn't hold up a sign saying they are" argument - I am sure there is a contingent of Hockey Moms who support Palin and I personally have no problem with them being represented. But I see your point! (I would also believe that a student would hold a sign that said "Teachers For John Adams' High School" in a moment of solidarity with a mentor.)
It really had nothing to do with the "design" per se. Just the fact that you felt someone was being misrepresented. Or do you believe that a manufactured sign in lieu of a handmade sign that says "Hockey Moms for Palin" would be okay? ( I am not being sarcastic here I really want to know...)
I think those people at the DNC and the RNC holding the handmade signs that were made for them to hold believe in the messages. Why else would they be a giant political rally cheering on their side? And who the hell knows maybe that woman was a hockey mom!
Isn't a campaign just another word for "Organized Propaganda Dissemination"? haha!
As I stated earlier both campaigns have been caught doing this. If this is what is making you vote for one person or another when there are many substantial differences between both candidates then so be it. Each campaign is manipulating visuals, facts, and rumors for their gain.
I hope when we watch the debate tonight there are no signs to be seen.
In the end I think I understand where you are coming from - though I do not believe it is as deceitful as you. -
sustainability = lasting impression. Obviously those simple hand made designs made an impression, enough to have someone write about it! Very human as compared to Obama's cold computer generated CHANGE mantra signs. No matter how you slice it, a human stroke on a canvas leaves far more of an impression than computer generated graphics.
It would be interesting to know who came up with the idea for hand-made signs and I suppose we assume it was orchestrated marketing. Or was it? Maybe it was a last minute decision or maybe they didn't get the signs printed on time. Who knows? As far as feeling that it was a misrepresentation on account that it could have been a single woman with no kids holding a sign that said "Hockey Moms for Palin." The same could be said of a stick think model eating Dryers Ice Cream on a TV commercial or magazine ad. Neither of those two go together either because we all know stick thin models don't eat.
Regardless, it was effective. Regardless, the same propaganda rules apply to Obama as well. Look at all the money he has collected to fund his campaign and persona to the American people. I think the article would have been better had it addressed BOTH campaigns and compared the two with incendiary remarks. -
Correction:
...withOUT incendiary remarks -
Sure, let the hockey moms be represented...by hockey moms. There's no doubt I'm more disappointed as a designer than I would be as just a citizen because context is something I am aware of every day. I also don't like being tricked, haha!
I think visually they were ugly as sin, but they weren't directed at me and if people in small towns (who it appears was the target audience based on the input above) feel more comfortable with handwritten signs, then it was successful to them. I guess bad design can be successful design at the same time simply because it's not the worst and it's still on some level communicating to it's target. Per my definition of good design, it should be honest in it's context and creation it wasn't. Also, while it spoke to those middle American's, it also offended some people or else this article wouldn't have been written in the first place. Maybe just designers.
No, this is not what is making me vote for one candidate or the other, haha! It just frustrates me as a designer in the way the concept was implemented and as a citizen that both campaigns feel the need to stoop to blatant "smoke and mirrors" with something as wholesome and innocent as a handmade sign. I'll never look at a garage sale or bake sale sign the same way!! =) -
Erik, its called contrast, think about it from just the text book definition.
Regardless of whether it is small town or metropolitan area, as a designer you or I have to put ourselves in their shoes and be objective to their viewpoints.
Again the article really does a disservice designers because it gives an impression that we all think like her with our nose in the air. I can't tell you how many times I have heard clients tell me about the poor designers they've had in airs and communication. That is why they are my client now because no matter what I try to always speak at their level and respect them. Small-town-simple-minded and the big-city-metro-minded alike. -
Rachel, I feel like you're all over the map here!
Your first reference to sustainability was implying the environmental affects of design. Wasting signs, throwing things away, the impression they would have on the environment. Now you're talking about the impression signs have on people.
"No matter how you slice it, a human stroke on a canvas leaves far more of an impression than computer generated graphics."
Really? Then why don't we all use faux-handwritten fonts? I'd have a crazy case of carpal tunnel if I had to do my job with just a pen. I encourage you to check out the documentary, "Helvetica".
"The same could be said of a stick think model eating Dryers Ice Cream on a TV commercial or magazine ad. Neither of those two go together either because we all know stick thin models don't eat."
It's all in the context! The "hockey mom" in the photo at the top is generic looking enough that we think we can safely assume she is one. My guess (again, guess) is that the person handing out signs was looking for a woman who fit what he/she thought a hockey mom looked like. I can guess this because he/she didn't give the sign to a 25 yr old man.
If she was sporting a bridal gown, wouldn't the sign look out of place? And now you've got me wanting ice cream. Thanks a lot.
