This year ThoughtMatter designed a provocative mural adapted from Gustave Courbet’s The Origin of the World, which made clear the tangible impact that public art can have on motivating real-world political action. It encouraged New Yorkers to vote “yes” on Proposition 1, which states, “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof”—an amendment that successfully passed.

I asked ThoughtMatter Managing Partner Jessie McGuire, who has been vigorously engaged in social and political action, about the project and whether ThoughtMatter’s art interventions have truly made a quantifiable difference in 2024.

Can you provide a summary of your most impactful projects to date?
ThoughtMatter is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year, marking a decade spanning three national elections, nearly four presidential administrations, and two New York City mayors. For our team, art and politics are inseparable when it comes to branding. It’s where stories are shaped, movements are sparked, and change begins to feel possible.

Over the past decade, everyone who has walked through the doors of ThoughtMatter has contributed to harnessing the power of design to ignite critical conversations and inspire action through public art projects. In 2016, we created over 15,000 posters for the Women’s March, capturing a nationwide spirit of resistance and rallying voices across the U.S. and beyond. The following year, our For the People and We the People poster exhibit reimagined the U.S. Constitution as an artistic dialogue on civic engagement and democracy. Yes, the Constitution was made better with millennial pink paper and risograph printing!

In 2018, following the Parkland high school shooting, we mobilized design to support young activists, providing free posters and hosting a cross-generational workshop at The Metropolitan Museum of Art for March For Our Lives. Then in 2019, Shit House transformed our studio into a cheeky yet critical examination of borders, privilege and what people are willing to accept as “normal.” Most recently, at the 2023 NYCxDESIGN festival, our WHO IS NYC FOR? exhibit turned a sharp lens on who really benefits from New York City’s systems. Installations like WHY CAN’T WE SIT? and WHOSE MONEY TALKS? weren’t just art—they were calls to question.

These projects, some of which are now preserved by institutions like Poster House and the New York Historical, embody our belief that design isn’t just decoration, it’s a tool for questioning power, inspiring people and pushing the world toward something better.

ThoughtMatter’s public art is more than just something to look at; it’s a nudge, a spark and, sometimes, a much-needed wake-up call.

Do you believe that such things as the mural adapted from The Origin of the World actually influence people to vote?
Without a doubt! The mural was intentionally provocative in every way. We designed it to grab attention and demand reflection. It wasn’t just a shocking visual for the sake of shock, it was a statement. It asked a powerful question: What’s more dangerous, a painted wall or the erosion of reproductive rights? Turns out, a painted wall with too much vulva is actually more dangerous.

Our original design drew heavily from Gustave Courbet’s artwork, but as we climbed the chain of approvals from landlords to media buying agencies and their general counsel, more and more of the image got censored. Turns out, a bold VOTE message is less risky than a woman’s body; kind of the ultimate metaphor for this election, don’t you think?

This mural wasn’t just a piece of art, it was a call to action. A way to make people stop in their tracks and think about what’s at stake. At ThoughtMatter, we believe the role of art and design is not just to beautify or sell, but to challenge, provoke and connect. Choosing The Origin of the World, a work steeped in controversy, was an intentional move to confront New Yorkers with the urgency of protecting bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. Won’t lie, I also loved that we got to sneak a little art history into the conversation.

This led us to partner with Colossal Media, whose team brought our vision to life through six days of hand-painted work. Recreating a piece by Courbet, the “father of European realism,” with a company known for hand-painting contemporary ads, often for liquor and fashion, felt like the perfect continuation of our concept: that a commitment to craft, executed on a massive scale, can make messages impossible to ignore.

The feedback we got confirmed this. People stopped, talked, and even registered to vote right there on the street. The mural became a physical tool—it turned the abstract idea of “reproductive rights” into something immediate and visceral, reminding people that voting isn’t just a civic duty, it’s self-advocacy.

What’s more, it kept the urgency of Proposition 1 on the New York ballot top of mind, helping connect the dots between personal freedoms and the power of their vote. Art like this is more than a moment, it’s a message: a symbol of resistance. A reminder that believing in something is powerful, but acting on it is transformative.

I hope our work serves as a reminder of what’s possible for designers. Sure, the work we do might get painted over, censored, or ignored, but the change it sparks lasts longer than any election cycle.

How extensive have your campaigns been? And what are the limitations?
Our campaigns have ranged from something as simple as a poster series to something as ambitious as redesigning the U.S. Constitution, distributed to thousands of students in NYC. There’s a certain freedom in that range, and while it might seem like we’re trying to cover all the bases, the limitations we face, whether it’s time, budget or the fear of pushing too far, are often what shape the most interesting work. We’ve learned to use those constraints as fuel to engage more people and make our ideas more impactful and far-reaching. Our posters have even made their way around the globe and into permanent collections of international institutions.

But here’s the thing, could the drive to make things feel or seem big actually make us smaller? In art and design, impactful work seems to only break through when it’s optimized for digital clicks or grand gestures that get attention. It’s as if the only way to succeed now is to be loud, viral and constantly scaling. For me the problem is, in that pursuit, intimacy and true reflection get lost. Platforms that were meant to connect us now reward the superficial, the big, the flashy.

Value in today’s landscape is measured by fleeting impressions, and small community-building initiatives are often dismissed because they don’t create that shiny digital footprint. But what if the culture we’re chasing has strayed too far from our instincts for intimacy, subtlety and generative good?

At ThoughtMatter, we focus on the message, not the method. We don’t tick the boxes of traditional tactics or follow perfectly optimized marketing plans designed for clicks. What drives us is answering two key questions: who are we talking to, and how do we want them to think, feel or believe? This mindset has led us down some unexpected paths, whether it’s creating a public art installation, organizing a rally or producing a podcast.

Some campaigns, like Covidity (creativity in the time of COVID), were fleeting, digital graffiti on four walls in four locations, on one night during lockdown. Others, like For the People, focus on democracy and (hopefully) continue to evolve over time. Our work shifts with the needs of the moment. The work we create is part of a bigger ongoing story, and the limits of that story are still unfolding.

If you can’t tell, we don’t like limitations. As a studio, we’re ready to roll up our sleeves, embrace the limits, and keep producing the unexpected in hopes it moves people.

Now that the majority of Americans have voted to reelect Donald Trump—a tyranny of the majority, so to speak—what is on your schedule for future art actions?
I’d never heard of “tyranny of the majority” before, but now that I have, I can proudly say: ThoughtMatter isn’t retreating, we’re recalibrating!

That’s an interesting spin …
This fractured moment demands more than reaction; it calls for vision. At ThoughtMatter, we’re channeling our belief in the radical power of design into actions that quietly disrupt, provoke and unite. Sure, we’ve seen how frustration has dulled the energy of movements like the Women’s March, but we know that change doesn’t always roar—sometimes it whispers. It starts in overlooked spaces like a local library, a front porch, even a coffeeshop conversation. Our next chapter isn’t just about protests in the streets, it’s about planting seeds that eventually crack through the pavement.

We’ll continue partnerships with art museums, cultural institutions, community building organizations and nonprofits, creating access to art in engaging ways. And we’ve got our eyes on new collaborations that will empower us to expand our reach.

We’re designing projects that invite people to pause, reflect and feel. Spaces where the noise fades, and what remains is raw. We’ll continue to challenge the status quo in ways that defy easy categorization, with projects that refuse to play by the rules of performative activism. No, we’re still not following traditional tactics or clear marketing plans, but our next actions will be rooted in defiance and hope. They’ll whisper truths, amplify unheard voices, and slowly but surely, shift the tide. Because if the majority insists on power, we’ll insist on something stronger: possibility.

Do you see art protests bearing fruit in any shape or form?
I sure hope so. I went to art school at Pratt at the turn of the century thinking I could convince people that art and design aren’t just about making things look pretty, but about purpose.

Art protests? I do believe they pay off, just not in the predictable “bear fruit” nonsense people want to hear. It’s never as clean-cut as that. It’s not going to fit in a neat little spreadsheet, and that’s exactly what makes it beautiful. It’s messy, it’s disruptive, and it’s nearly impossible to measure. But it does something deeper. Art, unlike design, doesn’t yell for attention, it sneaks up behind you, whispers in your ear and makes you think and feel. In a world obsessed with noise and spectacle, art is the slow burn—the intimate conversation you didn’t realize you needed. It challenges your assumptions, throws uncomfortable questions in your face, and then kicks you in the gut with real human connection. Then design comes in to make you feel better, and maybe it helps you buy stuff.

Art also has this magical way of bringing stories to light that are too often ignored or buried. A single image, performance or design can slice through the noise in ways a tweet or meme simply can’t. It connects us to other people’s lived realities on a level that sticks—deeply personal, raw and transformative. Those moments of connection spark empathy, and empathy is how real, lasting change starts.

At ThoughtMatter, we see art protests as a vital tool for shifting culture. While they are probably not going to make immediate political or bottom-line change, they help people feel seen, heard and understood. Art’s quiet power to challenge, to connect and to inspire leaves an impression that lingers. And for us, that is the kind of power that has the potential to reshape how we think, how we act, and what we believe the future can be.

Has this election encouraged or discouraged further action this year? Or should we wait and see?
This election has reinforced the urgency of pushing for change. Every day without action is a missed opportunity to shape the future. The power of collective action, especially when amplified by art, has never been more evident. At ThoughtMatter, we’re ready to respond by creating work that inspires, challenges and shifts the conversation. Waiting to act risks losing momentum, but the real challenge is balancing urgency with strategy.

That said, it’s a tough question to answer definitively. Urgent action will undoubtedly be necessary, but we also need clarity on what we’re up against. The next four years will demand a new level of focus and tactical thinking for protests and advocacy to be effective. Anger and disappointment can fuel movements, but without a clear strategy, protests risk creating the wrong narrative or losing their impact.

For all my talk about protests being vital for culture, I’ll say it: protests for protest’s sake won’t cut it. What’s required is thoughtful, purposeful action that carries a powerful, unambiguous message. As a design studio, our role is to ensure the work we create doesn’t just react, it resonates. It should move people to engage, reflect and act meaningfully.

Do you see art as a viable option for advocacy?
Absolutely. Art is not only a viable option for advocacy, it’s often one of the most effective tools we have. We believe all art is political, and designers, as artists, have a responsibility to use their skills and mediums to amplify important messages. Advocacy through art isn’t just about making statements; it’s about creating work that moves people, ignites action and becomes part of a larger dialogue for change.

Art has a unique ability to transcend boundaries and reach people on an emotional level, speaking directly to the heart in ways that words alone often can’t. At ThoughtMatter, we’re energized by this potential and proud to be a team of creatives ready to drive forward the power of design to meet the challenges of the world ahead.

Through partnerships with organizations like ARTE, Girl Forward, MAMA Foundation, and Studio Institute and REIA, we’ve seen how art can amplify critical issues like incarceration, refugees, music and art education, and healthcare. Whether it’s creating zines, designing spaces, or crafting campaigns, art often provides a platform for voices that might otherwise go unheard. Sometimes, art is the only viable option for advocacy. It spurs conversations, and those conversations nurture understanding. Understanding, in turn, inspires action. We believe art has the power to shape the future, and we’re committed to using it to create meaningful, lasting change.

I’m curious: Did you read The New Yorker story “The Americans Prepping for a Second Civil War?” What are your thoughts/reactions?
I hated it. The article highlights how extreme ideologies are being framed as “the new normal” in media narratives, and that’s both depressing and dangerous. The people they highlight have chosen isolation and fear, preparing for violence while those they claim to fear are simply advocating for peaceful protests and expanded rights. The difference is stark. This situation underscores how the media amplifies fear-based thinking instead of fostering community-minded dialogue. It’s crucial to call out misinformation and lies for what they are, and shift the focus toward fostering conversations that build connection, not division.

As artists and designers, we have a unique responsibility in moments like this. Art has always been both a tool of propaganda and a weapon against it—against censorship, hero worship and nationalism. Today, it’s more critical than ever to be responsive and thoughtful. Art education, particularly for children, is more than the finger-painting classes of our childhoods. It’s a key practice in preparing future generations to engage with the world through critical thinking and empathy.

At ThoughtMatter, we make space for diverse perspectives and emotions in our work. It’s how we ensure the solutions we craft foster understanding, not division. Art confronts the narratives of fear and extremism by encouraging dialogue, challenging assumptions and imagining alternatives rooted in community and compassion.

The article might paint a bleak picture, but it’s a call to action. We have to double down on using creativity as a force for connection, resisting fear-driven narratives and reframing the conversation to build a society that values collaboration over division.

The post The Daily Heller: Democracy, Where Art Thou? appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

But, his political satire only scratches the surface of his full oeuvre.

Rodriguez’s work spans from painting and sculpture to film posters, portraiture, children’s book illustrations, and on and on. Steven Heller recently wrote about his illustrated book covers for two Cuban sci-fi titles in a recent The Daily Heller. He also wrote and illustrated his American experience in Worm, a graphic memoir that spans his fleeing from Castro’s Cuba as a young child on the Mariel boatlift to watching the insurrection unfold on January 6, 2021. If you missed our PRINT Book Club with Rodriguez about Worm, it’s definitely worth a watch.

