Hi, Fil,
While I am partially sympathetic to your arguments, the column was not entirely mistaken in its views. I know nothing about McParland’s politics, but his language was both harsh — and evidently populist.
Nevertheless, there is a big difference between the normal competitions where for-profit organisations get design firms to compete for jobs based on free work and a general public competition inviting large-scale public participation in a short-time, once-off symbol for a public festival. I’m not saying the designers are wrong — some of the claims in the linked counter-story are reasonable. But it is not entirely clear that McParland is wrong, despite his hyperbole.
Four points argue in favour of the notion that this is not so bad.
First, this isn’t government policy. You are right to say that no one will die, but there is more (or less) to this. This is the one-time only symbol for a national birthday party. Unless Canada plans to celebrate another sesquicentennial any time soon, it’s hard to see what’s wrong with a relatively charming, nice-enough logo as compared to a superior professional logo.
Second, there is the question of how much more they’d get by hiring professionals. I suppose that saying this on a list with so many professional designs is a bit like throwing a lighted match into a hay barn, I have seen a great many of these things produced by professional design firms that are not significantly better than this logo — with rhetorical arguments that aren’t especially better or worse than the “four provinces, six provinces, three territories” argument reported by Don Butler in a significantly less choleric report:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/stylized-maple-leaf-logo-for-canadian-150th-celebration-basically-flipped-a-double-bird-at-artists-designers-say
The government celebration site says more:
Canada150.gc.ca
Over the years, I have seen professional design teams produce some great national image programs — especially the Norway Winter Olympics of 1994. List member Sarah Rosenbaum may have some comments on this — she was part of that design team, and she designed the fabulous sports icons based on ancient stone carvings. At the same time, I have seen professional designers produce disastrous projects for national image and festival materials. This logo is not as good as the Olympics, but that cost millions and took years. It is better than some of the far more expensive projects governments buy from professional designers.
What’s best for government in a case like this? Outstanding design services — at prices no designer can afford to work for. What’s best for designers? It is far better that the government hire professional designers and several design firms to produce a 1994 Olympic-quality design program where several years of work lead to a splendid month of competitions in an oil-rich economy where government and industry sponsors can afford for top design services. The Beijing Olympics offer another good example. Except for the fact that Canada is several rungs down the government wealth ladder from the world’s second largest economy.
Third, though, is an argument that has nothing to do with money. This is the legitimate issue of generating public interest and support through public participation. McParland’s populism aside, this was a legitimate policy decision made by the government in advance of the submission. Were they right? Who can tell. But it was a legitimate option, and there seems to be some evidence that this policy generated broad interest and participation among ordinary citizens.
Fourth, and last, I will disagree with you on one point. I can’t see that it is specious or irrelevant to use the precedent of the flag. If anything, that is a significant and more far-reaching case — a central national symbol chosen not for a single year, but for a key national emblem.
The first three factors deserve consideration. Are they right or wrong? One may debate these issues.
The fourth issue is a matter of reasonable argumentation. The national flag debate and the public competition that replaced the Canadian Red Ensign with the Maple Leaf flag seems to be a reasonable precedent.
So thanks to Bob Este and you for raising this — this issues are well worth considering. I don’t like McParland’s style, but I cannot say he is wrong on substance. What I will say is that he could consider all these issues in a more reflective way without waving the flag at professional designers. But, of course, that’s exactly his point, and in this, he is wrong and you are perfectly correct.
Warm wishes,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia ||| Visiting Professor | UTS Business School | University of Technology Sydney University | Sydney, Australia
Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
—
Fil Salustri wrote:
—snip—
McParland, the author of this "piece" (of what, I leave to the reader’s discretion), makes the claim that graphic designers were “insufferably pompous" to complain that the logo chosen to celebrate Canada's 150th birthday was designed by a *student* rather than a professional graphic designer.
I have a BIG problem with this, and a simple analogy is sufficient to explain.
Say a medical student were chosen to make a recommendation to the government, which would then be implemented in policy. Would real doctors be "insufferably pompous" if they became upset?
Sure, no one's health will suffer because of this logo.
Sure, it is probably the case that preserving the economic worth of the graphic design community was one factor that influenced the Graphic Designers of Canada. But that's also true of any and every other professional advocacy group.
McParland paints a picture where the GDC is interested only in preserving the employment of its members, which is a bald assertion playing on the ever-increasing distrust of "experts," a phenomenon that is especially prevalent among the stunningly ignorant far-right types. His appeal to the precedent of the design of the Canadian flag is specious and irrelevant.
He is an idiot who uses his column to generate click-bait and to osculate the rump of the Harper Conservatives.
—snip—
On 29 April 2015 at 09:38, Bob Este <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-design-poobahs-bemoan-150th-birthday-logo-selected-by-ottawas-philistines
—snip—
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|