It was probably effective (won't know until the polls I guess). And yes the rules apply to both sides, but that still doesn't make it right. I think because Obama was more vague, McCain decided to just one-up him and really focus on a new demographic he and Palin could try and win. It used to be the Soccer Moms, just a new spin on it based on Palin's life. The NY Times is now running an article on hockey moms in Alaska of all places.
Here's the first line: "Like many parents here in the communities near Anchorage, Sarah Palin raised her older children in hockey rinks."
Propaganda works but it's rarely honest. And although the author didn't directly mention Obama like she should of since she knew he did it to, she did at least leave a link to a page with video from the DNC with the same thing happening. Replace Hockey Moms with Students and Workers. -
Let's not spread unsubstantiated rumors regarding the extra flags from the DNC in Denver; please refer to:
"'Thrown Away Flags' Story False, Dem. Convention Official Says":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/06/thrown-away-flags-story-f_n_124499.html
Fox News has this article titled, "McCain Camp 'Rescues' Flags From Obama Rally":
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mccain-camp-to-chastise-dems-for-discarding-american-flags/
And I believe the story was broken at the Denver Post:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2008/09/06/republican-recycling/
The author reports that the gentleman who found the flags "thinks both sides are exaggerating a bit. The person claims the majority of the bags with flags in them were near the trash, on a dock, and would have been thrown away. The person thinks it was probably an 'oversight' by the Democrats rather than any nefarious plot against the flag. But the person doesn’t believe anyone was coming to get them: 'The flags were there for a week and a day and no one came looking for them.'"
Like the guy who found them, I figure that a worker or volunteer for the DNC forgot to do a pick-up. So many flags rolled up nicely don't read as "headed to the dumpster." -
Erik, well with your sighs and my good griefs this is sounding a bit like The Peanuts. On top of all that you are craving ice cream. So I will not belabor the topic any further (thank God) other than to clarify. I have design work to do. :P
You wanted me to bring in further discussion on design aspects and elements-hence the sustainability comment, which should be read alone and in and of itself. My oversight to stroke the return key one more time.
Personally, I do not feel I am all over the map. But that may be my "big picture" approach to the topic.
I will stand by the human element to anything painted on a canvas or a hand-made quilt. I think any artist would agree to the "soul" behind it is by contrast very different. Hence maybe the reason for McCain's hand-made signs. It is still effective, as we seem to agree on that.
Alas you have not responded to the my remark on contrast. -
Cat-
You couldn't have picked a more polar contrast in reporting agencies. Huffington Post and Fox News, I don't know about the Denver Post, which still leads me to believe it is a liberal news agency being that the DNC was held there in the first place.
Alas, it is what it is and McCain ran with it, oversight it may be on apart of Obama but a faulty mistake regardless. Check Mate! -
I thought the point was that the signs give hockey moms a negative image. The author's criticism is about the stereotype that's perpetuated. Why get defensive about Palin. This doesn't talk about her at all.
The "Gee, I'm just a mom" part seems like the organizers' perspective, not so the author's, and she says so. She also commends hockey moms. Sure, the signs aren't the worst thing I've ever seen, but so? It still makes an impression.
Presidential conventions are huge, so there must have been an art staff. Who decided homemade signs were good enough for moms? If ugly signs were made for an ethnic group, that would be prejudiced and wrong, so is this. You can't bring in your own signs, so if you want to hold one up, and you're a hockey mom, you've got 2 choices - ugly sign, or no sign. What about all the dads who tote kids around? Why didn't the designers play fair and equal, and make ugly signs for them too? Hardly one guy was holding up something that looked silly. An old fashioned image was pushed for women, but not men or other groups. Hmmm. This story has a new perspective.
Like I said, there are much uglier things out there. But how is the writer snobby for calling out people who push stereotypes and ask for more honesty and respect?
Elections are all about visuals. I mean, look at how much was blogged about Hillary's orange suit? As if that even matters. And we don't listen to debates on the radio anymore. We gotta see it. It's 2008, and women are more than moms, they go to college, have jobs & houses, and wear pants. ...... The visual representation should evolve too, accordingly. Maybe the ugly signs succeeded, since a lot of people don't seem to mind. But that doesn't make it right. There's always room for improvement. -
The signs are lies. Isn't that appropriate enough?
-
When it's all said and done, political campaign = marketing campaign. Why is it OK for corporate America to use these tactics and wrong for politicians? This seems hypocritical of the design community, which itself participates in similar marketing practices. If deception of this sort is right or wrong on any level, it should apply across the board. The campaign managers aren't stupid. They don't throw marketing 101 out the window when they go to work for a political candidate.
