'Blue Sheet With Seal' State flags, in general

[fhmiii]

Those two ideas seem contradictory to me.  Is a flag's "target audience" supposed to be the world, or is it supposed to be the residents?

Missed this before.  The flag is a representation to interested parties, the vast majority of whom are going to be the citizens of the country/residents of the political subdivision.  To put it another way:

• The iconography has to be meaningful to the constituents.
• It should be distinct enough to easily identify the polity to the outside world.

[kphoger]

Maryland's flag is a very good flag even though it would be difficult for a child to draw it accurately and is by no means "simple."  It's distinctive, has a basic color set, uses no lettering or seals, and has meaningful symbolism (Maryland was a Catholic colony that was friendly to French immigrants and much of the flag's iconography is French and/or Catholic).

The Welsh Dragon you mentioned would be difficult for a child to draw, but the impression of the red dragon on a green-white bi-color is not.  That they could remember and replicate the concept, not the exact format, is more what the Five Principles is talking about in Principle 1.  Plus it's unique enough such that even if you saw it from a distance, you're not going to confuse it with some other country's dragon on a bi-color (Principle 5).

You're right.  Principle #1 works a lot better if we decide that it means something other than what it says.  And also, limiting flags to two or three colors works a lot better if we decide that "two of three" means "four or five".  A lot of my issue is with these two principles.  A lot of my favorite flags could not be drawn by a child from memory because they contain something that even an adult couldn't draw.  And some of my favorite flags have more than three colors:  Maryland, for example, and South Africa for another.

When looking at Principle 1, think of Canada's flag.  A three-field bi-color with a maple leaf in the center.  Is a child going to get the maple leaf, color, and proportionality exactly right?  Probably not, but what they'll draw will almost certainly be identifiable as a red leaf, and it will have red fields flanking a white center.

Yes, Canada's flag is amazing in its simplicity, subtly unique proportions, and meaningful symbolism.  And yeah, a kid can draw a leaf, even if all the angles aren't quite right.  It's a winner, in my opinion.

Because the North American Vexillological Association is the ultimate authority on what makes a good flag?

Yes. Yes they are.

And why is that?  Is flag design not something inherently artistic and subjective?

There was no system in place that made all of the kids in my fourth grade class avoid picking Maryland for their report about one of the states...they did that because part of the presentation involved drawing the flag and nobody wanted to get stuck with drawing Maryland's.

I managed to avoid getting stuck with drawing it then, and then had to do a Maryland welcome sign for work, so I got stuck drawing it at age 32. It wasn't any more fun then.

I agree that Maryland's flag is difficult to draw, especially by children.  And I still maintain that it's an awesome flag.

[kphoger]

• The iconography has to be meaningful to the constituents.
• It should be distinct enough to easily identify the polity to the outside world.

And I'm saying that adherence to such a dogmatic list of design principles limits the pool of useable iconography and limits flags' ability to be distinctive.

[hotdogPi]

How about using SVG size as a benchmark? Maryland's is 880 bytes, much lower than Massachusetts's 125 KB or New Hampshire's 103 KB. Even Wales's dragon is lower than MA or NH at 15 KB, and for a different dragon, Bhutan is 36 KB. Sri Lanka has a lion similar to the dragons, and it's 19 KB. Venice's flag is 4.43 MB.

Minnesota drops from 166 KB to 539 bytes, and Utah drops from 127 KB to 2 KB.

[fhmiii]

You're right.  Principle #1 works a lot better if we decide that it means something other than what it says.  And also, limiting flags to two or three colors works a lot better if we decide that "two of three" means "four or five".  A lot of my issue is with these two principles.  A lot of my favorite flags could not be drawn by a child from memory because they contain something that even an adult couldn't draw.  And some of my favorite flags have more than three colors:  Maryland, for example, and South Africa for another.

I'm not saying it means anything other than exactly what it says, because once again they are guidelines.  If you want to be pedantic about it (and I am always ready to be pedantic!), I can point out that white and black are not technically "colors."  So therefore I can state that Maryland's flag meets Principle 3 perfectly by having only two actual colors.

Of course, if all you want to do is argue because Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, it's easy to ignore the meaning of the word "guideline."

Or just take it from the NAVA webpage, directly below where they list the Five Principles:

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but depart from these five principles only with caution and purpose.

SIWOTI reference: https://xkcd.com/386/

* * * * *

As for the original topic of this post, the flags with a blue field and a state seal...  I think the reason most of us don't like them is actually in Principle 5, with their general lack of originality.  The failure to adhere to Principles 1, 2, and 4 just make the violation of Principle 5 feel so much worse.  If it were just Pennsylvania and Kansas with a blue field/state seal design, and not 19 other states doing the same thing (and historically many more than that), I don't think people would mind it nearly as much.