Rodriguez is the subject of a new documentary, Freedom is a Verb, now screening at DOC NYC from Nov 13 through Dec 1, and airing on PBS in the coming months. Directed by Adrienne Hall and Mecky Creus, the film explores the reckless pursuit of freedom inherent in all of Rodriguez’s work. Watch the trailer here.

With the election decided, Rodriguez’s work takes on layers of prophetic meaning. We look forward to Edel Rodriguez’s truth-telling in the near future, reminding us of the power of artists and creatives in times of chaos and despair.

Below, we’ve highlighted some of his stellar work over the last few years.

Left: Latino voter engagement illustration for The Washington Post; Latino vote 2024 poster

Covers for Stern (Germany, two at top left), La Croix (France, top middle), and Time (US, top right and bottom two).

Imagery courtesy of Edel Rodriguez.

The post Four More Years! (…of Edel Rodriguez) appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Fittingly, a group of artists sought to memorialize the end of this bilious presidential campaign cycle. This past weekend, the Australian studio Bear Meets Eagle On Fire helped take the trash out in New York. Here is their justification:

The creative studio Bear Meets Eagle On Fire has partnered with independent artists in the New York City area on an anti-Trump design protest project.
The result is a series of orange “DUMP TRUMP” garbage bags emblazoned with the contentious political figure’s face. The swollen orange bags, strewn across the city streets in Manhattan and Brooklyn just days before the election, are a visceral metaphor for a candidate who’s run one of the most divisive and contentious campaigns for president in U.S. history.
“The most consequential presidential election in our lifetime is taking place in the U.S. this week; we just felt even a minor satirical statement was worth making,” said Micah Walker, founder of Bear Meets Eagle On Fire. 



In a sign of the ever-increasing political temperature in the U.S., Bear’s creative and production partners in the U.S.—designers, printers, photographers and even the volunteers who helped place the bags across the city—have asked to remain anonymous around their involvement in the project.
“It just gives you an indication of how fearful so many people are of a second Trump presidency,” Walker added. “I hope after next week it’s something none of us have to worry about ever again.”

The post The Daily Heller: Weaponizing Garbage appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

For deeper insight into this evolution, I turned to some of the branding industry’s most prominent voices to explore how gender and identity are shaping political branding today. These design leaders shared their take on everything from the challenges of timing to the balance between visual consistency and policy focus to the future of branding for women in politics.

Our lineup includes Jessica Walsh, founder of the creative agency &Walsh (top left), Jolene Delisle, founder and head of brand creative at The Working Assembly (top middle), Holly Willis, founder of Magic Camp (top right), Ruth Bernstein, CEO of Yard NYC (bottom left), and Jaime Robinson, founder and CCO of JOAN (bottom right).

We asked, and, wow, they delivered! Their responses have been condensed and lightly edited for length and clarity.

How does the increasing alignment between political candidates and personal brand strategies, especially in the cases of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, reflect a shift in how voters perceive leadership qualities?

Jessica Walsh: The way political candidates are now using personal branding is a lot like how companies build their brands to connect with customers. Candidates like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris are doing more than just talking about policies—they’re creating a narrative around who they are, their values, and their image to really connect with voters on a personal level. It’s similar to how brands tell a story to make you care about their product.

“Clinton’s pantsuits, for example, became a symbol of her identity, just like Harris’s story as the daughter of immigrants and her career as a prosecutor became key parts of her brand. This shift shows how candidates are using personal storytelling and visual cues, not just policy, to create trust and stand out in a crowded political field, much like a company would build loyalty with its customers.”

— Jessica Walsh

Jaime Robinson: Personal brand has always been huge for presidential candidates. Who can forget the Camelot visions of JFK and Jackie Kennedy?  The old Hollywood glamor of Ronald Reagan? Bill Clinton’s “cool guy prez” saxophone and sunglasses moment? 

What we’re seeing today that IS exceptional is that the personal brands of presidential candidates are being absorbed by their audiences as part of their OWN brands and identities….  who in turn reflect their own versions of the brand… which in turn influences the candidate’s brand, and so forth.

Donald Trump has become more blustery and right-wing as his audience paints him that way.  Kamala Harris has become more BRAT with each passing meme. And their fans – because that’s what they are, fans, not constituents  – become even more entrenched in the brand narratives that the candidates are spinning and reflecting back.

Ultimately, it’s showbiz, where Brand reigns supreme.

Jaime Robinson

Jolene Delisle: Personal branding is more important than ever, and as we see in almost every industry, it bleeds into your professional reputation as well. Especially as women, it has the power to shape the narrative, good or bad.

Holly Willis: The alignment of personal branding with political strategy speaks to a broader evolution in how voters perceive leadership. Today, candidates are expected to resonate not only through policies but also through personal narratives and cultural fluency.

One trend we’re seeing, particularly from millennials and Gen Z, is an expectation for leaders to be culturally aware and socially attuned. For many in these generations, cultural literacy in a candidate signals empathy and adaptability, qualities seen as essential in navigating today’s rapid social shifts. Harris has engaged with this expectation by leaning into modern cultural references—such as “brat summer” or her appearance on Call Her Daddy—to connect with younger audiences. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s appearances on podcasts like Theo Von’s reflect an appeal to a younger, more skeptical demographic, reinforcing his base while broadening his reach.

This approach raises an important question: if candidates are not engaged with the cultural zeitgeist, does that make them less attuned to future generations’ needs? For political leaders, balancing generational appeal is no small feat. In contrast to brands that target Gen Z for long-term loyalty, political campaigns must manage the tension between Gen Z’s social influence and the reliable voting power of older generations.

Leadership perception is increasingly shaped by empathy, cultural understanding, and relatability. As candidates integrate personal narratives within broader sociopolitical contexts, it underscores a shift toward leadership that prioritizes genuine connections with diverse communities, moving beyond policy alone.

Does focusing on personal identity as part of a candidate’s brand strengthen or dilute their political message, and how can candidates ensure their brand resonates without alienating key voter demographics?

Walsh: Yes! Focusing on personal identity as part of a candidate’s brand can strengthen their message by making them more relatable and authentic to voters. However, it can also dilute the focus on their policies if not handled carefully as they need to integrate their personal story and brand in a way that complements their political platform rather than overwhelming it.

“In today’s world, I don’t think a candidate can even be heard unless they develop a brand, and remain true to it. And while Kamala Harris might risk alienating voters when she dances or belly laughs at a joke, the WAY bigger risk is being boring. This has been true for a few decades. Who can forget snoozy John Kerry or Al Gore? (or maybe you CAN forget them, and that’s the problem?)

But I’ll even go a step further…

Today, personal brand IS the political message.” 

— Jaime Robinson

Jaime Robinson: Kamala’s converse and meme-ified social presence signals she’s for a younger, more progressive future. And Donald Trump, shutting down his town hall after four questions and then swaying awkwardly to a 1990s Andrea Bocelli ballad, says he’s content looking backwards.

Delisle: We are in unprecedented times where running for political office is like running in some ways in a popularity contest, and it has less to do with the political objectives and policy and more with how people “feel about someone.”

It’s alienating to me as a voter because these are public service jobs, and the fact that most of the commentary online and on television is about someone’s likability is really sad.

Jolene Delisle

Willis: The integration of personal identity into political branding has become a more sophisticated exercise, reflecting a shift in both strategy and voter expectations. Modern candidates face the challenge of weaving their identity into their campaigns in ways that resonate authentically, yet don’t overshadow the substance of their policies. This balancing act is increasingly crucial as younger generations, especially Gen Z and Millennials, value leaders who are socially and culturally engaged while also addressing issues with depth and relevance.

In recent years, political figures have embraced subtler forms of identity politics—where their personal stories, values, and cultural touchpoints are integrated naturally into their campaigns rather than positioned as the primary focus. This approach allows candidates to embody key aspects of their identity in ways that enhance relatability without detracting from the core message.

This evolution underscores a strategic shift: instead of directly emphasizing aspects of identity like gender or ethnicity, candidates increasingly use cultural moments and platforms to convey these elements implicitly.

Holly Willis

This approach reflects a larger trend where identity becomes a part of the fabric of a candidate’s brand without dominating it, allowing for a broader, more inclusive reach. By engaging with diverse media channels, like podcasts that resonate with distinct demographics or tapping into trending topics, candidates can address different voter needs without isolating any particular group. It is also reflective of a deeper understanding that leadership is not solely about direct representation. It’s about showing an awareness of and alignment with the broader cultural landscape.

For future candidates, the challenge will be finding ways to make personal identity resonate across various voter demographics. To achieve this, candidates can look at how consumer brands blend authenticity with relevance — using personal stories to establish a connection, but grounding that connection in the shared values of their audience.

Harris’s campaign appears to subtly embody modern feminism without directly emphasizing gender, unlike Clinton’s more explicit feminist branding. How does this reflect the changing role of identity politics in shaping brand strategy, and how might this influence the future branding of female candidates?

Walsh: Kamala Harris’s subtle embrace of modern feminism, without directly emphasizing gender, reflects a shift in how identity politics shape political branding. Unlike Hillary Clinton’s more explicit feminist messaging, Harris integrates her identity in a way that feels natural and resonates with a diverse yet increasingly scrutinizing voter base. This approach signals a new trend for female candidates, where they can highlight their identity without making it the focal point of their campaign, allowing them to appeal to a broader audience. By focusing on qualifications and policy, while still embracing their personal story, candidates can balance the celebration of diversity with the need to connect on issues that matter to a wide range of voters.

Robinson: It’s smart that Harris isn’t playing on gender, and also a sign of the times. Hillary Clinton was running during a cultural moment where gender identity and struggles were front-page headlines. They were the big news.

That moment has passed, and it would seem outdated if Kamala Harris leaned on being a woman. In fact, today, Harris has a better chance of getting elected if she doesn’t go into gender identity. She knows she needs to dial up a more relevant aspect of her personal demographics  – that she’s younger than her opponent by 20 years, with a spirit to match.  She’s leaning into the memes, the BRAT, the inside jokes. She is signaling that she’s for the future, not for the past.

When she wins, we’ll celebrate that she’s a woman. Not a second before that.

Jaime Robinson

Bernstein: Kamala running for President as a woman isn’t seen by the American public as such a big deal because Hilary already did it. Hillary comes from a different generation. Her feminism was defined by needing to play in a man’s world. She had to play by men’s rules and ‘man up.’ She broke the glass ceiling in her run for President. Her feminism was about fighting for women’s rights and the need to show a woman could do a man’s job.

Kamala comes to a Presidential race by not having to play the same game that Hillary did.  She embodies another generation – GenX vs Boomer. She understands that to win as a brand, she needs to be defined relative to her competition. Being a woman is irrelevant. Her brand is “not Trump.” And her age is more important than her gender – it’s what also separates her from Trump and Biden.

Running on one’s identity now – and in the future – is not enough. Voters today are not choosing a candidate based on gender alone.

Ruth Bernstein

This is a different race. This is a changing of a generation. These are the moments when choice can’t be defined by identity. This is a race that is bigger than that.

“It’s interesting in the summer of Brat/Demure we almost have that prime example of the shift with the two candidates. Hillary was definitely in her demure era; she was trying to play nice and stick to the typical playbook. Harris’s campaign has definitely embraced the Brat vibes and is decidedly more on the offense, and is really embracing social, memes and culture. It’s been cool to see how fast her team can create response content and immediately jump into the conversation. It’s an incredible brand strategy, and I think it will definitely influence how candidates, both male and female, activate and strategize their social in the future.“

— Jolene Delisle

Willis: Kamala Harris’s campaign underscores a shift in how gender is integrated into political branding. Where Clinton’s explicit feminist messaging highlighted her role as a groundbreaking figure for women, Harris embodies a more subdued form of feminism. She integrates her identity into her platform in a way that feels authentic and organic rather than overt. This approach allows Harris to resonate with voters who value diversity and representation without risking the perception of identity politics overwhelming her platform.

This progression mirrors the changing cultural landscape, where diversity is increasingly celebrated but must be balanced with a broader message that appeals across demographics. As diversity becomes a more central expectation, female candidates may have more freedom to weave their identity into their political brands subtly. They can express modern feminism not as a standalone brand pillar, but as one of many facets that make up a well-rounded candidate. This more nuanced approach could help future female candidates navigate an increasingly scrutinized political arena by resonating with voters who see their identities as a natural part of their brand narrative, rather than its primary focus.

Clinton’s pantsuits became a symbol of her campaign, often diverting attention away from policy discussions, while Harris’s fashion choices seem to escape such scrutiny. How crucial is it for candidates’ brands to balance consistency in their visual identity with the need to focus on substantive policy?

Walsh: In political branding it’s all about balancing consistency in visual identity while keeping the focus on substantive policy. Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits became an iconic symbol, but that could distract from more important policy discussions. While visual branding creates a recognizable and cohesive image, there’s a risk when it becomes the story rather than supporting it. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has managed to maintain a strong visual identity without her fashion choices becoming the center of attention, allowing her policies and leadership to take the spotlight.

