Shedding light on flag design
2015 is the year of flags. I have been slowly drowning in the New Zealand flag debate all year as part of my Master of Design research, and has oddly given me the title of vexillologist and perhaps even vexillographer. In my work I have come across various responses from people across the country, both online (I created Flagpost) and in person. This is my attempt, while it is still relevant, to debunk or give thought to some of these notions.
“They look like logos.”
Flags do act in similar ways to logos — they are both visual manifestations of identity, and both derive from the likes of heraldry. Although flags have been around longer than logos, they now have to compete for originality in a highly-commercial world where brands and their logos are found on everything we make.
That too has had an effect on how we use flags — no longer are they simply fabric on a pole, flying in the wind, they are now used much in the same way we apply commercial visual identities. In the commercial world, similarity tends to only be an issue if the two similar designs are in the same market as each other or is likely to cause confusion for customers. For example, an engineering company in the United States isn’t in the same market as a national flag of a country in the South Pacific, nor likely to cause confusion.
But is saying a flag looks like a logo really a bad thing? Possibly not. Good logos will follow very similar rules to good flag design — simplicity, few colours, meaningful and being distinctive or related (a big difference would be that no words or complex artwork should be used on flags). So there is a good chance that flags might look like logos, and their simplicity/abstract nature will more likely mean that there are some similarities to existing logos in the international brand landscape.
That said, flags do have a language of their own — certain conventions based in historical use and the nature of the medium. So if a flag looks like a logo, perhaps it’s worth asking: is it a good logo, and does it still look like a flag?
“The flag should be innovative.”
Relative to modern developments in science and technology, flags are boring. Innovation is not often an attribute one should apply to flag design, unless you’re really wanting to think outside the box. National flags in particular, are about fitting in — not standing out. This comes from same notion that flags have a language and follow certain conventions. But why?
A flag isn’t trying to compete with other flags for attention, it’s not trying to sell you something, it’s not trying to tell you what to do — it is merely there to represent, differentiate, and be visible. Flag design is the art of giving swathes of people a humble presence on a stage, be it at the UN or the Olympics — not to push others aside or be taller than the rest.
“It needs to scream New Zealand.”
Flags don’t scream. As said before, they’re not trying to compete with others, nor sell you something or tell you what to do. But there are a couple of other issues with this particular sentiment.
Firstly, flags are symbols in themselves—not canvases waiting to be illustrated on. This is the common mistake in flag design attempts; taking pre-existing symbolism (often more than one) and making a composition with them on a rectangle in an attempt to make a design scream. Good flags refrain from symbol overuse, but also acknowledges that it is a symbol itself. The Japanese flag is a perfect example of reduced form and simple composition and colour to create a timeless flag, without throwing in a cherry blossom or a map of the Japanese islands.
The other missing consideration is that symbols, like words, are imbued and filled with meaning over time. The French flag, as one of many examples, is steeped with history and meaning for the people it represents, despite its very abstract design—but this would not have been the case upon its inception. The French have formed a deep and personal relationship with it and the country has grown over the past 200 years.
The notion that any new flag needs to scream simply misrepresents the demeanour of a flag, but also doesn’t acknowledge the process of building a relationship with it over time.
“I shouldn’t have to read a website about what it means.”
Flags are abstract by their very nature. They are not billboards, comic strips or paintings. They are simple graphic forms that are used for the differentiation and representation of groups of people—which is a particularly good reason for abstract rather than literal designs (on top of the rule of simplicity and flag conventions). It follows the same explanation before; meaning is imbued over time and doesn’t need to scream a particular message or idea—as long as the intent is meaningful.
Americans are taught about their flag in school; the 13 stripes don’t automatically say they’re a reference to the founding 13 states, the 50 stars don’t say there’s one for every state—it is learned, but the story and rationale is there. More to the American flag is the fact that it has changed 28 times in it’s history; every change made to reflect additions of states—the flag actually evolves with the country’s story.
“But if I do this, it looks like a Swastika.”
Simply put, anything can become a Swastika if you try hard enough. It is just another example of Godwin’s Law—that is, ‘if an online discussion, regardless of topic or scope, goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism’. Enough said.
Do you have any questions yourself that you want to see answered, or have I missed something important in these responses? Tweet me.