[GaryV]

Maryland's flag is a very good flag even though it would be difficult for a child to draw it accurately and is by no means "simple."  It's distinctive, has a basic color set, uses no lettering or seals, and has meaningful symbolism (Maryland was a Catholic colony that was friendly to French immigrants and much of the flag's iconography is French and/or Catholic).

To me, Maryland's flag looks like it's made out of discarded horse jockey silks. Yes, I know there's iconography. But that doesn't make it pleasing to me.

[kphoger]

Vexillologically speaking, there are a few simple rules that separate "good" flags from mediocre or just bad.  The North American Vexillological Association defines them this way:

The Five Principles are:

• Keep It Simple.  The flag should be so simple that a child can draw it from memory.
• Use Meaningful Symbolism.  The flag's images, colors, or patterns should relate to what it symbolizes.
• Use 2 or 3 Basic Colors.  Limit the number of colors on the flag to three which contrast well and come from the standard color set.
• No Lettering or Seals.  Never use writing of any kind or an organization's seal.
• Be Distinctive or Be Related.  Avoid duplicating other flags, but use similarities to show connections.

https://nava.org/good-flag-bad-flag

If you want to be pedantic about it (and I am always ready to be pedantic!), I can point out that white and black are not technically "colors."  So therefore I can state that Maryland's flag meets Principle 3 perfectly by having only two actual colors.

Did you even read the booklet you quoted?

Regarding Principle #3, it specifically states:  "The basic flag colors are red, blue, green, black, yellow, and white."

(By the way, it also calls Maryland's flag "memorable and distinctive".  This is under the "All rules have exceptions" section.  But that only makes me wonder.  If one of the Union's best flags breaks more than one of the Five Principles, then why are so many people so adamant that the principles be adhered to?)

Of course, if all you want to do is argue because Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, ...

If only this stayed on the internet.

I'm not opposed to redesigning bad flags.  If we really do need to swap out seal-on-a-bedsheet flags in favor of more graphical ones—and I'm personally rather ambivalent about that need—then what I don't want is to swap them out for bland, predictable, unremarkable flags.  I'd rather leave room for the quirky, the weird, and the garish.  Unfortunately, I've found recent flag redesigns to tend in the bland direction.  And I think part of the problem is holding up the Five Principles with religious zeal.  Perhaps, as you say, I'm refusing to treat guidelines as guidelines, but apparently so are the people in charge of these things.

[Rothman]

Yeah, I think the Vexillogical Society's guidelines are trying to make the subjective objective and they fail to do so, resulting in new flags that I find boring and too "crisp."

There's no accounting for taste and the Vexillogical Society needs to stop trying to hold it accountable.

Big fan of Maryland's flag and New York's seal-on-a-bedsheet, complete with EXCELSIOR on it.  MN's new flag?  Blech.  Ambivalent towards Utah's new flag, which looks like it belongs on a hockey jersey.

And, if anyone disagrees with my opinions, then they are wrong and everyone is right.

[kphoger]

And, if anyone disagrees with my opinions, then they are wrong and everyone is right.

only nine bucks

[Rothman]

And, if anyone disagrees with my opinions, then they are wrong and everyone is right.

only nine bucks

The flag of a scourge from which the world should be cleansed.

[kkt]

And, if anyone disagrees with my opinions, then they are wrong and everyone is right.

only nine bucks

If it's the Olive Garden's flag, why doesn't it have, you know, Olives on it instead of grapes?

[Rothman]

And, if anyone disagrees with my opinions, then they are wrong and everyone is right.

only nine bucks

If it's the Olive Garden's flag, why doesn't it have, you know, Olives on it instead of grapes?

What are the chances real olives are used at Olive Garden?

[kkt]

Oh, there's probably some.  Olive oil is unmistakable, and not that expensive if you buy lower grades wholesale.

[Scott5114]

Because the North American Vexillological Association is the ultimate authority on what makes a good flag?

Yes. Yes they are.

And why is that?  Is flag design not something inherently artistic and subjective?

No, not really.

I mean, yes, there's artistry to it, as much as there's art to anything else. But when you are designing a thing for a practical purpose, then your art is necessarily curtailed by the purpose you're designing it for. A salt shaker would look a lot nicer without all the holes in the top, and it might be part of some artistic statement to make such a thing. But it'd be a pretty sucky salt shaker.