Robinson: Visual identity is everything and these candidates know that. Picture Trump –  what is he wearing? Not a leather jacket or some True Religion bootcut jeans. He’ll be in a dark suit with a red tie or golf whites and a MAGA hat. Picture Kamala Harris. She’s in a blazer and skinny jeans and Converse, or she’s in a modern designer suit.

These are brand moments—sartorial choices that are picked because of the policies the candidates are endorsing, not despite them. Donald Trump is projecting the image of the rough businessman cutting taxes for the rich. Kamala Harris is the image of the cool aunt who is gonna kick someone’s ass for taking away your reproductive rights.

But the good news? These branding elements are really not the focus.

We’re not talking about the clothing choices, unlike Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits, which is a great thing. A lot has happened since 2016, and we don’t have time for that shit.

Jaime Robinson

Bernstein: For most candidates, it is important to build a visual identity that is inclusive and contrasts with that of your opponent. Obama had one of the strongest visual identities of any modern politician. It let him own the idea of ‘Hope and Progress.’ While that is not substantive policy, it provided a platform for him to put forward ideas that lived up to that visual promise such as healthcare for all.

Delisle: I think millennial voters were much more into political branding – I think in the time of Obama and his Shepard Fairey prints, it was much more about visual identity shaping the campaign. Now because things have shifted so much away from printed collateral, the visual identity piece to me seems less important in this election. Obviously, with MAGA, they had a very strong visual thread that was helpful for them in the last election and likely this one, too, but I think it’s smart that the Harris campaign isn’t putting as much significance on her logo or graphic elements and putting much more effort on social media like video and UGC.

“Misogyny in American culture has often resulted in undue focus on female candidates’ appearances, on both sides of the aisle. This was seen in Clinton’s campaign, where her pantsuits became a symbol that sometimes distracted from her policy platform. In contrast, Harris’s style choices are less scrutinized, reflecting a shift in the way voters and media perceive female candidates. However, this shift doesn’t imply that the biases have disappeared—they’ve just evolved.”

— Holly Willis

Holly Willis: A candidate’s brand is enhanced when visual identity serves as a subtle extension of their narrative, reinforcing their platform without distracting from the policies they champion. For example, a well-coordinated wardrobe choice can be strategically symbolic, drawing connections to the communities they represent without being explicitly gendered or politicized. It’s essential to maintain this balance to ensure the conversation remains focused on their vision and substance.

Can too much focus on visual elements risk diminishing a candidate’s brand? How can they avoid this?

Robinson: I think the conversation around Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits was problematic – it made her more lovable to her core demographic, who were finally seeing themselves represented and loved her boss bitch vibes.  But the sensible pumps and pantsuits served to “other” her to her detractors, who found her power dressing off-putting for the same reasons that her core loved it. 

But today, unless that visual element is a negative or unattractive thing, it’s not a problem. Even the infamous “orange” hue of Donald Trump’s skin is just as accepted and in some camps, celebrated as part of his brand.

Willis: An overemphasis on visual elements can indeed dilute a candidate’s brand, potentially reducing their persona to superficial traits and drawing focus away from their platform. Visual identity should be a strategic tool, enhancing the message and helping convey a sense of strength, consistency, respect, and relatability, but not becoming the focal point. Political figures can avoid this pitfall by aligning visual identity closely with their core values, reinforcing it as an extension of their messaging rather than an attention-grabbing element on its own.

For candidates today, the goal should be to integrate these elements as part of a comprehensive brand that resonates with voter segments. By thoughtfully choosing elements that reflect broader narratives—such as inclusivity, relatability, and authenticity — they can create a memorable visual presence that supports, rather than overshadows, their policies. This balance is especially important in a media environment that often emphasizes imagery, where strategic visual choices can enhance a candidate’s connection with voters.

Clinton faced relentless negative media coverage, while Harris appears to have avoided similar levels of personal scrutiny. How should political candidates handle the branding impact of personal attacks? What strategies from the private sector can help create resilient brands that can withstand media controversies and misinformation?

Walsh: Political candidates can handle personal attacks by focusing on consistency, transparency, and staying true to their core message—much like successful brands in the private sector. Just as companies respond to negative press by controlling the narrative, candidates should address false claims directly, clarify their stance, and reinforce their values without letting attacks overshadow their campaign. By using crisis management strategies from the business world—such as clear communication, proactive messaging, and staying authentic—candidates can build resilience and maintain focus on their leadership and policy goals, ensuring that negative media doesn’t dominate or derail their brand.

Robinson: If you’re running for president, criticism from someone (or many someones) is part of the job description. The key is, no matter the heat, to stay true to the brand. Candidates must stay authentic, and not waver just because they ruffled some feathers. They likely also strengthened some feathers, and if they change course because of the criticism, everybody will register them as fakes. 

As with marketing brands, you can’t be everything to everybody. And the most vital thing is to be “on brand” to yourself.

Willis: One key strategy is to establish a clear, positive narrative around their identity, consistently highlighting their values and achievements. This creates a “brand foundation” that can anchor public perception, making it more challenging for opponents to erode their credibility. In the face of attacks, it’s also effective to address issues head-on when appropriate, deflecting distractions but responding thoughtfully to misinformation.

Resilience also comes from transparency and trust-building. Private-sector brands often use authenticity to connect with audiences, and candidates can similarly counteract negative coverage by being candid and accessible. Misinformation is a constant threat, and successful brands emphasize fact-based storytelling, engaging directly with audiences to set the record straight and offer a counter-narrative that reinforces their values.

Directly addressing a baseless claim not only clarifies their stance but also builds credibility with voters, showing an alignment with the facts over spin.

Holly Willis

With Kamala Harris benefitting from the cultural groundwork laid by Clinton and Shirley Chisholm, how important do you believe timing is in a candidate’s branding success?

Walsh: Timing is critical in a candidate’s branding success, and Kamala Harris’s rise is a great example. She built on the groundwork laid by figures like Clinton and Shirley Chisholm, and her campaign’s timing was key. As many grew weary of Biden’s traditional leadership, Harris brought fresh energy and hope, representing diversity and progress. The joy surrounding her candidacy was not only about her qualifications but the emotional response to seeing a leader who people were excited to get behind. Harris’s timing allowed her brand to resonate at a moment when the public craved new, dynamic representation.

Robinson: Timing – for candidate brands and brand brands – is everything. Is the world ready for what your brand has to say?

“Timing is very important to a candidate’s ability to brand themselves. There are moments like the one we are in today, when it is a coming of age, or generation. It is an inflection point that speaks to a readiness to embrace something new. We saw that with Obama. And I believe we are seeing that now.”

— Ruth Bernstein

Bernstein: Kamala’s womanhood is not as important as other factors. Her age, for one, is a more important factor than her gender. With Kamala, we are seeing her flex her GenX attributes more than her femaleness. And that is relevant to the moment we are in – the age of Biden and the age of Trump and the desire for a new generation of leadership.

Willis: Timing is a critical factor. Harris, for example, is benefiting from the cultural groundwork laid by earlier trailblazers who helped shift societal perceptions of female and diverse leadership. These predecessors opened the door for a more complex, intersectional understanding of identity in politics, allowing Harris to subtly embrace her own diverse background while focusing on policy-driven messaging.

Furthermore, Me Too shifted public consciousness around gender, power, and representation, allowing the political landscape to adapt. Harris’s ability to incorporate her identity without making it a constant focal point reflects this change.

A candidate’s success depends on how aligned their brand is with the public’s evolving expectations and the cultural zeitgeist. As society increasingly values diversity and inclusion, candidates like Harris are better positioned to capitalize on this shift, embodying leadership that resonates with a multi-dimensional, multi-generational electorate. Today, aligning personal identity with policy is as important as having the right message—it’s also about delivering it at the right moment, in a way that feels timely, authentic, and relevant.

In what ways do you see candidates balancing their personal narratives with the evolving societal context during their campaigns? Take Harris’ approach to highlighting her gender, for example.

Walsh: Candidates today must align their personal stories with the shifting cultural zeitgeist, where representation and authenticity are highly valued. Kamala Harris’s nuanced approach to highlighting her gender reflects a broader trend of political figures adapting their identity strategies to align with the cultural moment. Rather than making her gender the sole focus, Harris weaves it into a larger narrative of competence, experience, and representation, allowing her to connect with diverse groups without being reduced to a singular identity.

Robinson: Harris is smart. She’s not taking the gender bait, for either the positive or the negative. Even more interestingly, nobody else really seems all that concerned with it. We’re all so entrenched in our political sides that either party could run a hippopotamus and still get votes. In fact, Moo Deng would probably crush it.

Willis: Harris’s approach illustrates a broader trend in which political figures integrate aspects of their identity into their brand strategies without necessarily making them the centerpiece. This allows candidates to connect with voters on shared values, using their identity as a touchpoint that builds relatability while focusing on policy. In today’s social climate, where identity is often deeply intertwined with political beliefs, this balanced approach enables leaders to reflect the diversity of their constituencies without alienating key voter demographics.

As societal expectations evolve, political candidates are finding ways to weave personal narratives into their campaigns subtly. They leverage cultural references, such as Harris’s allusions to trending topics like Beyoncé or Taylor Swift, to underscore their connections to various communities. This nuanced branding strategy suggests that candidates can benefit from staying attuned to cultural shifts and adopting a flexible approach that allows them to resonate across generations. At the same time, it acknowledges that while identity politics remains a powerful tool, it must be wielded thoughtfully to avoid alienating groups with different priorities.

However, aligning with cultural trends in this way carries risks. In today’s fast-paced media environment, one misstep can lead to accusations of inauthenticity or pandering, undermining the intended connection. Voters, especially younger generations, are highly attuned to authenticity and quick to call out anything that feels disingenuous. Therefore, it’s a delicate balance: candidates must lean into their personal experiences and core values to connect with cultural topics and trends genuinely, rather than opportunistically.

We are less than a week away from Election Day, Tuesday, November 5. For all of our futures, this election is critical and your voice matters. If you need any voting registration help or info finding the nearest polling booth to you, learn more here.

Campaign imagery © KamalaHarris.com and Harris campaign social feeds.

The post Five Design Leaders on the Evolution of the Female Presidential Candidate appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Recently, designer Andy Outis collaborated with journalist David Margolick on a series of posters and memes highlighting how Donald Trump’s vile rhetoric would have been directed at earlier immigrant groups—Jewish, Irish, Mexican, Japanese, and others.

“David’s intent is to provoke Trump-leaning voters to question whether their own forebears would have been subjected to the same bigotry and hate, and reconsider how supporting or voting for Trump is a wise decision,” Outis explains.

After the horrific rally on Sunday (where J.D. Vance accused Americans of being “too sensitive”), this message is all the more urgent and necessary.

“There are nine posters in the series; a 10th featuring Trump’s own German immigrant grandparents was cut,” Outis says, “so as not to cheapen the core message with the distraction of invoking his own heritage.”

The posters were produced in two sizes: letter-sized PDFs for printing, and Instagram/Facebook vertical variants for social media. They are available in two sizes here.

The post The Daily Heller: ‘Who Are The Real Americans?’ Takes Center Stage appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The term fascist has become a catchall for repression, state terror and political evil—a counterpoint to Democracy—and has also become a description for ideological conservatives of all right-wing stripes. So often is it used for the slightest infraction of the liberal position that some critics have argued that it has become trivialized. But as of this national election, candidate and former president Donald Trump has invited opponents to label him fascist or fascistic, and the description has stuck; critics have been forced to agree that if it talks like a fascist, acts like one and spews the bile of one, then it is one.

The board game Secret Hitler is not specifically a critique of Trump’s overt sympathy with dictators and dictatorial power, and it’s decidedly not the first game to address political, social and economic issues. Table games pitting Marxism against Capitalism, the U.S. against Castro, and such general war games as Strategy and Battleship have been popular since the Cold War, but this is the first such game that has used the hot button of “Hitler” in the title. Which contributes to an overwhelming fear that democracy is indeed in danger. (Witness the rhetoric of last night Madison Square Garden Trump rally, seeped in divisive, racist, vulgar and hate-filled rhetoric)

Some historians believe that fascism cannot happen here in the United States—but it is undeniably clear that many of the paths to tyranny are being espoused in the current election rhetoric.

Here is the official product description for the game that brings our dangerous polarization into the spotlight:

Secret Hitler is a dramatic game of political intrigue and betrayal set in 1930’s Germany. Players are secretly divided into two teams—liberals and fascists. Known only to each other, the fascists coordinate to sow distrust and install their cold-blooded leader. The liberals must find and stop the Secret Hitler before it’s too late.

Each round, players elect a President and a Chancellor who will work together to enact a law from a random deck. If the government passes a fascist law, players must try to figure out if they were betrayed or simply unlucky. Secret Hitler also features government powers that come into play as fascism advances. The fascists will use those powers to create chaos unless liberals can pull the nation back from the brink of war.

