This design is a pastiche of various elements which seemed to fit nicely together. One part vague regal sentiment, one part hopeless ambiguity and fourteen parts hidden personal fanboy love.

The most interesting thing about this graphic to me, is the debate that happened on its submission page. I have spoken often of my disdain for so-called intellectual 'property', and so I probably enjoyed arguing over this as much or even more, than did I enjoy actually creating it.

The debate started with a cheap shot in my direction, and the fun snowballed from there:

Mdwebb: YouWorkFor Them.com and associated 'design elements' vendors must be making a killing off this style.

Spires: Thanks for the wrong assumption and the insult mdwebb; but except for the top heraldry, which was painstakingly traced, all these elements were created exclusively by me.
I've never used youworkforthem.com, and you are an asshole.

Mdwebb: Yup, I am an asshole! I was a little harsh on that last comment and I aplogize.

However, keep in mind that tracing something digitally, however painstaking, is the modern version of using clipart.

I'm all for appropriation and recontextualization, but it seems that a large portion of the design in this style uses the ornamental forms of the past as a stylistic shorthand for 'hip'.

After taking a closer look at the above image it looks like there may be more original drawing in there than I'd first imagined, so my first comment might have been more kneejerk than anything else.

Still, it instantly makes me think of 'off-the-rack' design sites like designspin.com.

Spires: To immediately convey elitist regality, one can't do better than using what has been historically perfect. Should one draw heraldry by hand again, once the work is done already, then scan and then painstakingly trace it, in order to prove it wasn't clipart? I don't see the virtue in gratutious labor, but maybe I missed your point.

What process is 'kosher' that would allow one use historic forms, without them becoming clip art? Via reductio ad absurdum, we may conclude that all historical forms are therefore 'clipart' forevermore, because they must go through some process in order to be employed, tracing or otherwise.

Either you are for appropriation and therefore 'clipart' or you are not. I believe you done nothing more than having admitted to a contradiction in your thinking.


Mdwebb: "Should one draw heraldry by hand again, once the work is done already, then scan and then painstakingly trace it, in order to prove it wasn't clipart? I don't see the virtue in gratutious labor, but maybe I missed your point."

Well, first off, as a conceptual work I feel this falls flat. I'm not going to assume that you titled the design in relation to your concept, as there doesn't seem to be a connection to Rorschach or disco (although I could be wrong, there could be about half a mirrorball towards the bottom in the center). Also, I noticed that you were looking for input prior to choosing a title, and they all seemed rather random. That really makes me question your quest to design a t-shirt that conveys 'elitist regality'. Was this design intended as some sort of critique of the elite? If it was, I suppose I misread it entirely.

There's also no difference whatsoever between tracing by hand or scanning and vectorizing, as far as 'originality' is concerned. You're still taking something created by someone else, appropriating it, and passing it off as your own. Why not study the characteristics of classical heraldry and create something original based on what you learn? Yes, it takes time and effort, but as a designer (which I assume you are from your rant about clients) you're passing up a great chance to actually create something unique. Notice I didn't say original. That's another argument altogether. Plus, you never have to worry about anyone spotting that random bit of found imagery in your work, and having to explain that, especially if you redrew it on billable time.

So, i guess that's what I'd consider a 'kosher' approach to historical appropriation. And, unfortunately I doubt you can boil an issue as complex as historical appropriation down to simple syllogism. The argument that all historical elements must be traced, tracing equals clipart, so then historical references also equal clipart is absurd. There's an entire sector of the design world working in historical modes while simulataneously creating original work (www.bantjes.com, non-format.com, decorational.org, omnivorous.org., etc). I find very little appropriation in most of this work, yet it all has obvious ties to history. It's the recontextualization and conceptual application of ornament as well as it's visual appeal that makes the work of these designers interesting. In your case I'm hard pressed to see any underlying concept, other than to create a visually appealing shirt graphic.

So, I hope that clears up my critique a bit.

Spires: I never have to worry about explaining used found material to anyone, because nobody is owed an explanation. I initially called you an asshole because you misrepresented my design (and later admitted to this), and that's what I felt you were owed. Everything else beyond that initial offering was my intellectual exercise. In my blog, you have officially been upgraded to jerk. :)

If you believe that you should not test a specific proposition to the structure of logic, (i.e. the syllogism) especially given that I was arguing on your own terms, we will not meet because to me that means, you really aren't debating within the bounds of reason.

You said first, that you are all for appropriation, but then you give examples that you approve of, where you say that appropriation isn't really present. This is bait and switch.

If appropriation is appropriate, then the syllogism stands, proved above via reductio ad absurdum. So, unless you are unwilling to retract your approval of appropriation, then you have committed further fallacy. You didn't give examples of acceptable appropriation, but rather what you considered examples of acceptable recontextualization, which is markedly different from appropriation. It is great to recontextualize, but given the context of that section of my piece, it would only dilute the regal aesthetic.

Given only the substance of your comments here, you do not agree with appropriation.

I did not pass off as 'my own' a universally recognized symbol, I merely used it. Anything that I may synthesize from heraldry wouldn't be as recognizable as that symbol, because that's a pretty famous one. If you disagree with my using it, great.

I will formally declare that I did not invent heraldry, or that historic, heraldic design in particular.

The elements that I did recontextualize in this design are so obscure, that you probably wouldn't recognize them. The point is, that I can both recontextualize and appropriate. Unless someone forces me to stop, I will do both.

I was not making a predominately conceptual work, so I agree with you there. The way I process my experiences isn't given to very sharp, conceptual designs. I am very intuitive and experience life accordingly, preferring to record the broad essences of things. My work reflects this; they are mostly atmospheric pieces that attach a broad aesthetic sentiment to a loose subject. I don't like contorting my natural thought process to match other's preferences. Insofar as others will accept my work, fine. When I attempt to synthesize concepts or make a clever statement, it is usually too involved for this medium, and would probably work better with media of series, or media of large formats.

Most of my work includes homage to things I adore that others probably wouldn't recognize or care about. To them, it is stylish, to me, meaningful. Style can encode.

Is this a crime against design? Who cares? I communicate clearly using design at work, because that is what I'm paid for. On my time, I like to do what comes naturally. Is that wrong? Not from my perspective. If they enjoy wearing it, and I enjoy making it, everyone at the table wins. If third parties grieve, they can enjoy other things.

But hey, what do I know. I'm a threadless one-hit carpetbagger.