Eh, to each their own. I think Maryland's flag is messy and rather ugly with the four quarters and all of the counterchanging, but even if I really liked it, I still would've changed it for my redesign. One of my goals when making my redesigns of the U.S. state flags was to make them a more cohesive set, and one aspect of that was a simpler, more minimal style. Maryland's crime against humanity current flag would just be super jarring alongside my other redesigns.
Green and blue are pretty close to each other on the color spectrum, and they blend together at a distance. I would simplify and remove either the land or the water. They won’t blend into each other, and you still have more than enough symbolism.
The stoke on the wine glass is super smart. I like it. But I agree with the other commenter who recommended unifying the semi circle fill sizes. It simplifies the layout.
I would also pump up the stroke on the wine glass so that is reads a bit better from a distance. Also, that stroke is clever, so play that element up.
Yeah, there might be a way to make it work by fiddling with color values. Green next to blue can be tough, but it’s not impossible. The trick will be finding a green and blue that are also complimentary and don’t create a pallet that looks like a McDonald’s ball pit.
If you’re new to color theory, do a Google search for color theory / color pallet tools. There are a lot of good ones out there. Adobe has a nice free one.
You might also be able to represent land another way. Like using a shape or illustration instead or color.
That said, as someone who’s been doing this for few decades now and directs some design teams, my advice is to keep symbolism to like 2 or 3 things. One you go over that, it can really be easy to get messy harder to pull off. Just my 2¢.
That said, I like where you’re going with this. Will this be officially adopted by the area?
keep symbolism to like 2 or 3 things. One you go over that, it can really be easy to get messy harder to pull off.
Point taken.
Will this be officially adopted by the area?
I certainly intend to try and get it in front of the council, but they weren’t actively looking to get a flag. Folks around here can be hesitant to change, so I’m not getting my hopes up.
Agreed, the stripes are an unfortunate loss, but I’m pleased they didn’t use the “M shaped” star orientation and instead went for the star pointing north. Neither were from the original submission, but overall, the commission’s work will massively elevate the MN flag. Can’t wait to buy myself a small one for home.
Jämtland does not want to play with the other boring kids anyway. They consider themselves an independent republic standing above puny provincial flags. Because the flag was created for the Republic Jamtland, it looks different than all other provincial flags.
It’s a very good flag, but the original is way cooler. It’s a cool remnant from the era of the knights, changing it is like erasing history for no reason
I'm definitely not advocating for changing the flag. If a flag is distinct and loved by the people it represents, then changing it would likely do more harm than good. That being said, I think the original flag is an overly counterchanged mess that looks decent only in the context of the mostly bad competition.
I think they all look pretty cool and have their own distinctive aesthetic while being thematically consistent (e.g. they look like they’re part of the same collection). That being said, I do definitely get “logo” vibes from quite a few, like you could have told me they were sports team logos and I’d believe it. Also Akita straight up looks like a Nike swoosh lol.
i love many of these, but a family crest on a field of color isn’t necessarily the most creative design, but i really like the consistency and history behind some is these. like some of these were flown during the warring states period. that alone makes them kinda cool.
that said, ishikawa looks like a b2b tech company logo.
I think it’s more about where you draw the line between red and brown, which is individual and cultural. Apparently, my view on this might be a bit controversial. I first saw the old Georgian flag as a small child that did not know fancy words like “burgundy” and “maroon”. It seemed brown to me, and so it has remained in my mind, even if it would be more exact to describe it as some nuance brownish shade of red, or reddish shade of brown.
You can also have a look at the Wikipedia page with shades of brown, and I’m sure you will find that people can be way crazier than me when it comes to describing things as brown. Like, how can wheat, bone, moles or black olives be brown?
It all depends on your color model. If you would use CMYK instead you would see that burgundy is a combination of magenta, yellow and black, just as brown is.
Good start! My constructive criticism would be that the flag’s color design is almost identical to Mexico’s flag.
I like the tree but I think the branches shouldn’t spread as much. And while I know Texas doesn’t own the star, that lone star on a flag makes me think of Texas first, rather than Maine.
I've honestly never thought of the Mexico comparison, though I can kinda see it now. I think the buff center and the pine tree are enough to differentiate it from the Mexican flag, though I may flip the green and red.
The tree design was taken directly from Maine's ensign, and the star position came from Maine's old flag. As for the Texas point, the lone star is used in other U.S. state flags, like those of Arizona and California (and North Carolina but that one does just look like a Texas flag ripoff), so I don't think it's unfitting to use it here, especially since it was on the old flag.
7 founding fathers is great man theroy BS, there were 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress, 55 delegates attended the Constitutional Convention.
The 2nd Continental Congress created the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional Convention wrote the United States Constitution. Those two documents were the founding documents of the United States, along with the Articles of Confederacy. They separated the American colonies from the British Empire, and established the United States of America as it’s owne country and government.
Anyone trying to pick 7 of the 100+ people that helped create those documents and elevate them as “The Founding Fathers” is probably trying to push an agenda, probably one that relies on picking and choosing writings from “The Founders”.
I’m not trying to push an agenda. I don’t know what you mean by “picking and choosing writings”. I’m still not sure exactly what you’re saying.
If you’re saying there are no such thing as “founding fathers”, I think that’s just wrong in the sense that the myth of the founding fathers is a part of American culture and is taught in American schools. There is no “founding father” gene or element, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
If you’re saying all the people who were delegates at those conventions are equally “founding fathers” because they helped forge the documents, then sure, I can respect that opinion. But some of those delegates undoubtedly played a significantly larger role in early American history than others (including the creation of those documents!). Hence why we learn about a select few of them, and not all ~100 (although I guess that would also be impractical in a school setting). The specific number 7 is a bit arbitrary, but ~10 were a lot more important than the rest.
vexillology
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.