The video below provides detailed instructions on what an insurrection in a liberal democracy can look like …

The post The Daily Heller: The Board Game Where the Whole Nation is the Loser appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Identity Politics is a column written by veteran journalist Susan Milligan, covering the big issues in the socio-political ether as they intersect with design, art, and other modes of visual communication.

Hillary Clinton has a long career of being first. First female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978. The first woman to be made a partner at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock the following year. First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the country (and first First Lady to hold a law degree), the first woman to be elected a US senator from New York (and first First Lady elected to the Senate). The first woman to win the Iowa caucuses and, of course, the first woman to win a major party nomination for president.

The ultimate first – making it to the Oval Office job – was beyond her grasp. And her 2016 loss had all the elements of the frustrations women have endured in less-publicized employment struggles: she won the popular vote but didn’t get the job because of arcane rules that are the election equivalent of old boy’s club practices that keep women out of the room where it happens. And the presidency didn’t just go to any man, but a man who was notorious for his misogynistic remarks, a man not stopped even when a recording emerged the month before the election in which he bragged about being able to “do anything” to women, even “grab ’em by the pussy,” because he was famous.

Such is the painful conundrum of being a trailblazing woman. You often get burned.

Now, Kamala Harris is trying to be the first woman president. And she’s avoiding some of the pitfalls that beleaguered Clinton because Harris is not actually branding herself as the would-be first woman president – let alone the first Black and Asian woman president.

Even though she is facing the same general election foe Clinton did (and Trump has actually escalated his misogynistic rhetoric this time around), Harris doesn’t draw attention to her gender or to the historic possibilities of her candidacy. It’s just there, without her remarking on it.

Hillary Clinton made her femaleness a part of her campaign – sometimes awkwardly so: in her first run, in 2008, she needled primary opponent Barack Obama for being a bit too sensitive to criticism. “I’m with Harry Truman on this,” Clinton said at a Pennsylvania rally that year. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Just speaking for myself, I am very comfortable in the kitchen.”

Harris, meanwhile, unironically talks about her favorite method of preparing collard greens: washing them in the bathtub and cooking them with bacon fat, garlic, and chili peppers. But it’s not in the reassuring context of – don’t worry; I still cook for my husband and kids even though I want to have my finger on the nuclear button. It’s just foodie talk.

Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits were a consistent topic of media conversation, despite the fact that the pantsuit was designed to serve as an unremarkable campaign uniform, much like a man’s suit. Harris wears pantsuits – sometimes with fashionable heels, sometimes with comfortable kicks – but there’s nary a mention of it in stories about her rallies. And while there have indeed been comments about Harris’s looks (Trump seems particularly obsessed with it, complaining about descriptions of Harris as a “beautiful woman,” and insisting he’s better looking than she is), it was Clinton who was the subject of a Washington Post story about displaying “cleavage” on the Senate floor (she didn’t, really, unless you looked very closely). And it seems an absurd observation now when we have a US senator content to wear hoodies and cargo pants on the Senate floor.

Harris has been sexualized, to be sure, with the right-wing suggestion that she “slept her way to the top” because she once dated former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown (never mind that she was a district attorney, state attorney general, and U.S. senator). But the slurs haven’t filtered into the mainstream media coverage of her, even on a sanitized or wink-wink level. Clinton, meanwhile, always had the albatross of her own marriage around her neck – blamed for staying with a straying husband.

Harris’s gender is an asset this year in a way that has zero to do with any kind of “first.” With reproductive rights a central issue in the election, Harris has an inherent credibility on the issue even the most pro-choice man in politics can never have. Her candidacy underscores the perverse contradiction this fall: can we really be ready to elect our first female president, even as women’s bodies have been increasingly under the control of the state? She doesn’t have to talk about how personally insulting it is to her, as a woman. It’s obvious.

And Harris has Clinton to thank for taking the front-line assault in the presidential gender wars. To be sure, Shirley Chisholm took the worst of it in 1972, when the idea of a woman (especially a Black woman) running for president was so anathema to American politics and culture that she wasn’t even allowed to participate in televised primary debates (only after legal action was she allowed to make one speech). She simply wasn’t taken seriously as a candidate for the highest office in the land.

Clinton was taken seriously, making the attacks on her more personal and arguably more vicious. And it paved the path for Harris, who could not have run a campaign so remarkably un-gendered if Clinton had not taken the hits first. Some of it is the times – people are more used to women leaders, making the possibility of a female president more normal and arguably inevitable. Clinton, too, reads more like a 1970s-era feminist, Wayne State University associate professor Janine Lanza, an expert on gender and politics, observed to me – and younger women can’t relate to that as much. Harris epitomizes a more modern kind of feminist. She doesn’t talk about it directly; she just lives it. And thanks to the advance work of trailblazers like Chisholm and Clinton, she just might end up living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For added commentary, PRINT’s Amelia Nash reached out to design industry leaders for their take on the topic of gender, identity, and brand as they intersect in politics and electioneering. Read their responses here.

More topics in this series:

What the Age-Old Campaign Against Childfree Cat Ladies Doesn’t Get

Susan Milligan is an award-winning veteran journalist covering politics, culture, foreign affairs, and business in Washington, DC, New York, and Eastern Europe. A former writer for the New York Daily News, the Boston Globe, and US News & World Report, she was among a team of authors of the New York Times bestseller Last Lion: The Rise and Fall of Ted Kennedy. A proud Buffalo native, Milligan lives in northern Virginia.

Header image composite by Debbie Millman.

The post Kitchens, Pantsuits, and Cleavage Oh My! Running for President While Female appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Kamala’s Recipes isn’t just another culinary website—it’s a fun blend of politics, pop culture, and delicious bites designed to activate voters through their love for food. With under 50 days to go until the election, People People launched this playful project to celebrate Kamala Harris as a leader and as someone who knows her way around the kitchen.

From the “Purple Powersuit cocktail” to dishes inspired by her viral moments, Kamala’s Recipes is an interactive celebration of Harris’s star-studded YouTube cooking show, her memorable quotes, and iconic outfits. But it’s not all just fun and food—the site smartly integrates voter registration links and encourages donations, making it as much a rallying cry for political action as it is a culinary adventure, both online and through the project’s Instagram page.

Design-wise, People People leaned into Harris’s collection of power pantsuits, drawing inspiration for a color palette that’s as bold as she is. But what truly brings the site to life is its grounding in home-cooked memories and our universal connection through food. The typography and illustrations channel the charm of family recipe cards and cherished cookbooks, while the overall design is reminiscent of bustling farmer’s markets and the communal joy of food festivals. Playful sticker-like callouts and lively layouts capture the energy of conversations shared over a meal, a tasty nod to grassroots activism.

If ever there were a recipe for bringing people together, this is it. Food and politics? Yes, please.

The post People People Serves up a Culinary Adventure with a Side of Activism appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

This rare booklet published by the International Workers Order excerpts portions of a 1942 speech by FDR’s vice president, Henry A. Wallace. As the poet Carl Sandburg wrote in the foreword, “His speech transcends partisan causes and petty ambitions. As a speech, it deals with living history and may long be remembered.”

What’s interesting about Wallace’s arguments (which can be heard here), each highlighted by illustrations produced by the social realist-idealist Hugo Gellert, is that they attempt to tie the United States more closely to the Soviet Union in the face of a common enemy, Nazi Germany. “It is no accident that Americans and Russians like each other when they get acquainted,” Wallace said. “Both people were molded by the vast sweep of a rich continent.” He further noted that “thanks to the hunger of the Russian people for progress, they were able to learn in 25 years that which had taken us in the United States a hundred years to develop.” The quintessence of liberal thinking.

The speech further addressed the issue of “ethnic democracy,” which Wallace insisted was vital to the “new democracy, the democracy of the common man … the different races and minority groups must be given equality of economic opportunity.” And he continued, “President Roosevelt was guided by principles of ethnic democracy when in June 1941 he issued an executive order prohibiting racial discrimination in the employment of workers by the national defense industry.”

An additional point: “From the Russians we can learn much, for unfortunately the Anglo-Saxons have had an attitude toward other races which has made them exceedingly unpopular in many parts of the world. … We have not sunk to the lunatic level of the Nazi myth of racial superiority, but we have sinned enough to cost us already the blood of tens of thousands of precious lives.”

Gellert (1892–1985), who was born in Hungary, underscored Wallace’s theme through graphics that echoed other lithographic work he did for progressive causes. (I had the pleasure of being on a panel about political art with Gellert a year before his passing—he was committed to “ethnic democracy” until the end.)

The images here are selected from the 1943 booklet Century of the Common Man, with points in Wallace’s speech illustrated and titled by Gellert.

The post Social Ideals and Social Realism, Gellert Style appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Jeff Gates is angry, and reasonably so. “I’m angry at those who manipulate our cultural zeitgeist for their own aspirations,” he says. Creating political posters that visually ooze contempt through take-no-prisoner images, each poster in Faces of the Republican Party is executed with emotional intensity. Each politico’s face is captioned with a simple indictment for crimes against the nation. His targets are the fervent MAGA men and women in Congress and those opportunists who are just along for the ride.

Make no mistake, this work is not gratuitous trashing, but heartfelt protest. “To govern effectively, we need people who listen to each other,” Gates says, “especially those from different parts of the political spectrum.” The congressional representatives for whom he shows no mercy aren’t interested in governing. “The Republican Party,” he insists, “isn’t interested, either.” They want raw power. And Gates’ images reveal this as vividly as he can.

His images are neither caricatures nor portraits; let’s call them character traits. In the tradition of German polemicist John Heartfield, the acerbic Weimar photomontage executioner, Gates’ raw material comes from public photographs. “I will often alter their faces just enough to emphasize the emotions and attitudes they’re already conveying.” They are arguably exaggerated portrayals and decidedly vicious in their intent. Gates takes exception: “If we’re going to use the word ‘vicious,’ these people’s rhetoric and actions are vicious. As a visual critic, I’m just pointing it out.”

Jeff Gates’ biography reads like a testament to the First Amendment and the tremendous power of political commentary. In the late 1980s, he founded Artists for a Better Image (ArtFBI) to study stereotypes of contemporary artists. With a political science and graphic design background and living in Washington, DC, he found a critical voice by addressing political causes. Early on, he understood the social ramifications of the web, which influenced his choice to join the Smithsonian American Art Museum. As lead producer of New Media Initiatives for 22 years before retiring in 2018, he helped shepherd the museum into the online world. He is the founder of the Chamomile Tea Party, where he’s created over 300 posters on the hypocrisy of American political discourse. Just before the 2012 presidential election, he was the first artist to buy ad space in in the DC Metro, hanging posters about the effects of legislative partisanship on platform signs. From 2018–2020, Google Arts & Culture published an eight-part online exhibition of this work, allowing Gates to create a visual history of American politics, from the rise of the Tea Party to the election of Donald Trump. And his bête noir is the onerous gang of ultra-right agitators, including Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Paul Gosar. They “deserve to be taken to task for their lack of civility, their unwillingness to compromise for the betterment of Americans’ lives, their belief in conspiracy theories, and their desire to disrupt our institutions instead of helping their constituents.”

Gates is nostalgic for saner times when “the purpose of our government [was and] is to solve problems so we can survive and flourish. It’s not a place for personal vendettas or manufactured cultural wedge issues.” His “Faces” reflect frustration with this existential perverse transformation of American beliefs.

Gates’ earlier work began as remixes of 20th-century propaganda posters. He’s always been an ardent observer of advertising. “I’m interested in how to ‘sell’ an idea using images and text in very economical ways to increase their impact.” His philosophy for making agitprop art has deep personal roots. “Western and Eastern philosophies show us two different ways we deal with power and anger,” he explains. “Think of the West’s boxing versus the East’s martial arts. In boxing, it’s who hits hardest and longest: direct power against power. In martial arts, one uses their opponent’s energy against them—taking the oncoming force and redirecting it. I’m more of a martial arts guy in my interactions with others. I grew up in a house where whoever yelled the loudest won. Later, I learned to disable my father’s ‘boxing’ by redirecting his anger. It was fascinating and compelling.”

His art is a psychological release. “I’m redirecting their power to give voice to my opinion.” As a visual political critic, Gates understands the limits of his power as an artist. “I make these images for myself. It’s a way of countering the powerlessness I feel these days. I’m not a political powerbroker. The success of my work is getting it out into the public where people can react to it and even use it (this is why I offer all my digital images as free downloads).” He hopes the people depicted in these images might see and react to them. But Gates has no illusions. “They won’t inflict pain on people so self-absorbed. If anything, they feed on criticism.”

Throughout history, artists have often faced penalties for their opinions. Among other banned graphic commentators of the 1920s, Georg Grosz was put on trial for libel and “sacrilegious” work for protesting militarism and caricaturing key military leaders. In this country, Gates has the freedom to be contentious. “The First Amendment protects my right to comment on [our leaders’] behavior unless I am inciting violence, which I’m not. There are no religious or social edicts against visually depicting Congresspeople.” Libel means to defame. Merriam-Webster defines defamation as “communicating false statements about a person that injure that person’s reputation.” There is nothing false about these images or the words they utter. Gates either quotes them or describes behavior that has already been documented. “Any defamation of their character is self-inflicted,” he says. But he’s anxious about losing that freedom.