-
Rachel,
What contrast are you speaking of? A little more info and I'd be more than happy to reply.
"I will stand by the human element to anything painted on a canvas or a hand-made quilt. I think any artist would agree to the "soul" behind it is by contrast very different."
I'll give it to you. Sure, why not, right? If your hand physically sews a quilt, one can say more goes into it. But to an average person, will they know the difference between a handmade one and a machined one that looks like it? Doubtful. But if the handmade quilt is in a small town shop and packaged to look like one (say, tied up rather than in a clear plastic bag) and even says handmade on it, we assume it is. You've been tricked and how does that make you feel now? But if you had done your research and looked into what a handmade quilt is supposed to look like and been educated on the topic, you would have figured it out. You might even want to bring it to the attention of the store owner or local newspaper! Starting to sound familiar now...
Meredith,
Does that make the deception anymore right? I'd say it's worse in the political arena because we have a lot more to lose or gain. If Dryers Ice Cream sells its product with a thin, young model, they sell more ice cream and we get a little fatter. That may cause people to die faster from physical complications with weight. Not exactly the same comparison to keeping soldiers in Iraq for another hundred years if needed, right? Or if we pull those troops out too soon and the Iraq government collapses, starting a civil war of sorts where innocent Iraqi lives are lost. The results might not be direct, but they are way more severe.
At what point should a designer draw an ethical line in the sand and refuse to cross it? I won't get into my specifics, but due to some incorrect political data in a piece I was working on, I had to ask myself, "How is this data going to affect the public if they read it?" It was in an OpEd piece and was only off a few percentage points, but I still brought it to the attention of the writer. Just because we're not the one coming up with the message or the campaign doesn't mean we're allowed to act without moral responsibility. -
Sorry, I meant to say if a machined quilt was packaged and placed to look like a handmade one.
-
Geez Louise!!!
Is it not possible that it wasn't deception at all? Just maybe? None of you knows for sure. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt. Isn't it possible that the signs were a last minute thing? Isn't it possible that the people who chose to hold up the signs were not trying to misrepresent themselves, but maybe just support hockey moms or just moms in general? Is it possible that this entire article is just digging for something that isn't there? I don't think Obama is deceitful for his fake columns (hey his set looked damn good). Can't you all extend the same courtesy to the GOP campaign? -
Derek,
Sure, they very well could have been last minute. I can go along with that. That doesn't mean we, the American public, weren't deceived though. And just because the people who held them up didn't mean to misrepresent anyone, that doesn't mean they didn't. Ignorance is not an excuse. If someone gave you a sign to hold up, wouldn't you look at it before waving it around? What if some tricky democrat had snuck in and gave someone a sign that said, "Puppy Kickers for Palin!"? Besides me dying from laughter at seeing that on national tv, the person holding it couldn't claim ignorance unless maybe they were illiterate or Stevie Wonder. Maybe. Again, it comes down to a certain ownership quality that comes from a handwritten sign. We all assume the woman (might not even be a mom) was a Hockey Mom and she personally supported Palin AS a Hockey Mom.
I've extended the same discourtesy to the Obama side too. What he did was wrong too. Two wrongs don't make a right, either. Why not take the high ground and just give people pre-approved general ones? I personally would not want someone claiming they represent all graphic designers with a sign reading "Graphic Designers for Obama" or "Graphic Designers for McCain". You do NOT represent me and my vote. I represent myself just fine on my own. A campaign is about image and we shouldn't be given a false one just to try and convince us otherwise. Obviously this "Hockey Mom" mentality has built up steam since the NY Times is running hockey mom articles. -
Maybe "Hockey Mom" is the same as "Soccer Mom"? I am sure not every Soccer Mom drives a van but when they talk about it they will make that assumption. I wonder if they get mad when they refer to the "soccer moms" that voted for Bush in the 2000 election and some voted for Gore.
I wonder what all those students who do not like either candidate think when there is a sign that reads "Students For ______". There can be two or more factions of people in any group maybe its okay to represent your faction.
Example - Steel Workers for McCain vs Steel Workers for Obama.
Do you actually think that all Steel Workers, students, hockey moms, etc all think the same because of a sign?
I am still not buying this whole argument that someone who might or might not of been a hockey mom can't represent the people in that group. I am sure there are Hockey Moms for McCain and Obama.
I think this is stretching it way to far. -
JB,
McCain is clearly going after the same type of demographic - women with children involved in the sporting activities of her child. Basically, a way to get any mother to consider voting for him.
I feel unless you're an elected official of a group, what gives you the right to take a side and claim to represent them? Unions have elected officials that take sides to endorse candidates. Fine. Great. If you didn't want them representing you, next election, don't vote for them. At least you have the opportunity to have your voice count.