Even in fully-artistic endeavors, there are some general rules to design that are more or less inviolable. For example, elements of a design should generally either be centered or justified to one of the edges, as doing so communicates intentionality in the design; placing the elements partway between, say, left and center justification makes it feel like little thought was put into the design, so it comes off as amateurish, and such placement should normally be avoided as a result. (Violation of such basic design rules is normally the sin committed by Oklahoma DOT signs that we make fun of here.) There's also some degree of parallel between the "flag rules" and the MUTCD—there is a corpus of rules established for what makes a good sign, and most of the time, a sign that violates these rules will be ineffective and/or just look distractingly "incorrect".

However, in general design rules, the flag rules, and the MUTCD, there are rare instances where a designer has very intentionally violated the rules in a skillful way that actually makes the design stronger. One could argue that the Welsh dragon and the Maryland flag are examples of this—they are both very complex designs, but in the case of the Maryland flag, this pays tribute to the state's founding history and is mostly a building-up of a large number of simple geometric designs, and in the Welsh case, it's a large, bold element that is unquestionably the main focus of the otherwise-simple flag. (Nobody would argue the Welsh flag was any good if the dragon appeared above the words "Balch o Fod Cymru" in four different font sizes with a copyright notice at the bottom.)

[kphoger]

Even in fully-artistic endeavors, there are some general rules to design that are more or less inviolable. For example, elements of a design should generally either be centered or justified to one of the edges, as doing so communicates intentionality in the design; placing the elements partway between, say, left and center justification makes it feel like little thought was put into the design, so it comes off as amateurish, and such placement should normally be avoided as a result.

And yet "Good Flag, Bad Flag" hails the flag of Bangladesh, with its red circle "slightly offset to the hoist" as a design that "succeeds admirably".  Apparently, the Flag Experts didn't get your memo about that inviolable rule.

But when you are designing a thing for a practical purpose, then your art is necessarily curtailed by the purpose you're designing it for.

I don't think we agree about what purpose state/city flags are designed for.

It's my opinion that a state flag's purpose isn't to be easily distinguished on a battlefield, to let a person easily determine where he or she is by looking up at it, or anything like that.  Originally, state flags were just—well, just a big rectangle to put the state shield on, because the state shield was what mattered.

It seems that purpose has shifted over time, to the point that state flags now represent the states "identity" to the wider nation.  I'd argue that that's not necessarily true:  Texas' flag certainly embodies its identity, as does New Mexico's, and likewise California's to a lesser degree, but I haven't been convinced that Maryland's flag—for all we've said about it—actually embodies that state's identity and declares it to the rest of the nation.  Maybe I'm wrong, and it does.

Switching to city flags, if its purpose is to declare its identity to the wider world, then shouldn't that identity be able to come through in the flag's design?  If, for example, people in Austin (TX) are encouraged to "Keep Austin Weird", then why are so many of its potential flag redesigns just boring rectangles of red and blue?  I'm not sure what the Flag Experts' opinion of the Roswell (NM) city flag, but I suspect they wouldn't like it;  I, on the other hand, think it represents Roswell nicely.

What are the chances real olives are used at Olive Garden?

What do you think those black things are in the salad?  Moldy dates?

If it's the Olive Garden's flag, why doesn't it have, you know, Olives on it instead of grapes?

I guess you must have been encouraged when they changed their logo in 2014, to include an olive branch instead.

[kkt]

Even in fully-artistic endeavors, there are some general rules to design that are more or less inviolable. For example, elements of a design should generally either be centered or justified to one of the edges, as doing so communicates intentionality in the design; placing the elements partway between, say, left and center justification makes it feel like little thought was put into the design, so it comes off as amateurish, and such placement should normally be avoided as a result.

And yet "Good Flag, Bad Flag" hails the flag of Bangladesh, with its red circle "slightly offset to the hoist" as a design that "succeeds admirably".  Apparently, the Flag Experts didn't get your memo about that inviolable rule.

But when you are designing a thing for a practical purpose, then your art is necessarily curtailed by the purpose you're designing it for.

I don't think we agree about what purpose state/city flags are designed for.

It's my opinion that a state flag's purpose isn't to be easily distinguished on a battlefield, to let a person easily determine where he or she is by looking up at it, or anything like that.  Originally, state flags were just—well, just a big rectangle to put the state shield on, because the state shield was what mattered.

It seems that purpose has shifted over time, to the point that state flags now represent the states "identity" to the wider nation.  I'd argue that that's not necessarily true:  Texas' flag certainly embodies its identity, as does New Mexico's, and likewise California's to a lesser degree, but I haven't been convinced that Maryland's flag—for all we've said about it—actually embodies that state's identity and declares it to the rest of the nation.  Maybe I'm wrong, and it does.

