Search the Community

Might as well put this here.

Art is subjective. http://artblog.catherinehoman.com/is-art-itself-subjective/ It is shamefully ignorant to suggest otherwise. Moreover, every person is free to dislike a particular work of art. By that same token, no person has any business whatsoever telling another how he or she should respond to that work. And out of minimal respect for the art, and the artist, one should not confuse his or her own negative aesthetic emotion with an assessment of the objective quality of a work. The notion that there could be a singular drawing that would instantaneously garner anything close to universal acclaim and acceptance as the Fighting Hawk logo is fiction, and a fantasy. Words like "good," "better," and "best" are meaningless except to the individual using them. The hyperbole and vitriol I have seen expressed on this subject lead me to believe that many were looking for something that simply does not exist. I have no doubt that many will keep looking, ignoring the harm it may cause. Petitions and calls to the President, and veiled (or not) threats of withheld donations, are sure to follow. Some will quietly object by not buying anything (thus depriving UND of royalty revenue), while others will sit in silent judgment on friends and neighbors. A few will make it a point to noisily reject the logo at every game and at every gathering in hopes that a friendly ear will be close by. So, for you personally, does this fool's errand continue and if so, how long and to what end? How many iterations, and how much time, trouble, and money, until 'they get it right'? Assuming you'll accept something short of perfection, what qualifies as good enough?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/letters/3910873-letter-memo-fighting-hawks-logo-designer-have-fun This guy gets it. When was the last time any of this was fun? Haven't we had enough solemnity, seriousness, and negativity?