No, I don't think they all just go with the flow and think the same. But the signs intention isn't to make you jump on the bandwagon. McCain knows that. So does Obama. He wants the signs to get your attention though (although probably not our attention like it has). Once a Hockey Mom sees that sign, she thinks, "Hey! I'm a Hockey Mom! Wooo!" and then three things - 1. "I feel so connected as a Hockey Mom and Republican! This is great to know we're represented and our vote matters to him!" or 2. "Wait! I'm a Hockey Mom and I'm a democrat...but I guess if my group of fellow hockey mom's are for him, maybe I should listen a bit." or 3. "Psssh, I'm a Hockey Mom and I'm for Obama still...whatever."
The non-reaction of number 3 is a bust. But it doesn't hurt his campaign if they simply ignore it. No loss there. The other two though, 1 and 2, that's what he's looking for. That's really what any designer should be looking for - a targeted reaction.
And yeah, I'm clearly stretching things a bit far for the sake of discussion about good design, bad design, design ethics and a multitude of other topics here. But when it's design on a national level, it should be discussed. -
They’ve already dumbed down the image of everyday women everywhere by not electing the electable candidate and acting like fools over this nobody.
-
That this would either a) slip through the editor's eye, or b) be approved by the editorial staff of the AIGA is a great disappointment.
-
Ummm... yeah, an article about the crappy signs at the RNC? Followed by a heated discourse? Seriously? Where am I right now?
I'm with this guy:
"I would like to start by saying that this is my first time visiting the AIGA site. I followed a link here expecting to find some great articles on design. Instead, I find this. The time I have spent reading this article is time that I, regrettably, can never get back. I hope you are proud of yourself. I am leaving this site, never to return." -
The hand-made signs did look out out of place at the RNC. They were unexpected and upon viewing them I felt a bit uncomfortable. We have this image of what the RNC would look like and what signs the delegates would be holding, but maybe the hand-made signs were intentional to show the true heart of a republican voter on a national level? I'm simply putting this point out there without any merit.
Not to discredit hand-made signs, I used them all through out high school for elections, but there is much more meaning behind a sign that is made by the sign holder. Instead of having volunteers mass produce signs, there could've been a station at the RNC for people to make their own signs...that would've been an awesome thing to see. -
sad that designers waste their time looking for trouble where there is none ... and then debating it to death ... please talk about something really important
-
once again, might I say the point is about the stereotype that the signs promote. THe fraud behind the signs isn't the issue, but the fact that the fraud led to bad design, leading to pushing a less desirable view of women, that's importnt. If ugly design promotes a negative stereotype, isnt' that worth talking about? If these signs were given to a group of Hispanics, there'd be a heckuva a lot of talking going on, and a lot of 'ooh, why do only hispanics get ugly signs? why didn't white men get them?' Would that be acceptable then, to promote that stereotype?
It seems like the issue isn't that the signs were made by someone else, but why were they only made for Hockey moms and no one else? Design can promote bad stereotypes, or help change overall perception. The RNC decided that promoting bad sterotype was ok for Hockey moms. -
This is a design asthetic as anything else. "Folksy", "Working-class", "anti-elitist" which is exactly the image they are trying to convey. Everything is designed, and at something like the RNC you can make damn sure everything is coordinated.
And to all the people that are saying "can't we talk about something more important?" We are talking about the design of probably the most important election in our lifetimes (USA and beyond), I don't know what you think is more important than that. -
A quick tangent back to the reporting on the DNC's extra flags:
Rachel had an accurate observation on my news source selections; I chose sources with a very wide range of tones in news coverage. None of them, including Fox News, unequivocally described the flags as discarded.
As to whether Denver and/or the Denver Post is liberal, let's be honest; you'll probably find that any city large enough to host our two primary political parties' conventions tends to be liberal.
However, the author of the blog entry for the Denver Post is a conservative libertarian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harsanyi
Anyway. Maybe I'll contribute something on a more design-related note:
The author of this article approached this story with a very specific point of view, and the tone was certainly less than ideal. However, the article does have interesting points. I agree the RNC was stereotyping on and pandering to Palin's demographics. Their decision, or rather, the author's interpretation of it, has obviously hit a nerve with readers (sixty-three comments so far, versus seven total for the five previous articles!). Now, the RNC's goal was to persuade the conservative base and this was how they chose to accomplish that. Yes, a bit narrow of a direction, but maybe it was successful. Then again, just because something is known to work doesn't mean you need to/should do it (and perhaps the RNC even lost out on a more effective visual direction).
This article is ultimately about the impact/responsibilities/ethics of how designers choose to appeal to certain groups. Certainly a worthy topic. But I'll admit I'm a little more interested in these signs as a marketing decision.