Switching to city flags, if its purpose is to declare its identity to the wider world, then shouldn't that identity be able to come through in the flag's design?  If, for example, people in Austin (TX) are encouraged to "Keep Austin Weird", then why are so many of its potential flag redesigns just boring rectangles of red and blue?  I'm not sure what the Flag Experts' opinion of the Roswell (NM) city flag, but I suspect they wouldn't like it;  I, on the other hand, think it represents Roswell nicely.

What are the chances real olives are used at Olive Garden?

What do you think those black things are in the salad?  Moldy dates?

If it's the Olive Garden's flag, why doesn't it have, you know, Olives on it instead of grapes?

I guess you must have been encouraged when they changed their logo in 2014, to include an olive branch instead.

I got a time machine and all I used it for was a slightly improved logo for a mediocre restaurant?  What was I thinking!

[kphoger]

I got a time machine and all I used it for was a slightly improved logo for a mediocre restaurant

Did you at least get this lousy tee shirt?

[fhmiii]

It's my opinion that a state flag's purpose isn't to be easily distinguished on a battlefield, to let a person easily determine where he or she is by looking up at it, or anything like that.  Originally, state flags were just—well, just a big rectangle to put the state shield on, because the state shield was what mattered.

At one time really it was meant to quickly identify location and to be easily identified on a battlefield, especially in the days when the vast majority of most armies weren't part of the nation's "standing army," but rather were made up of volunteer militia or the levy of the local lord.  Ironically, during the American Civil War a "blue field with the state seal" would have been somewhat more unique than it eventually became.

Today, making flags unique is more about making it be identifiable in a crowded field of 50 (or potentially more) flags on a stage, during a parade, or at a monument.

Switching to city flags, if its purpose is to declare its identity to the wider world, then shouldn't that identity be able to come through in the flag's design?

It should, but that identity won't always be easily identifiable to an outside observer.

Kansas City has the most operating public fountains of any city in the world.  We call ourselves "the city of fountains," and so our flag has an impression of a fountain on it.  Most people wouldn't understand that design without it being explained to them.  They may just see a stylized heart (we're also supposedly the "heart[land] of America").

Each of the four stars on the Chicago flag represent important events in Chicago's history, but you'd probably have to grow up there (or just be interested, like me) to know what those mean, or to understand why they have six points each (hint: it's got nothing to do with a certain religion).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Chicago#/media/File:History_and_Meaning_of_The_Chicago_Flag.png

I'm not sure what the Flag Experts' opinion of the Roswell (NM) city flag, but I suspect they wouldn't like it;  I, on the other hand, think it represents Roswell nicely.

I'd guess that they'd appreciate it for its (relative) simplicity and (relatively) limited color palette (even if it has 4 colors plus a white dot).  The colors aren't used to create an overly detailed design, but are principally used in broad strokes or fields.  Some might object to the rainbow-like bottom, but the overall design isn't too complex (might be difficult for a five year old, but no problem to a ten year old) and it's mountain/sunset motif is recognizably southwest US (and, thanks to the New Mexico flag, recognizably New Mexico).  So, some might dock it a couple of points, but I think overall most vexillologists and vexillophiles you show would like it.

[kkt]

I got a time machine and all I used it for was a slightly improved logo for a mediocre restaurant

Did you at least get this lousy tee shirt?

No, at least not in this timeline I didn't.

[kphoger]

At one time really it was meant to quickly identify location and to be easily identified on a battlefield, especially in the days when the vast majority of most armies weren't part of the nation's "standing army," but rather were made up of volunteer militia or the levy of the local lord.

At what point in US history were (1) states going to war with each other;  (2) those states had adopted unique and easily identifiable state flags;  and (3) armies were largely flying those unique and easily identifiable state flags in battle, rather than [a] non-standing-army militia flags, [.b] individual battalion or other military unit flags, or [c] national flags such as the Confederate flag or the Stars & Bars?

It should, but that identity won't always be easily identifiable to an outside observer.

Kansas City has the most operating public fountains of any city in the world.  We call ourselves "the city of fountains," and so our flag has an impression of a fountain on it.  Most people wouldn't understand that design without it being explained to them.  They may just see a stylized heart (we're also supposedly the "heart[land] of America").

Each of the four stars on the Chicago flag represent important events in Chicago's history, but you'd probably have to grow up there (or just be interested, like me) to know what those mean, or to understand why they have six points each (hint: it's got nothing to do with a certain religion).

