In between going back and forth with changes, that is, many-a-many changes, mostly to do with wording and text alterations/modifications (got that right, nothing to do with design, gotta cover my own ass), work is moving along smoothly. I just finished doing the design for the CD sleeve and CD sticker based around the design theme of the overall campaign. In addition, I've done several corrections and changes on the design to make it a bit more playful and child-like.
I have been thinking, a thing I do occasionally, this time about the little kids, which are also now the logo for the campaign. Considering, the nature of the charity - children suffering (fighting?) from cancer, does it not become ambiguously interesting how one cannot tell whether the children are actually walking towards or against the light? Gets one thinking as to which is actually better.
You may also have noticed that there is a change to the previous flyer I posted before. That's right, the figure of a little girl in fuchia has now been replaced by the figures of a little boy and girl in aqua. The reasoning behind this is, as always, quite simple: The purpose of the charity is to help children and is not gender related. The colour should be changed to a more blueish thus matching the colour of the Cooperative's original logo. Speaking of gender, perhaps the girl should remain in fuchia and the boy in blue therefore eliminating the possibility of an assumption. Or, even better, maybe the colours should be reversed, thus proving that colour has nothing to do with gender to begin with.
I was reminded of that South Park episode 'Chef goes nanners', where Chef protests to have the South Park flag replaced with something, well, less racial. The problem with the flag was it's portrayal of white men hanging a black man. Among the ridiculous turn of events and the stupidity and lack of opinion by the South Park residents the end of the episode reveals that the children actually argued for the flag to stay the same not because they were being racists but because they had risen beyond racial discrimination to the point where, they did not see white or black, but people hanging a person.
When I was guided through the reasons for having a boy figure in the logo as well, I realised that while doing the design, I did not use a girl figure but the figure of a child. It just so happened that it was that of a girl. I used fuchia not because it's girly, but because of it's warm and complementary nature against the blue sky.
Now to reverse the argument: Does not the need to add a boy figure strengthen sexual discrimination rather than eliminate it? What does that tell us about the person who thought of it? I wonder...
I have been thinking, a thing I do occasionally, this time about the little kids, which are also now the logo for the campaign. Considering, the nature of the charity - children suffering (fighting?) from cancer, does it not become ambiguously interesting how one cannot tell whether the children are actually walking towards or against the light? Gets one thinking as to which is actually better.
You may also have noticed that there is a change to the previous flyer I posted before. That's right, the figure of a little girl in fuchia has now been replaced by the figures of a little boy and girl in aqua. The reasoning behind this is, as always, quite simple: The purpose of the charity is to help children and is not gender related. The colour should be changed to a more blueish thus matching the colour of the Cooperative's original logo. Speaking of gender, perhaps the girl should remain in fuchia and the boy in blue therefore eliminating the possibility of an assumption. Or, even better, maybe the colours should be reversed, thus proving that colour has nothing to do with gender to begin with.
I was reminded of that South Park episode 'Chef goes nanners', where Chef protests to have the South Park flag replaced with something, well, less racial. The problem with the flag was it's portrayal of white men hanging a black man. Among the ridiculous turn of events and the stupidity and lack of opinion by the South Park residents the end of the episode reveals that the children actually argued for the flag to stay the same not because they were being racists but because they had risen beyond racial discrimination to the point where, they did not see white or black, but people hanging a person.
When I was guided through the reasons for having a boy figure in the logo as well, I realised that while doing the design, I did not use a girl figure but the figure of a child. It just so happened that it was that of a girl. I used fuchia not because it's girly, but because of it's warm and complementary nature against the blue sky.
Now to reverse the argument: Does not the need to add a boy figure strengthen sexual discrimination rather than eliminate it? What does that tell us about the person who thought of it? I wonder...
0 comments:
Post a Comment