This story reveals marketing practices applied in the context of a political election, the results of which have significant impacts (marketing as applied to the private sector is something to be wary of too). Members of the voting public need to be aware of the real issues (candidates' legislation records, for example), because when they are not, they leave themselves open to be influenced by these visual tactics---something campaigners (and advertisers) take advantage of. The mechanism behind these signs is no small thing. -
Andrew,
"THe fraud behind the signs isn't the issue, but the fact that the fraud led to bad design, leading to pushing a less desirable view of women, that's importnt. If ugly design promotes a negative stereotype, isnt' that worth talking about?"
I still don't think the aesthetics is the issue. While they weren't highly appealing signs on that scale, as a communicating tool, I think they were. I think more people now are cracking jokes about Palin hunting moose and being a "hockey mom" now after the RNC. Maybe because we haven't been given hardly anything about her background, but the NY Times ran a hockey mom in Alaska story! To me, this means the signs were effective, which means it was good design since it hit its target audience and got people talking about it, and not really in a negative light. I think most people you ask would describe a soccer mom or hockey mom as dedicated, loving, and responsible women before they would say something like, "rough around the edges". So, then the issue to me isn't about the beauty of the signs, but about their means in which they were created.
If we found out a Van Gogh wasn't painted by Van Gogh, the piece would immediately drop in value. Why? Because the creator and his life and intent have now been erased from the piece. If designers are artists, then why not consider the background into the piece? We're asked, "What were your inspirations?", "What made you decide to choose this color?" and a multitude of other questions that all relate to our personal choices. In this case, we're fraudulently shown the assumed artist and their piece. We assume a hockey mom is patriotic and that's why she chose red and blue on a white background. But since some lackey made the signs, this image is bogus.
Linda
I can think of a lot of things sadder than designers talking about design...like designers not commenting, accepting things as face value then posting just to complain. Contribute or don't, no one is making you. But posting "just to post" helps no one learn anything except maybe pointlessness. -
I'm just simply amazed at the drama that has been made about these signs...WOW! Really?
-
I don't think it's drama, just discussion and different views about design. I wouldn't say anyone is screaming nor is this national news, but to a designer it's an interesting subplot to the elections. We could very easily turn this into a blue vs red debate, but that's not the point of this being on an aiga forum.
I don't agree with the way in which this was brought to our attention, but it is interesting, right? -
Badly designed or not, what I found to be the most interesting is that not all of those "hand written" sign were carried by regular citizens. I saw a few men in blue suits with ear pieces holding up "Hockey Moms for Palin" signs!
-
Erik
You GOTTA get a job or a hobby or something to occupy your time besides spending it on your elaborate posts!
Just kidding, dude.
Maybe I'm just simple. I assume good intent before bad. I see no bad intent, except for the author's clear anti-Palin bias. -
Isn't it an obvious connection that these poorly made signs are only foreshadow of how poorly run the presidency will be if this country elects these people! Good design, bad design, clever idea, careless mistake, advertising ploy, shady campaign trick, or makeshift campaign funding, it’s not the signs and speeches that we should look at to vote. If you are in advertising or graphic design you should know better than to trust a advertisement for the truth. It’s the candidate’s past, present, peers, actions, views and stances, and family that should be considered in an election.(Yes I said family, if you can’t control your family you can’t control a country, example abstinence it obviusly worked for her and her family, She feels it will work for the whole country, the question is do we have enough midwives?)
The problem is most people will believe denial is a river in Egypt if you market it right!
We should know that all campaigns are lies and leading idea’s by high paid clever individuals that don’t necessarily back the candidate they work for they back the organization they work for that might back (or get kick backs) from the campaign they support.
It’s a dirty world pigs lie, lipstick or not! -
PALIN POWER!! WOO HOO! GO PALIN!
-
Are you kidding me? really? what power are you talking about the power to actually make our country fall more? or the media power one gets with controversy? bad news makes good publicly! Don’t be sold to the hype!
-
I agree! Go PALIN!
-
Wow...great comments about design.
Wait for it....yep.....did you all hear it? It was the sound of realization setting in that this isn't a political debate. Sounds kinda like a rock hitting the bottom of a relevant discussion.
It's cool that you all have political favorites, as do I. But unless it's pertinent to the function of design, do you really need to share? There are probably thousands of forums open to discussion about who your candidate is, but only one that I have seen that integrates the design side of things. If you want to share, at least add to the discussion. If not, I guess this thread has died. -
This article is a pig in lipstick
-
I think the hand-made signs were a smart move, thought of by people who know and understand their audience. Isn't that what our profession is about?