That's fine.  My point was that imposing a short list of design standards inherently limits the "identity" or "branding" that a city/state flag can accomplish—whether that identity or branding is easily interpreted in the broader world or not.  This is why so many of the recent redesigns all look quite a bit the same to me, and why I think that's a bad thing.

... even if it has 4 colors plus a white dot

As I said earlier, it's a lot easier to accept the rules guidelines if we rework them to mean something they don't say.  Demanding that flags "use 2–3 basic colors" is a lot easier if we allow them to use 5 colors instead.

[Rothman]

To say Maryland's flag doesn't embody its state spirit is ridiculous given how ubiquitous the flag is.  As a former Maryland resident myself, the flag is certainly tied to the State's and its citizens' identities.

[kphoger]

To say Maryland's flag doesn't embody its state spirit is ridiculous given how ubiquitous the flag is.  As a former Maryland resident myself, the flag is certainly tied to the State's and its citizens' identities.

Thanks.  I stand corrected.

[fhmiii]

or [c] national flags such as the Confederate flag or the Stars & Bars?

The Stars and Bars was not the "national flag" of the Confederacy.  One version (the one most people see today) was the battle flag of the Army of the Tennessee (river).  The other version (which is a 1:1 square instead of a 5:3 rectangle) was for the Army of Northern Virginia (Lee's army).  Regardless of version, it flew beside regimental flags, which were frequently and usually an adaptation of the regiment's respective state flag.

Since the peacetime US Army was very small until World War II, most of the time even during conflict it was made up of State Militia (and later, National Guard) units.  When regiments were not attached to a specific US Army formation, they would fly their state colors.  They also carried state colors in earlier wars (e.g. War of 1812, Mexican-American War), during parades, official functions, during training, and at many other times.

As I said earlier, it's a lot easier to accept the rules guidelines if we rework them to mean something they don't say.  Demanding that flags "use 2–3 basic colors" is a lot easier if we allow them to use 5 colors instead.

Since we apparently differ on our definition of the word "guideline," here's a definition that matches the one in my head, from Oxford:

guide·line
/ˈɡīdˌlīn/
noun
plural noun: guidelines
a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.

If that's not your definition of guideline, then replace it with "rule of thumb," "recommendation," "suggestion," or whatever term allows for creative flexibility within an established framework.  Do not confuse the word "guideline" with the words "law," "commandment," or "demand" in this instance.  As myself and now at least three other people have stated in this thread, bending or outright violating the Principles can work, and following all 5 of them to the detail is quite difficult.  Most final products contain many compromises in their design to make them practical.  Hence, most of what we consider "well-designed flags" will follow two or three of Principles very well but will compromise to some degree on the rest.

When someone decides to use more than 3 colors, it should be a conscious decision made with intent, and they should try to closely adhere to the rest of the Principles--unless there is a good reason to stray from another one.  Following the Principles doesn't guarantee a good flag, and straying from the Principles doesn't guarantee a bad flag.  Still, the more Principles that are followed when designing a flag, the more likely it will be a good one.  Meanwhile the fewer Principles that are followed, the more likely it will end up as a garish mess or muddled blob.

In the case of the Roswell, NM flag, it follows four of the five Principles reasonably well, and its violation of the 2-3 colors Principle is done tastefully.  It's not a bad flag.  Minnesota's new flag violates the standard color set, but otherwise follows the Principles reasonably well.  I kind of like it.  Utah's new flag has 4 colors (including white), but largely follows the Five Principles.  I don't really like it, but I also don't hate it.  Kansas City's new flag follows all 5 Principles.  It's not the best flag I think they could have come up with (I'd have designed a more simplified heart-fountain), but it's far and away better than the previous two versions.

[SP Cook]

The Stars and Bars was not the "national flag" of the Confederacy.  One version (the one most people see today) was the battle flag of the Army of the Tennessee (river).  The other version (which is a 1:1 square instead of a 5:3 rectangle) was for the Army of Northern Virginia (Lee's army). 

The flag you are describing was/is not the "stars and bars".  The "stars and bars" was the first national flag of the CSA, consisting of three stripes, or bars, and a blue canton with a circle of stars representing various numbers of states.    It looks a lot like the new flag of Georgia.

The later flag with the St. Andrew's cross covered in stars, is not the "stars and bars".  Note that it doesn't have any bars on it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBCuHIpNgU

[mgk920]

TIIRC, that 'flag' was a battle banner that was only used by one unit in an obscure battle.

Mike