Gates believes that artists like Hieronymus Bosch, Francisco Goya, Honoré Daumier, Pablo Picasso, Romare Bearden and William H. Johnson, and more contemporary artists like Ai Weiwei, Banksy, Nan Goldin and Kara Walker have “documented their times in their work.

“As we refine our history to include previously obscure events or marginalized people and their experiences, art creates and enhances expanded worldviews.”

And where does his current commentary fit into the body politic? “Many see my work as part of the left critique,” he explains. “But I find some things very illiberal about the far left. This isn’t an issue of ‘bothsidesism,’” he insists. “The GOP is much more destructive. It keeps churning out cultural wedge issues, such as teaching critical race theory. They ban important books that tell a more realistic history of the American experience. And they often attempt to rewrite history.”

There can be no mistaking Gates as non-partisan. His work to date has focused on Republicans. Yet he describes his position as not being on the political spectrum but outside it. “I consider myself a humanist and learn from the wide breadth of others’ stories. I can work with traditional conservatives who value order and tradition,” he says. “But I can’t accept Republicans who live their lives in constant opposition … and their attempts to lock history into a narrow paradigm.”

Visual commentary, Gates argues, reflects and comments on destructive currents in our culture. “I reject our status quo, and my art reflects this. To quote the sixth-century Buddhist Sent-ts’an, ‘If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between ‘for’ and ‘against’ is the mind’s worst disease.’” Jeff Gates believes, “Whether visual or written, art attempts to keep our history elastic. We can fill it with as much lived experience as we want.”

The post The Daily Heller: When MAGAs Roamed the Republic appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Launched on Voter Registration Day (September 17) and running through Election Day (November 5), the campaign provides a one-stop resource for voters at readyforroevember.com. The site allows visitors to register to vote, prepare for the upcoming election, and dive into key ballot measures and races focused on reproductive rights. Hey Jane will donate $1 to abortion-related ballot measure organizations for each visitor, transforming engagement into direct support for reproductive access.

In a country where reproductive rights are increasingly threatened, Ready for Roevember is designed to do more than just encourage voter turnout — it’s about driving informed action on an issue that’s critical for many. For women under 45 in swing states, abortion has overtaken even the economy as the top voting concern, according to The New York Times. And national surveys show that eight in ten Americans oppose federal abortion bans, emphasizing the broad support for protecting reproductive choice, per The Associated Press.

A key moment in this campaign is September 28, which marks both International Safe Abortion Day and the Ready for Roevember Day of Action. On this day, supporters nationwide are encouraged to share why they’re “ready for Roevember” on social media. They can use the campaign’s free toolkit to amplify their messages and guide others to the campaign website. Hey Jane has created phone screens, social media templates, yard signs, posters, postcards, and more, all available in the toolkit to help spread the word.

Hey Jane, a New York-based telehealth provider specializing in reproductive care, is driving this initiative with a clear goal: to ensure voters are equipped with the knowledge and tools they need to make informed decisions at the ballot box. For years, Hey Jane has been at the forefront of expanding access to safe, affordable reproductive healthcare through its telehealth services. Now, with Ready for Roevember, the organization is linking healthcare advocacy with civic action.

This year’s election is pivotal for the future of reproductive freedom in America. With state and federal legislation increasingly threatening to roll back rights, voters have the opportunity to send a clear message that reproductive autonomy is non-negotiable. Ready for Roevember aims to channel this energy into concrete action, ensuring voters are not only showing up at the polls but also fully aware of the issues at stake.

Visit readyforroevember.com to register, learn about key races, download your Roevember assets, and prepare for the election. In 2024, every vote counts—and with Ready for Roevember, your voice will make a difference.

The post Hey Jane Casts its Vote for Reproductive Freedom with Roevember appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Featuring more than 550 artist billboards created between 2016 and 2023, it marks one of the largest public creative collaborations in American history. By appropriating an advertising medium normally used for political campaigning, these billboards showcase how art can urge communities into greater participation and action, and foster nuanced discourse.

Organized chronologically, the book is divided into seven sections that commemorate the organization’s socially prescient campaigns: Make America Great Again; Bring People into Play; Visionary, Not Reactionary; Provoke Bigger Questions; Build, Do Not Destroy; Listen Until We Hear; and Bridge Binaries. Featured artists include Derrick Adams, Sadie Barnett, Gina Belafonte, Sanford Biggers, Cassils, Shepard Fairey, Theaster Gates, Jim Goldberg, Shyama Golden and Tanya Selvaratnam, Guerrilla Girls, Jeffrey Gibson, Jenny Holzer, Alfredo Jaar, Rashid Johnson, JR, Christine Sun Kim, Jesse Krimes, Sarah Elizabeth Lewis, Mike Mandel and Larry Sultan, Marilyn Minter, Koyoltzinlti Miranda-Rivadeneira, Sofía Gallisá Muriente, Gordon Parks, Kameelah Janan Rasheed, Maggie Rogers, Kamal Sinclair and Takaaki Okada, Carrie Mae Weems, Deborah Willis, Amelia Winger-Bearskin and Ai Weiwei, among many more. The book also surveys important partnerships with organizations and movements over the years including AAPI Solidarity, Landback.Art, INDIGENA, NDN Collective, Times Square Arts, XQ Institute, and brands including Converse.

The post The Daily Heller: Beautify America With Billboards appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Welcome to a new column we’re affectionately calling, Identity Politics. Written by veteran journalist Susan Milligan, we’ll be covering the big issues in the socio-political ether as they intersect with design, art, and other modes of visual communication.

“You’ll change your mind.”

I first heard those words when I was still a teenager, having just informed adults that I had no interest in having children. Such declarations were seen as a radical – and temporary – flirtation with Women’s Liberation and a misguided rejection of All Things Normal and Natural for females. At that age, I was treated with a patronizing kindness by those whose smug smiles conveyed their assurance that, of course, I would be overcome by baby fever, settle down, and consent into a life where I might well have a career, but of course would reproduce and always, always put my children first.

As I got older, my childless state became a source of perplexity, judgment, alarm, and finally, pity, as it became clear to others that the time had passed for me to fulfill my expected role as a mother. How could I have missed the memo, waved frantically in my face by myriad sources – older adults, media warnings about my ticking biological clock, advertisements, and marketing that celebrated marriage and parenthood? The sappy engagement ring ads, food sold in family-sized packages, the pregnancy test commercials that overwhelmingly featured married couples hoping so much for the little blue line that reveals that she – oops, “we,” in the couple-centric vernacular that erases the one thing a woman can do that a man can’t – is/are pregnant.

Decades later, despite dramatic demographic and social changes, we’re still in the same place. It’s arguably worse, since American politicians, opinion leaders, and marketers have had decades to adjust to the new reality of American households but haven’t. A first-of-its-kind 2021 Census Bureau report on childless older Americans found that nearly one in six adults age 55 and older are childfree. In 2023, 47 percent of adults under 50 said they were unlikely to have kids—a big jump from just five years previous, when 37 percent felt that way, according to the Pew Research Center. Another Census study found that 58 percent of households are childless (though this figure likely includes empty nesters), up from 7.7 percent in 1940.

The anger and outright hatred towards the childfree among us has been ugly and mounting. The silly (and suspiciously manufactured-looking) videos of “trad wives” on social media underscore the idea that a “traditional” wife, wearing a spaghetti-strapped tank top on her ballerina body, is so much happier staying home all day, making homemade Oreo-style cookies for her kids and waiting for her husband to get home from his paying job. A popular meme online contrasts drawings of two women—one, described as an “Established and Complete Woman,” in a flowy dress and smiling as she holds her husband’s, who is carrying one of their four children. The other depicts a scowling single woman with a cat, a sex toy, a glass of wine, a sorry-looking slice of pizza, and a tally of “men I’ve whored myself out to.” The moniker for this woman? “A Victim of Feminism.”

And now, the crusade against childfree women has become part of the presidential campaign. Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance in 2021 excoriated the “childless cat ladies” who are unhappy and “want to make the rest of the country miserable too.” Asked about the audio, unearthed after Vance became his party’s nominee for vice president, Vance snipped that he had nothing against cats. Another audio clip of Vance, discovered in August, features him castigating the head of a teachers union for not having children. “If she wants to brainwash and destroy the minds of children,” Vance says, “she should have some of her own and leave ours the hell alone.”

Newsweek, which wrote a mea-culpa story in 2006 countering its own 1986 cover story warning single women that their chances of getting married after age 40 were lower than the chance of getting killed by a terrorist, hasn’t evolved. It’s just modernized the line of attack. An opinion column in the magazine this summer piously informed readers that wealthy and uber-successful Taylor Swift – one of the most effective brand ambassadors in the world – is a terrible role model for girls. Why? Because she is unmarried, has no children, and has had a lot of boyfriends.

And that’s the root of the anger and renewed backlash: it’s not (just) that women are remaining single and childfree. It’s that they’re happy that way. And that has provoked a range of reactions from incomprehension to out-and-out rage.

Sure, you won’t see ads anymore like the 1930s pitch for Listerine, noting of a halitosis-afflicted female: “And as her birthdays crept gradually toward that tragic 30-mark, marriage seemed farther from her life than ever. She was often a bridesmaid, but never a bride.” However, as Jess Lloyd, head of strategy at the advertising firm Hill Holiday, noted in a 2018 column in Adweek, single women still felt the judgment. In a study conducted by the firm, nearly half of single women felt “virtually nonexistent” in advertising, and when they were portrayed, it was often as “hyper-sexualized, desperate or lonely.”


Entertainment and food establishments offer “family days” and family discounts irrelevant to single and childless consumers. And while people drive alone more than three-fourths of the time (even more so for single drivers), vehicle advertising tends to show families and groups driving together, behavioral economist Peter McGraw wrote in a column for Contagious, a creative and strategic agency.

The underlying premise of political campaigns, media, and advertising is that singlehood and childlessness are temporary—states that people universally want to escape. That explains why Republicans – seeing the overwhelming electoral advantage Democrats have among single women – haven’t responded by crafting policies to appeal to that voter group. They’ve just tried to get them married. And more insidiously, shaming them into having children (or making it hard to end an unwanted pregnancy).

Good luck with that. According to the Census Bureau, women (and men) are marrying later. The Pew study found that the childless are not mostly reproductively challenged: 57 percent of the adults under 50 who said they are unlikely to have kids said a major reason is that they don’t want them. The side-by-side meme of a happy wife and mother and a miserable single woman means to insult unmarried, childless women. But it misses the point: very many women would prefer to be the female on the right than the one on the left. You can get over a hangover. There’s no recovering from a frontal lobotomy, as the woman on the left appears to have been given, in a caricature that’s arguably as insulting and reductive as the one depicting the single woman.

It will get nastier before the childfree cat ladies take their rightful role in politics and the consumer market. Eventually, candidates, advertisers, and the media will figure out that if they want our votes, our money, and our attention, they’re going to have to accept us as we are. In the stump speech slogan of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, we are not going back.

Susan Milligan is an award-winning veteran journalist covering politics, culture, foreign affairs, and business in Washington, DC, New York, and Eastern Europe. A former writer for the New York Daily News, the Boston Globe, and US News & World Report, she was among a team of authors of the New York Times bestseller Last Lion: The Rise and Fall of Ted Kennedy. A proud Buffalo native, Milligan lives in northern Virginia.

Header image background by Marlene Stahlhuth / Death to Stock

The post What the Age-Old Campaign Against Childfree “Cat Ladies” Doesn’t Get appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

In honor of Labor Day this year, let’s take a look back at Labor Day 1882 and beyond. According to the U.S. Department of Labor:

The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, Sept. 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. In 1884 the first Monday in September was selected as the holiday, as originally proposed, and the Central Labor Union urged similar organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a “workingmen’s holiday” on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in 1885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.

The form that the observance and celebration of Labor Day should take [was] outlined in the first proposal of the holiday—a street parade to exhibit to the public “the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations” of the community, followed by a festival for the recreation and amusement of the workers and their families.

Since then, labor has been celebrated in many ways—not least of which is through the arts. The arts have promoted the nobility, struggles, triumphs and importance of labor in the United States. The documentary organization Labor Arts (located at the Bobst Library of New York University) is a resource for all things labor (including the images here). It was created in 2000 by Donald Rubin, Evelyn Jones Rich, Moe Foner (1915–2002), Henry Foner, Esther Cohen, Rachel Bernstein and Debra E. Bernhardt (1953–2001), with “skilled help” from Ami Palombo, Keri A. Myers, Jeff Watt, Keith Bush, Angela Powell, Milton Glaser and others. The virtual archives are well worth exploring.