I would much rather live in a small, design-ignorant town - than in a coastal city of group-think snobs who consider those small town people living in the "fly-over" states, as bumbling boobs just because they don't have as many degrees/BMW's.
Why on earth should women voting for anyone need to present themselves as professionals? What if they're not professionals? What if they have jobs, but they aren't defined by them and obsessed with showing off status symbols? What if they don't give a flying $%&* about presenting themselves in a way that seems impressive to you?
You are boring and you are a stereotype, Yamuna Ramachandran. I bet I can pick out your wardrobe, what's on your itunes, where you shop, what style of furniture you like, and every political belief you have, with, oh... 85% accuracy. Because you're all the same.
By the way, I like Obama and will probably vote for him. I'm 28 and childless and I live in southern California... so it's not like I'm representing one side or the other. It just peeves me when I hear/read someone presenting this thinly veiled liberal bias with such dripping elitism that they actually believe everyone intelligent must agree with them. -
Chicken Little...the sky is falling, the sky is falling or is that the sound of shattering glass from the ceiling?
-
I read these hand made designs. I do not read the ones that look like they were developed by designers, because they look the same, and their messages are boring. Vetrans for McCain, who cares? I like the hand made signs, I like looking at other people's handwriting. I enjoy the original, heart felt messages. Because those processed, canned designs can't really say it like that person wants to express it. There is something personal about putting the hand to the posterboard, their message, their creation. It's a beautiful thing.
-
Tiffany,
Sorry you don't like the ones that look the same. Do you think you're in the minority or the majority there? Honest question. If people like handmade looking signs, then why not design all marketing and campaign material for McCain in this font?
If you like looking at other people's handwriting, then why are you applauding these signs? A large majority of them were written by the same person and the handwriting is clearly the same. Also, you like the "original, heart felt messages".....did you read the article at all? There is no "heart felt" or originality to them since they were made by staffers backstage!
I agree, handmade items have a unique charm to them. But these signs are a sham! Doesn't that mean anything? It's like saying, "I love Nike's because they're handmade!!! By real children!! And I LOVE children!!!"
Wait...what?? Part of the charm is the believability that the person making the sign actually cares about the craft of making it with care and having it be unique.
My head hurts. People love the honesty and message and homemade look of the signs, but they all would rather ignore the truth in their creation because "it's cute!". -
I think everyone is overlooking the issue. It's about design. These are not designers who put the signs together. They have no idea what ROY G BIV means, all they know is that they do not know this person (insert snicker). As a design aesthetic it hits a target market, although the design is terrible. The target is people. The signs speak loudly about the human touch. Maybe thats more important than perfectly printed brilliant design.
I once read an opinion about brand identity that stated that it is more important for the logo to speak about the company than the likability of the design. -
I concur with point that the signs do reinforce stereotypes about the people holding them. But I believe Ms. Ramachandran has overlooked some key issues.
Even if we set the phrase "Hockey Moms 4 Palin" in a clean sans-serif (say Univers 47 Light Condensed), doesn't it still carry unwanted connotations? "Mom" is such a colloquial endearment. And using "4" in place of the full word does the English language no favors.
Perhaps Palin supporters should be referred to as "Mothers who support childhood athletics and Palin". Or, to remove gender from the question, "Primary child-care givers in favor of youth sports and Palin". Undoubtedly that would help their image.
Also I would suggest these women conform to a more formal dress code when attending Palin rallies. No jeans, lounge wear, or scrunchies allowed. Palin supporters may or may not be on the corporate career track, but there is no reason for them to look so casual. -
I am simply an undergrad graphic design student. I love design and well-designed things. But I strongly believe that there is much much more to life. I was just looking up the aiga, considering joining, and this article first caught my attention.
Honestly, I am disgusted by the stance taken. As if, in such a critical presidential race, the rallying signs mattered so intensely. It is the moral character, the proven records, the values, the goals, the real plans that these men have which ultimately matter.
If America is going to truly shine, she must learn to resist the soma (see "Brave New World" and please pardon the mixed metaphors) of a visually obsessed, entertainment driven culture. We need people less concerned with how the candidates look and sound--more concerned with where they will lead us spiritually.
I believe that beauty is a fundamental metaphysical reality, something originating in and initiated by God in creation. It is a very important part of our lives. But this article has just proven how misguided design and designers can be. -
Is it possible that a home-made sign could be overlooked by the general audience because people are subconsiously conditioned to expect and react to sterotypical campaign signage? Or do they stand out further because they are not so sterotypical? Is there really an overwhelming number of people who can relate to "hockey moms? Or is it a poor marketing decision by making their message to narrow?
I think this begs another question. Does anyone think that maybe the actual style of the sign takes a back seat to the message itself?