As the site details, “LABOR ARTS is a work in progress—a virtual museum designed to gather, identify and

The post The Daily Heller: The Arts for Labor appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The Norman Rockwell Museum has launched The Unity Project 2024, a poster campaign to motivate people to vote. Distributed primarily through social media, the campaign features striking images and messages from six top contemporary illustrators who reach a wide range of audiences: Monica Ahanonu, Lisk Feng, Timothy Goodman (above), Edel Rodriguez, Gary Taxali and Shar Tui’asoa/Punky Aloha.

The campaign went live on Aug. 23 with the launch of the first image on Instagram, to be “followed by a cadenced release of images, messages and voting resources leading up to election day,” say the organizers. The original artwork will also be on view as a featured installation in the Norman Rockwell Museum’s lobby through election season.

The Unity Project draws inspiration from Rockwell and reflects the museum’s public mission to foster civic engagement and participation through art. “Nonpartisan and action-oriented, the Unity Project encourages Americans to embrace our shared constitutional right and privilege to elect a government of, by, and for the people,” the organizers add. “It reflects the belief that when we come together as a nation to vote, we affirm our commitment to democracy, our communities, our nation and each other.”

The post The Daily Heller: Don’t Let This Be Your Last Chance to Vote! appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

“Quiltmaking is a tradition and a mode of expression that is both intimate and esteemed,” says Mazloomi on the power of the medium. “Every human being has an intimate relationship with cloth. It is the first thing we are swathed in at birth, and the last thing that touches our body upon our death. Through the nuance of textile, difficult stories can reach audiences across identities and generations from a place of care, hearth, peace, and nurture.”

The Claire Oliver Gallery in Harlem is set to present a solo exhibition of Mazloomi’s work from September 3 through November 2 entitled, Whole Cloth: Narratives in Black and White. Marking Mazloomi’s first-ever gallery exhibition, Whole Cloth features a collection of her large-scale quilts that recount the oft-overlooked impact of Black civil rights activists, leaders, and revolutionaries on American history. Mazloomi reflects on her practice as a quilter, the power of the medium to address tough subject matter, and the Whole Cloth exhibition below.

Through the nuance of textile, difficult stories can reach audiences across identities and generations from a place of care, hearth, peace, and nurture.

How would you describe your ethos as an artist?

 I am committed to using quilting as a means of storytelling and cultural expression.

You were trained as an aeronautical engineer before becoming a quilter. How did that major career pivot come about?

I was trained as an aviation engineer and was very unhappy with my work. I worked with no one who looked like me, and most importantly, working took me away from my three small boys. I wanted to do something that would keep me close to my children; I didn’t want them with a nanny or in a nursery. My first obligation in life is to my children and my role as a mother, and everything else must fit around that parameter.

My brother and sister were artists, so I decided to give it a try. Instead of paints, I use textiles. Making art afforded me the opportunity to work at home and be with my children. I made the decision to become an artist 55 years ago, and I have no regrets.

What does quilting offer you as a medium that other art forms don’t?

Quilting offers an endless variety of materials and techniques available to create work. Most people are familiar with quilts. Since I like to make work that revolves around social and political issues, using quilts to tell a story makes way for a soft landing for difficult subjects. Issues dealing with race are particularly difficult for people to accept. Viewing a narrative quilt makes it a bit easier.

Using quilts to tell a story makes way for a soft landing for difficult subjects.

What themes do you address in the Whole Cloth: Narratives in Black and White exhibition? What was your process like for assembling this show?

Most of the work in the show deals with Black history— the good, the bad, and the ugly. The work is pulled from my sketchbooks and notes. Over 30 states have placed restrictions on teaching Black history, making it so important that these stories be told, otherwise they would be unknown. There will be 55 quilts in this series and I plan to write a catalog. I also hope the exhibition will travel.

Over 30 states have placed restrictions on teaching Black history, making it so important that these stories be told.

What experience do you hope viewers of the exhibition have?

The exhibition is about educating the public on aspects of American history they may not be familiar with, and raising awareness around social justice issues. I want viewers to understand and challenge social injustices so we might alter oppressive systemic patterns of racism in this country.

What legacy do you hope to leave in the art world? 

It’s my hope that the quilts I’ve made will be a catalyst for social change, raising awareness, challenging norms, and fostering dialogue. As the Founder of the Women of Color Quilters Network, the oldest and largest organization of Black quilters in the country, I have played a major role in documenting and preserving the history of African American quilts, ensuring these stories and traditions are recognized and valued. 

Through the books I’ve written and exhibitions curated over 40 years, I’ve fostered a sense of community among Black quilt artists. The Women of Color Quilters Network has become their home, and the network is my legacy.

Header image:
Hands Up … Don’t Shoot #2
2024, Poly-cotton fabric, cotton thread, cotton batting, fabric paint.
58 x 102 inches | 147.32 x 259.08 cm

The post Carolyn Mazloomi Uses the Power of Quilting to Honor Black History appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The U.S. presidential race has officially commenced and the time to get to work is now, as Vice President Kamala Harris said at the outset of her DNC acceptance speech. (Which I took to mean the quest to end Trump’s excruciating brand of mind control once and for all.) The battle has begun. The weaponry and machinery of politics—including persuasion and manipulation—will soon reach warp-speed levels, even more now than a month ago. Media platforms have revved up herds of stampeding experts, pundits, commentators, “fact” checkers and fiction enablers, from countless perspectives and of all stripes. Partisan soothsayers have been champing at the bits and bytes to get their voices heard and faces booked on every conceivable outlet with as much frequency as breathing and blood flow will allow.

Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not anti-pundit; I spent the entire DNC week watching two screens simultaneously. On one, PBS’ gaggle of pundits translating what I had just heard and/or missed coming from the main stage; on the other, PBS’ stream of back episodes from the drama “Grantchester” (incidentally, it is surprisingly good). Really astute pundits are enlightening and essential (PBS has some of the good ones), but the worst (and there are many) are like black mold. Some of their toxicity comes from prejudiced misrepresentation that goes viral. Or, as England’s late-nineteenth-century Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is quoted as saying, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Which segues into my own punditry regarding candidate Donald J. Trump’s employ of all three.

As long as Trump’s gnarly attack style continues to dominate the current campaign vernacular, there is no way to have substantive debates on any issues. Perhaps there is not a chance in hell, anyway, that he can discuss true policies, because he either doesn’t know or understand them. Well, I’ve got a solution that might appeal to his character (and add to his incredibility): Learn to statisticulate. (Don, it will provide a simulacrum of knowledge.)

The word comes from statistic (late 18th century: from the German statistisch (adjective), statistik (noun, “analysis of numerical data for political reasons”) and the suffix ulate (derived from the Latin ulus, which means small or minute). Trump knows a little something about small things. So why tax him on taxes or burden him with economics or healthcare or any science, for that matter? Instead of spewing his bile and lying about things that do not matter, his campaign should pivot to statisticulation.

This “classic” term coined by Darrell Huff in his 1954 book How to Lie With Statistics (illustrated by Time and Fortune‘s infographic artist Irving Geiss) refers to the distortion of statistical data that can be “twisted, exaggerated, oversimplified and distorted” and passed off as truth.

Trump might, for example, argue that, statistically speaking, he has more people in his extra-large rallies wearing, say, MAGA merch, than Harris has at hers. And he’d be statistically correct because not many in her increasingly larger crowds wear Trumpware. Likewise, he might argue that, statistically, he has lowered middle-class taxes … along with taxes on the rich, and he’d be telling the statistical truth because when statisticulating, numbers don’t lie—they just don’t always add up.

As Huff wrote, “In my experience, [I’ve not seen many economists giving] the customer a better break than the facts call for, and often they give him a worse one.”

As a flim-flam man, Trump’s lying with statistics is as easy as counting to 10. I know he learned how to count (they teach it at military school). He needn’t be a brainiac to statisticulate. And memorization is not necessary. Just make it up—a skill he has definitely mastered—and then just keep it up (an act that is in dispute).

The post The Daily Heller: Liar, Liar, Numbers on Fire appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Simple: He said he wanted to see more party options. Two major parties did not offer broad enough platform choices (which sounded like his complaint about certain restaurants). The Dems were usually his candidates, too, but he felt strongly that even they had many bad apples. (After all, historically Democrats were pro-slavery and adamantly Jim Crow.)

On the occasion of my first vote, I reflexively voted Liberal, too. I voted for Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey. I did not enthusiastically do so, but I did not want to see the infamous red-baiter Richard Nixon assume the presidency. In 1960 he had already come a hair away from beating John F. Kennedy, who I had worked for as a 10-year-old volunteer at the local Democratic Club and the main headquarters across from Grand Central Station.

While most of my friends and co-workers working with me on underground papers (I was art director of the New York Free Press) were angry at Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats for prolonging the Vietnam War, and many took part in the 1968 Chicago DNC demonstrations, I was convinced that my first-ever vote should not go to waste. In principle I supported the Peace and Freedom party, but to vote for its candidate, Eldridge Cleaver, would be one less stone to throw against the real enemy: Richard Nixon.

Watching the love- and joy-fest that was last night’s opening ceremony of the 2024 Chicago DNC, I was reminded how angry, violent and lost my side was in 1968. I didn’t go to Chicago to demonstrate, but rather was tasked with laying out the Free Press pages devoted to the convention and police riot as our reporters phoned in stories of the rampage that bloodied protestors and bystanders alike. Like millions of others, I watched the Chicago melee on television. It was a defining moment in the history of the era.

After the dust and tear gas settled, the rift between old and young had become a canyon. My cohorts who could vote cast meaningless protest votes. But being on the left did not mean I was impractical. I held my nose and voted for Humphrey with the solace that he wasn’t the unthinkable Tricky Dick and just maybe he would live up to his otherwise solid liberal credentials and end the war.

So my first vote ever was not up and down the Democrat ballot, but the Liberal one—as was my father’s, and his immigrant father’s, too. We all lost that one.

The post The Daily Heller: Why I Didn’t Vote Democrat … appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain, 1835–1910) and Seymour Chwast (pronounced Kwast, b. 1931) have more in common than their initials. They share a profound antipathy for war, and each has employed his talents for acerbic commentary in waging war on war—Twain through his writing and stagecraft, Chwast through his illustration, drawing and painting. Now, these two maestros of wit and satire come together for the first time in the book Mark Twain: The War Prayer (Fantagraphics), illustrated and designed by Chwast.

As massive numbers of people are killed, maimed and displaced in too many strife-torn regions of this already fragile planet, The War Prayer, Twain’s tour de coeur, is more resonant than ever. This prose poem—written in 1905, rejected by his publisher and unpublished until many years after his death—is as relevant as ever. Chwast’s startling imagery shares the same human poignancy of this mocking, though heartfelt, prayer.

In 1898, Twain was despairing over the hypocrisy of the manufactured Spanish-American War, which was started by the U.S. to wrest valuable territories (and notably the Philippines) from Spain. Using gunboat diplomacy, under the pretext of helping Filipinos win their independence from Spain, the U.S. forced the Spanish crown to sell the Pacific islands to the American victors. Once accomplished, the U.S. turned against and bitterly fought Filipino insurgents who resumed their fight for independence. Twain believed that U.S. war policy abridged American principles and decried this expansion of “manifest destiny” (a precursor of American exceptionalism) as bald-faced imperialism. During the bloody counter-insurgency, Twain joined the Anti-Imperialist league.

Twain was incensed when American soldiers slaughtered a group of 600 Filipino men, women and children who had taken refuge and were trapped in a volcano. In his autobiography, he wrote scathingly of the hypocrisy and brutality of America’s actions. From this evolved his anti-war stance and his only means of retaliation: the caustic solemnity and wit of The War Prayer.

Chwast’s take on the poem adds another dimension to this timely work. He has introduced varied styles to telegraph Twain’s uncompromising commentary targeting one war as emblematic of the horror of all war.

In “The Lowest Animal,” a separate essay used as a foreword to contextualize this new edition, Twain writes, “I have been scientifically studying the traits and disposition of the ‘lower animals’ (so-called) and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result profoundly humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one … one to be named the Descent of Man from Higher Animals.”

More than half a century before the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement it spawned—a movement that Chwast marched in and made protest art for—Mark Twain protested American aggression overseas. The Philippines was America’s first step toward an international policy of controlling foreign lands. The Philippine-American War was an affront to Twain’s American beliefs, just as Vietnam was to Chwast’s.

The spreads below comprise the first part of The War Prayer, where Twain exposes the “holy fire of patriotism” to ignite firestorm in the American people for the “great and exalting excitement” of the nation up in arms. A rousing newspaper headline style, typical of the era, is Chwast’s leitmotif.

Chwast will be reading a passage from The War Prayer and talking about the book with me on Aug. 14 at the Society of Illustrators, New York. Please join us.

The post The Daily Heller: Mark Twain and Seymour Chwast on War appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

In 2008, during the Obama v. McCain election, I was writing a blog for The New York Times—and although the campaign had quite a lot of negative advertising back and forth, the meme-o-verse had not expanded from anti-matter into the black hole it is today. Sarah Palin was ready-made for ridicule, yet the satires and insults were, in retrospect, more “civil” than they’ve become today. The word meme had not yet taken over the vernacular, and social media was not yet overrun with deepfakes (as opposed to shallow fakes?).