Is it obvious that a well designed marketing *cough* er, uh campaign plan, with a consistent, repetitious message via signage and what not, attracts more voters? Or does the font on someone's sign make a bigger impact? Maybe in the designer's mind it does.
Where does Pavlov fit in to all of this? -
hjp,
You're coming at this from the wrong direction. I don't believe anyone that has commented about the signage is going to cast his or her vote any different direction because of this issue. But you say so yourself, it's the candidates moral characters and values that matter. I believe these signs do play into those areas. I'm not condemning these candidates, rather I'm condemning the system in which they live in as a designer. Both find it ok to try and slip a fast one by us in a graphical format, something I'm more attuned to notice over say, a factual error about Iraq. This is the area I personally have an issue with.
You want us to be less concerned with what a candidate says and how they look. But we only have 5 sense in which to learn with. I personally don't think their physique matters, so no need to touch them and I can safely assume they both shower so smell is gone. Taste too unless you've kissed one of them and have some good gossip (OMG, Johnny kisses weird!!). So, that leaves us with hearing and seeing. I hear their messages and I see the way they carry themselves and present themselves. If I SEE them being dishonest, doesn't that speak to their character and my trust in them? Again, both of them are guilty, so I guess you can call it a tie there but does that make it right? Do you think believeability, intent, honesty and integrity belong in design or is ok to design anything just to make a buck?
You can claim metaphysical reality and God and spirituality all you want. God has given me a brain and thats about as much he/she/it factors into my design. Don't judge designers by this article because it's more biased than Rush Limbaugh. And if you're picking your candidate based on where they will lead us spiritually, shouldn't you be trying to elect the Pope or another powerful religious icon? -
HJP - I couldn't agree with you more. As this article hit the electronic airways I was about to renew my dues to AIGA, well I have declined to reinstate them.
This kind of politicking mixed with design standards is like a fly in perfume. -
aren't you mixing politics with design? Should AIGA then decline membership benefits to you?
-
Rachel - Your last comment strikes me as rather shortsighted. Whether you renew your membership or not is no concern of mine. But your rationale is odd. Whatever the position of the author and article on this site, it is but one of many articles on design and its intersection with culture, society, and politics, not the sum of AIGA's focus. This space has also afforded you and others the opportunity to argue, debate, and discuss the concerns raised by the author, an AIGA member. I cannot for the life of me see why that becomes an impediment to membership in an organization that presumably has served your needs until this moment. Whatever you choose to do is your right, but don't blame it on the red herring that design is design and politics is politics and never the twain should meet. This is a forum for many ideas, and will always be so.
-
Like I said, politicking, whether it be from a pulpit or designing forum is like a fly in perfume TO ME! This is not the only article I've read on AIGA that has a bent politically. At that time, I choose not to comment, I almost did, but I figured why throw the baby out with the bath water.
Well after this article I choose to speak my mind, and look at all the minions that came out. What is sad is that this article has over 85 comments and the article on Martha Stewart's rebranding article only has 9. The proof is in the pudding. -
The Martha Stewart article, which I also read, was a case study and more about the design process then about anything debatable. Not to mention, I've never seen either logo to the extent that I would have noticed a change from one to the other. But, the article was about the process and it explained the reasoning behind the message. We have no such luxury with this article since the "designers" are busy buying Starbucks for Palin and McCain. We now get to play my favorite game, "What did they mean??" and look at those handmade signs and try and figure out what the intent was.
What was the other article that rubbed you the wrong way, Rachel? I'd like to read it too.
"I chose to speak my mind, and look at all the minions that came out"?? The article already had 9 posts before you even put one so I don't think it was just you that saw this as controversial as a designer. And please don't bring pudding into this. Why does it always have to be about food?!?! Now I'm craving a Snack Pack....chocolate style.
And if I felt that what I was given could justify the $315 annual fees, I would join. Other than a title, "AIGA Member" and a few books, nothing entices me to spend that kind of cash. Maybe I could just sign up for the AIGA credit card, that's gotta be free, right?
"There are costs associated with the use of this affinity (credit) card." -
hjp,
I am with you. I think this is the goofiest thread. We, as designers, should be spending our time on better things and I think this will be my last year with AIGA. -
I appreciate the comments, but feel compelled to write one response.
The issue is not about politics. It is that gender stereotyping is wrong.
Few realized that point.
The mere mention of Palin's name to set the scene, doesn't constitute bias. The story focuses on the signs, the organizers, and the stereotyping. A careful reading of the entire story clarifies that. This is a design issue. My criticism does not target hockey moms, Palin or the GOP. McCain is never mentioned and is irrelevant. I don't discuss the candidates or their platforms in the article, and won't here.