Back then, renderings of candidates in absurd or embarrassing situations were distributed via email or on websites dedicated exclusively to Photoshop hijinks. By the 2016 presidential election, memes had migrated from listservs and email to the internet and the cloud. Now memes go viral with epidemic fury.

I blame this on Donald J. Trump. His brand of insult campaigning certainly gave many others license to verbalize and visualize malicious idiocy more than during previous electoral brawls. Dirty tricks were not invented by Trump, but the critical mass of Trumpist rhetoric arguably ignited more rabble-rousing vitriol than I can ever recall. Nonetheless, feel free to challenge my (perhaps myopic) historical overview or oversight.

Today, anything can be a meme. I’m still not a fan of memes, per se, but I am a fan of Adrian Wilson’s mischief. He is an A+ trickster, parodist and satirist. He effectively gloms onto a current phrase, word, notion or idea and transmutes it into gags. So, from time to time, I’ll publish his more memorable memes in this space as they strike my (soon to be more discerning) fancy, if only as momentary zingers. These, below, he calls “no-brainers.”

The post The Daily Heller: Some No-Brainer Memes appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Breaking News: Flora and Fauna joined the Democrats’ reinvigorated 2024 presidential campaign this past Sunday when a team of creative professionals from Portland, OR, launched “Creatures for Kamala,” a grassroots effort designed to energize voters around Vice President Harris.

“We asked ourselves: Who benefits if Kamala is elected president?” said Joshua Berger, chief design officer of Creatures for Kamala. “The answer is every living thing. All of nature needs a habitable planet, so we’re giving nature a voice through this campaign.”

The group is offering a selection of free downloadable artwork that features a wide variety of nature’s own showing their support for Kamala, starting with birds, trees, fish and butterflies. New artwork for everything from buttons to lawn signs, in both English and Spanish, will be released between now and Election Day (Nov. 5).

“Vice President Harris has a strong track record on the environment and doesn’t think the climate crisis is a hoax,” said Mark Jacobs, chief strategy officer and co-creator of Creatures for Kamala. “We need her in the White House to continue our transition to clean energy and restore the health of the planet.”

The Creatures for Kamala team consists of volunteers across the country, including a chief bird officer, chief tree officer, and chief fish officer.

All of the campaign typography is hand-painted by Niko Courtelis, chief art officer, who came up with the original concept and designed each poster. Courtelis and Berger are partners and creative directors of Plazm, a Portland, OR–based design agency.

The post The Daily Heller: Nature for Kamala appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Memes are symbolic, metaphoric, sophomoric and literal reminders of extraordinary, tragic, comical, memorable people, things, events, etc. In the “www” from which they emanate, they mutate through countless iterations and result in various interpretations. Memes, from the word memetic, are idea-viruses, sometimes propagating in spite of truth and logic. Some are funny; others are cruel. There’s nothing funny about a human firing an AR-15–style weapon at anybody—no less with murderous intent.

Since the attempt on Donald J. Trump’s life (in which a bystander was killed and two others critically wounded), memeticists zeroed in like a fly on poop with a new trope. At last week’s RNC, the most viral meme was “fake ear bandages.” Per Time, “The unusual accessory is sweeping the convention hall, where delegates and supporters, in a tribute to the former President and party nominee, are showcasing their own versions of his wound dressing, ranging from cotton pads to tape to folded pieces of paper.” Others have referred to these symbols of support as “ear pillows.”

And so commences the season of political memes, as if that season ever ceases. And now Biden has stepped down as a candidate, giving rise to even more memes.

Within moments of most globally publicized events, Adrian Wilson, a satirist with an acute eye for memes, ear for puns, better than average Photoshop skills and poor spelling, gets the memetic machinery rolling. I present a few of my favorites from his recent output.

The post The Daily Heller: Now I Lay Meme Down to Sleep appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The bard—or, more accurately, the historian of at least one famous beard—is Susannah Koerber, chief curator at the Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites, which holds one of the country’s most important collections relating to Abraham Lincoln and his times. She reports that a precocious11-year-old girl from New York State named Grace Bedell had persuaded the future president into growing his iconic facial tuft. Bedell wrote to then-candidate Lincoln on Oct. 15, 1860: “I have got four brothers, and a part of them will vote for you anyway, and if you will let your whiskers grow, I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you. You would look a great deal better, for your face is so thin,” she implored with wisdom older than her years, then added, “All the ladies like whiskers, and they would tease their husbands to vote for you, and then you would be president.”

Such a deeply held conviction convinced Abe, and “By January 13, 1861, the [newly elected] president was bearded up,” states Koerber. The rest is hairstory. For eons, beards have had political, cultural, religious, aesthetic and, of course, pragmatic reasons for being. Follicle factoids are numerous, but I will resist the temptation to recite them and simply reveal, as promised, the answers to last Friday’s matchup. They are …

How’d you do?

The post The Daily Heller: Being the Bard of Beards … appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

At the time, beards were also identified with certain socio-cultural groups. In the late 1950s, goatees and van dykes defined beatniks (at least in movies). In the ’60s, bushy and “chin strap” beards were indications of hippies and the anti-establishment. Intellectuals (grad students, college professors and scholars) wore a variety of facial growths, which looked fine as they puffed on their requisite pipes. Then, there were uncommitted folk who’d temporarily grow beards to see how they looked. Motorcycle gang members adopted beards that were sometimes braided to match their menacingly unkempt hair or offset their shaved heads.

The long and the short of it? Beards were social status accessories with political implications and cultural connotations that were tacitly accepted by society as anomalous norms of the era. A stranger could profile another stranger through facial hair identification.

Today, beards are a fashion accessory, one that has been curiously co-opted by politicians (and others) who would never have fit into the progressive left wing culture. While watching the opening and closing minutes of the RNC convention, there appeared to be more beards than at Woodstock. Fashion?!

I was inspired by this phenomenological observation to create the following quiz: Identify the bearded gents below by name, party affiliation and current job (hint: they all have or had skin in the political game) and you will win … nothing. All I can afford to give you is the personal satisfaction that you have basic facial recognition skills. Remember, it’s not what you win—it’s the act of passing time that counts.

Answers will be published Monday.

The post The Daily Heller: Beards That Send Mixed Messages appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

What’s more, Milwaukee is due for an economic boost. Conventions (of all kinds) are consumer circUSes with midways, sideshows and parties, parties, parties. Ever wonder why a political organization is called a “party”? The acts draw the crowds. The headliners draw the acts. The crowds spend the money. The beat goes on! Next month the Dems take to the ring.

Today, the RNC’s mediocre new convention logo also officially debuts, highlighting the outline of Wisconsin, “a state that exemplifies American values,” and “our signature elephant facing in the right direction to move our country forward.

“This logo encompasses the future of our party and our country.”

*

The post The Daily Heller: Who Put the “US” in Circus? appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Long before the launch of the currently published international lifestyle/culture magazine Monocle (founded in 2007 and still going strong), the original Monocle was wittily anti-mainstream. In fact, although I was not Monocle‘s target audience, this issue inspired me as a 14-year-old graduate of MAD magazine and shaped the way I thought of—and hoped to someday practice—satiric, anti-establishment commentary.

The original Monocle was published from 1956 (as stapled pamphlet and assorted newsletters) through to 1965 (as a bound magazine) edited by the late, great Victor Navasky, editor emeritus of The Nation. The original Monocle, headquartered at 80 Fifth Avenue in New York (where I shared an office in 1969), was one of the smartest of the sixties alternative periodicals. Yet compared to the leading “new left” monthlies of the day, Evergreen and Ramparts, Monocle was more focused on lampoon and parody. “We could challenge the pieties of the day through satire,” Navasky once told me in an interview, “which didn’t really exist in print in a serious way at that point.”

As a student at Yale during the tail end of the Joe McCarthy era, Navasky started Monocle, which arguably influenced another great mag of the times, The Realist, a journal of free thought, criticism and satire that Paul Krassner published between 1958 and 2001.

Although it couldn’t be predicted, many careers were made and styles launched at Navasky’s Monocle. The list of contributing illustrators is a who’s-who of political acerbity: Robert Grossman created the first African-American superhero, “Captain Melanin,” and “Roger Ruthless of the C.I.A.,” while Ed Sorel, David Levine, Paul Davis, Randy Enos, R.O. Blechman, Bob Gill, Milton Glaser, James McMullan, Tomi Ungerer, Lou Myers, Seymour Chwast, Marshall Arisman and John Alcorn contributed a variety of covers, cartoons and illustrations that poked gaping holes in the body politic and sanctimonious pols on both sides of the aisles.

Monocle covered the 1960 election match between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon in its own contrarian way. For reasons too convoluted to explain here, Monocle‘s editors issued a pox on both their houses. Instead Monocle vigorously campaigned for Marvin H. Kitman, a newspaper columnist and political humorist, who was a chief contributor. It was never exactly clear what side Kitman was on — right? Left? Libertarian? Or just an old fashioned independent thinker?” He lost but not for lack of trying. (I’m told most of the staff voted for JFK anyway.)

When time came to endorse a candidate in 1964 Monocle reluctantly picked LBJ as the least onerous choice (and as it turned out he accomplished important progressive civil rights legislation). This Vol 6 No. 3 revealed their collective skepticism of LBJ. But utter contempt for Barry Goldwater.

At Monocle we [thought] that the ideal magazine should be like the UN police force and come out whenever there’s an emergency, or come out when we had something to say,” explained Navasky about its irregular (when they got around to it) schedule and regularly skeptical stance.

Monocle’s humor is the seed the grew into late Sixties fake news and lampoon. Monocle was the pioneer of stinging political tricksterism, which, to echo the voice that I hear in my head, is more essential for our collective mental health than any time before.

BTW: Check out the Monocle masthead below; some of you may recognize some interesting names.

The post The Daily Heller: Monocle Magazine’s Presidential Politics, 1964 appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

“A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.” —Alexis de Tocqueville

“This election [2016] will determine whether America is a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged.” —Donald J. Trump, 2016

After watching the first debate of this unprecedented presidential campaign, I am starting what may become a diary, journal or letters of reflections on and reactions to the coming election. I call this project “Branding Democracy,” and the purpose is to collect some clarity about (or at least a definition of) “the worst form of government, except for all those others.”

In order to filter out some of my previously held political dogma and biases, which have become like plaque under the gums of my life over the past seven decades, I will reach out to others in the design, academic, and media fields to contribute to this project—and create pieces of what amounts to a rebrand of the D-brand itself.

I will start by asking some questions that include …

What do you really think of democracy? What does democracy really mean? Where is democracy really practiced? Who really uses it? Who’s really in and who’s really (left) out of the democratic process? And who has really opted out of democracy? These are all vexing questions that should be of interest today, and not only in Hometown, USA, but Europe, the Middle East, South America, Africa, India, Australia, etc., etc.

It is a good moment to reconsider what democracy really promises. What it’s really delivered. And what, if anything, we’re really entitled to.

I want to ask readers and others to engage in an open call for anyone to brand democracy, in their own ways, using any media—art, design, typography, film, video, GIFs, JPEGs, A.I. Whatever comes naturally!

This is not designed to be partisan, although sometimes it cannot be avoided, but rather an examination of small “d” democracy—an audit, in brand-argot, of its assets, deficits, successes and malfunctions.

Over the course of the next few months, I will ask those who never lived in a democracy, to tell or show us how that feels. As the summer rolls into the fall campaign months, I will provide an address to send the work to me and will publish what is offered.

The post The Daily Heller: A New Brand for an Old Way of Life appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Founded in 2020, Merch Aid is an award-winning social enterprise that collaborates with artists and designers to create fundraising merchandise for non-profit organizations. Initially launched as a relief response to the COVID-19 small business shutdowns, the murder of George Floyd expanded the organization’s vision, highlighting the need for expressive merchandise that resonates with current sentiments to provide a means for impact beyond the pandemic’s scope. Their BLM series raised nearly $50,000, and the AAPI series saw similar success. Merch Aid has raised over half a million dollars and has been featured in major publications, including Vogue and GQ.

As the Supreme Court revisits the contentious issue of trans rights, a group of leading trans designers and allies have united to launch a merch capsule to raise funds for the Transgender Law Center (TLC). This initiative follows the success of the Reproductive Rights capsule released earlier this month, which featured work by notable names such as Jessica Walsh, Debbie Millman, and Gail Anderson and raised funds for the National Network of Abortion Funds.

One of the most important aspects of the reproductive justice movement is the sanctity of every mother’s life. When I state that pro-choice is pro-life, I mean that pro-choice is the mother’s life, and I will always value that above all else.

Debbie Millman, writer, designer, educator, artist, brand consultant and host of the podcast Design Matters

Over 500 anti-trans laws were proposed in 2024 alone, and 53 were passed. The Supreme Court’s decision to review state bans on gender-affirming care for minors further underscores the urgency of this latest capsule collection. The Transgender collection will drop today, Thursday, June 27, at 6 PM EST and will feature artists Ren Rigby, Tea Uglow, Lena Gray, Brooklyn Bruja, Sophia Yeshi, and Doug Rodas.