I'm surprised people pooh-pooh design on a high-impact level. Projects entail research to put forth a precise idea, as with the signs. Why be a designer, or study the history of graphics, if dissecting design is a "waste of time?" Design has far-reaching impact and influences people through subtleties.
One comment illustrates the prejudice: If these doodled signs were made for African-Americans, It would falsely portray an unintelligent image of all Black voters. I see no difference here. It's surprising that so many (even women) accept gender stereotypes, while they would be aghast at racial ones. Neither is acceptable. I point to the organizers for this error in judgment. The signs need not be printed. But because they may not create your own, perhaps the organizers should have promoted individuality or more clever ideas. The signs promoted a generalized, antiquated view of moms. Again, this was all stated.
A candidate's speech is picked apart on TV, although it was written by others. When watching opposing viewpoints, we don't cancel our cable subscription. Instead, we eat up the hours of subsequent on-air critique.
I strongly disagree with the numerous suggestions that "poor design is a small-town value." I hail from a "Hockey Mom" town and believe good design can originate and be applied anywhere -- just check the design annuals, and locations of contest winners - it's all over the map.
I liken the signs to commercials for cleaning products that feature only women with kids. Men also clean and have kids, and they should be targeted equally. Why not demand the highest respect, rather than settle for what little is given. I didn't think taking a stand against gender stereotyping was elitist, biased, or liberal. In fact, not doing so would take us back 50 years. -
It seems the signs have severed there purpose.Look at all the comments that are posted.It may not be an award winning design but the child like designs are working.Sometime a simple design catches the viewer heart.
-
I agree with the most of you in saying that this debate has been made way too political. I feel that in the article the author explains how the signs are degrading female voters everywhere by stereotyping all political fans "hockey moms"
-
Yamuna,
Seriously?
"With the GOP convention labeled a “hit” by some and a “disaster” by others, those handwritten “Hockey Moms for Palin” signs, standing out among the hordes of commercially printed McCain/Palin fliers held high by their beaming delegates, fall into the latter category."
In your OPENING paragraph, you reference both Hockey Moms and McCain. Your reply says you don't target Hockey Moms then proceed to use them as a corner stone in your argument. And as for "never mentioning" McCain, you use his name right away. "Never" is a black/white word, either all encompassing or not.
You mention that if an African American held up a handmade sign, it would falsely portray them....in what light? If the issue is the design, then why would handmade portray them as anything other than someone with "small town values" which seems to be the message people believe is associated with handmade items.
I'm a guy. I cook and clean for myself. I'm not offended when soap companies don't have guys trying to sell me products. In fact, I find it ridiculous when I have a guy who looks like he belongs in a garage rebuilding engines trying to sell me soap. I don't care WHO is selling me something, just present it to me in an interesting way. The Chunky Soup ads come to mind - famous football players and their mom's selling soup. It's not the players that make me think, "Wow, if I eat that I'll be in the NFL!!", it's the mom's that make me think, "Hmm...Donovan McNabb's mom is ACTUALLY selling soup!! Catchy angle! I like that!"
You're only helping promote the stereotype of a hockey mom with comments like, "Hockey moms thoughtfully design their homes and yards to portray a positive image." Is that what Hockey Mom's are known for? Interior design and landscaping? Apparently, dads can't design a home or a yard. As a man, I'm offended. Nay, enraged!! Dad's everywhere demand respect!! Men, especially white men, have been getting portrayed as rough, greasy, athletic, dominating individuals for too long!! I don't fit all of those traits and am sick of it!!!
....not really. Because I understand stereotypes don't speak about everyone and rarely do. I think the days of women being seen only as the 1950's Suzy Homemaker, cooking and cleaning and watching soap operas, are for the most part behind us. Not entirely and I'm all for keeping the struggle in the spotlight, but pick your battles carefully or people will just see you throwing gas on a dwindling issue. -
Well this is certainly NOT something I'd expect AIGA to post on their website.
-
Rachel,
I think the reason people commented so heavily on this article was to either debate the presented issue (design), drop worthless blogger attitude, or to keep the thread from going chaotic with lopsided political aggression like yours.
Minions!?!? Are you kidding? Who do you think you are exactly?
About the signs,
They aren't genuine because the person holding it didn't make it. There are a lot of mothers out there that care deeply about how they are portrayed in the public (male) eye. After everything that women have fought for they still struggle for equality everyday. Yamuna suggests that the design of these signs takes a step back in that regard.
Where are the "Football Fathers for McCain" signs?
I would also like to point out the misspelled sign. What were they thinking? Or not. -
I don't think it's fair that everyone is judging these woman so hard. We must r

Comments