Opinions don’t change identities, bills don’t change identities, politicians don’t change identities: let trans people be.

Ren Rigby, Chief Design Officer and Founder of Proto

Merch Aid’s initiative is part of a broader art as activism movement, allowing designers to address critical issues and enabling supporters to demonstrate their values visibly. All profits will go to the Transgender Law Center, the largest national trans-led organization advocating for the self-determination of all people. Since 2002, TLC has been organizing, assisting, informing, and empowering thousands of individuals, fostering a long-term, national, trans-led movement for liberation.

No matter what anyone’s personal beliefs are, they are PERSONAL beliefs and should not be projected onto others. The simple arrow pointing down under the belt (or sweatpants) is a reminder that’s what mine is mine. MINE.”

Gail Anderson, graphic designer, writer, typographer, and educator

As trans rights face renewed challenges, this merch capsule not only raises essential funds but also amplifies the voices and artistry of the transgender community, underscoring the power of unity and creativity in the fight for justice. Following this capsule, a series of drops by other renowned artists will continue leading up to the election, focusing on social issues such as bodily autonomy, trans rights, immigration, voting rights, and more.

Design has the power to create change, make people think differently, and mobilize people to action. I’m excited to team up with Merch Aid this year to bring more attention to reproductive freedom at such a critical time and election year. Together, by harnessing the power of design, we can raise awareness and inspire action to protect and advance reproductive rights.”

Jessica Walsh, founder of the creative agency &Walsh

Visit Merch Aid to learn more about their capsule drops and to showcase your values by getting your hands on some merch.

Imagery courtesy of Merch Aid.

The post Artivism for Social Justice: Merch Aid Drives Change with Their Latest Capsule appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

As a branding professional watching the election run-up, I couldn’t help but think of the candidates’ campaigns in branding terms. But first, some background.

There was extensive and far-reaching effort behind the selective information and disinformation the general public received for over five years by President Lopez Obrador during the run-up to the 2024 election. He had all the necessary resources to broadcast for an exhausting daily average of two hours to promote his and his team’s “accomplishments” and discredit everything he disliked or disapproved of. But this didn’t just start in 2018 when he took the presidency. He rode into office on a foundation of 18 years of constantly challenging the ruling party and bragging about having all the answers to Mexico’s problems. Even though he proved to be authoritarian, vindictive, and unknowledgeable, intellectuals, artists, and academics voted for him.

There’s a lot to complain about Lopez Obrador, but we have to acknowledge him and his team for a relentless campaign of austerity and polarization—he successfully divided our country between rich and poor. Does any of this sound familiar to my US friends?

In Mexico, with 36% of the population experiencing economic hardship, 7.1% in extreme poverty, and an almost 5% inflation rate, a politician proclaiming that ‘poor people come first’ and traveling our country in a Jetta sedan with windows down and shaking hands with ‘El Pueblo’ (equivalent to Middle America’) was set for a win. As expected, Obrador immediately traded his modest car for a luxurious and bulletproof SUV convoy after winning the 2018 election.

As in branding, election campaigns are about messages, meaning, affinity, and identity, all of which try to elicit a desired action (buy, sign up, vote). When creating a brand strategy for a company or products, we must deeply research and understand our clients and the stakeholders before creating clever and hopefully successful tactics to separate them from their competitors. President Obrador did that for almost two decades, as he understood that people, mostly people experiencing poverty, were fed up with the abuse, corruption, and negligence under previous administrations. An industry equivalent might be Nike cleverly using Colin Kaepernick’s pre-game kneeling protest during the national anthem to showcase that Nike cared about racial justice. It was there for everyone, but Nike was fast to own it.

When brands nudge us to buy something using scarcity and FOMO—that’s what newspaper polls did to Mexico’s middle class (the segment of the population with the numbers to challenge the ruling party). Non-partisan polls said that if 70% of the electorate went out and voted, the opposition could win the 2024 election. Unsurprisingly, we were bombarded for months with skewed newspaper polls showing an unbelievable advantage to the ruling party, so much so that the average opposition voter was discouraged, and many decided not to vote—another win for the ruling party.

On the contrary, the opposition couldn’t seem to leverage the anger and understandable deception of our people. For starters, the current administration canceled the development of what was touted to be one of the top airports in the world and the most important infrastructure in our country. Instead, they developed a smaller airport that very few use, and what’s worse, they built the controversial and corruption-stained Maya Train, a new tourist railway that is destroying our jungles, cenotes, and wildlife. When pressed on national television about the possible ecocide, without hesitation, President Obrador casually said that ‘no one single tree will be knocked down.’ It’s likely now the worst ecocide in Mexico’s history.

Images of Maya Train ecological impact courtesy of Sélvame del tren Collective

And that is only one of the many problems Mexicans experience as we face the highest rate of murders in Mexico’s modern history, the worst health administration (Obrador said we were going to be better than Denmark), an education crisis, one of the most dangerous countries for journalists, and one of the world’s highest femicide rates.

Despite all those lies and unkept promises from our current government, the ruling party managed to win by an embarrassingly large margin. This reminds me of people buying cigarettes knowing it’s harmful—telling people what they want to hear is the equivalent of a nicotine fix.

For me, the only explanation for this is that one political side capitalized on our country’s satiety by using polarizing rhetoric that a big chunk of the population requires social programs (handouts, distribution of wealth). Ironically, these social programs were initially implemented by previous governments.

Tropicana (2009), Gap (2010), and JC Penney (2012) rebranded and failed epically. Their rebranding efforts received a huge backlash from their customers and made them return to their previous identities (JC Penney returned to a refreshed version of its previous logo). My hope for the U.S. presidential election in November is that voters will do the same and raise their voices by voting. Tell those in power that you demand to be heard!

Images via thebrandingjournal.com

The best outcome of this polarized election is that Mexico has finally elected a woman as president, Claudia Sheinbaum. We had two women fighting for the presidency, both qualified to rule our country: one with a prolific yet controversial political career and another with solid political chops and a successful corporate background. This is something to celebrate. Mexico has set a great example and joined the 30% of global countries that have (or have had) female leadership.

But, Mexico, still has so much to learn and correct over the next six years. And, there is so much for our neighbors to the north to learn and correct now. 

Viva Mexico!

Ricardo Saca is the US and Mexico Managing Partner for Cato Brand Partners, a Global Design and Branding Consultancy. He is a Master in Branding from the School of Visual Arts in New York City and has 20+ years of experience working with a wide range of companies, from startups to airlines. He is an animal lover and a plant-based cyclist.

Header image: Unsplash+ in collaboration with Wesley Tingey.

The post In Mexico as in the US, Disinformation is a Powerful Brand appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

While brands like Target have been spooked enough by online stochastic terrorists to step back from social issues like LGBTQ acceptance and rights during Pride, other brands are taking a page from the failed comic playbook by pandering to the right and making a mint off a consumer base that has proven it will buy pretty much anything if it means “owning the libs” or anything that feels mildly “woke.” Even fake meat.

The latest brand that appears to be flirting with conservatives, specifically former President and convicted felon Donald Trump, is Logan Paul and KSI’s Prime.

Recently, Paul conducted an hour-long interview with the septuagenarian Republican presidential candidate Trump on his podcast Impaulsive. As one would expect, the two exchanged merch. Trump brought some of his signature MAGA red caps, and Paul had Stars-and-Stripes-themed bottles reading “Trump” for the twice-impeached former president. White and red stripes flow along the custom label, and the Prime logo is dark blue and star-studded. 

Trump also brought another piece of merch—a t-shirt featuring his mugshot. Paul described it as “gangster,” as if that’s a quality to look for in a president. Bumper stickers and pins (though there are plenty of those) aren’t enough for a Trump campaign. MAGA supporters will eagerly spend their money on anything Trump-branded, including plastic straws. This phenomenon isn’t alien to Logan Paul, who has become somewhat of a master at peddling wares by leveraging his celebrity and loyal following. Of course, an appearance on Logan Paul’s Impaulsive is a chance to reach an audience much younger than Fox News watchers for Trump. For Logan Paul, hosting the polarizing political figure is a chance to drum up a little controversy and bring attention and sales to Prime.

For some brands, associating and implicitly endorsing a presidential candidate, especially in this election, would spell disaster. It’s hard to imagine Coca-Cola rolling out the red carpet for any presidential candidate in Atlanta and gifting a specially-designed bottle of Coke to the contender for the nation’s top job. But Prime, which disclosed sales of $1.2 billion last year, is helmed by Paul, one of the sirens of today’s disenchanted young men, and he serves as a gateway to more toxic manosphere corners of the web. 

Thanks partly to content algorithms used by platforms like TikTok and YouTube, Logan Paul’s podcast will trigger suggestions for content by folks like, say, the Fresh & Fit podcast and Andrew Tate. And you don’t have to venture too far down the rabbit hole to find alt-right media personas with a more political agenda who also talk about “empowering” young men. Think Jordan Peterson and Tim Pool, who are almost always pro-MAGA. While misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and classism might be expressed more softly on Impaulsive and Fresh & Fit, social media will happily suggest more overt and venomous fare as “related” soon enough by the algorithms that recommend and queue up content at Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.

Plenty of young men find solace in the overtly patriarchal ideal sold by these political and media figures. For men in their teens and twenties, unsure of their role in society and how to achieve personal and professional success, a simplistic patriarchal blueprint where their supremacy in society is inherent due to gender, and in some cases, their race and religion as well can be a compelling ideology.

Logan Paul and Donald Trump are also similar. Both have no problem scamming their followers, seem immune to consequences, and share a penchant for pomp and pageantry. Trump never recorded the bodies of suicide victims, but he did incite an insurrection. Maybe there are degrees to being a dick, but I don’t care to rank Paul and Trump, and I’ll leave it by saying they’re both awful.

During Trump’s appearance on his podcast, Logan Paul extended an invitation to the Democratic party’s candidate, President Biden. However, given Paul’s delivery, which was followed by a suggestion that Trump release a “diss track” and some unchallenged digs at the president and the “fake news,” it’s hard to gauge the invitation’s earnestness.

Sincere or not, Biden should consider taking Paul up on his offer. The president seems to be losing traction with younger voters, who might be voting in their first election and aren’t old enough to remember the previous times the Trump political circus rolled into town (though given all the oxygen the Trump world sucks up in the media, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have missed it). 

It’s too early to say if his Impaulsive appearance is Trump’s “Arsenio moment” that galvanizes young voters and makes him the cool one running for president or if it’s just another attempt at Paul selling more Prime. It’s clear that Paul and Trump are more alike than it might appear, so for Prime, a Trump association could positively affect the brand.

Rudy Sanchez is a product marketing consultant based in Southern California. Once described by a friend as her “technology life coach,” he is a techie and avid lifelong gamer. When he’s not writing or helping clients improve their products, he’s either watching comedies on Netflix, playing the latest shooter or battle royale game, or out exploring the world via Ingress and Pokémon Go.

The post Prime Slapped Trump’s Name On a Bottle; Should the Brand Really Be Courting Trumpland? appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The post The Daily Heller: Give the Red the Blues appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Ward Schumaker, a veteran painter and illustrator, anticipates the 2024 election will be a war of words. So, as the campaign kicks into gear, he turned scores of Donald Trump’s most quotable bon mots into typographic broadsides—modern-day samplers—that measure 37″ x 25″, painted with acrylic + paste (along with some collage elements).

He’s been met with various responses, not all of them positive. For example, Schumaker told me that when he gave a talk about his Trump work at a museum, he was “harassed verbally” by a member of the board of directors: “These are all lies,” the board member barked. “Trump never said half these things!” And when showing them at Jack Fischer Gallery, a stranger threatened to pound him. These incidents happened in San Francisco, theoretically a safe place for such artworks. “Yet in Nashville, a pro–Trump stronghold, I was greeted with kindness, applause and appreciation.”

Schumaker is expressing himself in the media he knows best. I asked him what he hopes readers take away from it all.

I have a reasonable idea what triggered these broadsides, but can you put it in your own words?
I’d never been very political, but about seven years ago I asked my grandson what he’d been studying in school that day. “How not to be a bully,” he answered. Then added: “You know, like Donald Trump.” At the time I was making large, one-of-a-kind, hand-painted books, many using hand-cut stenciled words, and I decided to do one using Trump’s words. It was not the kind of subject I’d regularly use, and when I finished I didn’t know what to do with it. One night I woke thinking I should show it to my gallerist (at the time, Jack Fischer). I sent him jpgs, insisting he promise to show no one.

He promised. But the next day a woman came into the gallery and asked to see my work—she might buy a painting. Jack apologized, and said he’d only recently moved, and all my work was still at his old address. She sighed and started to leave. Jack stopped her: “But would you like to see an interesting project Ward’s been working on?”

Then he broke his promise. After seeing three of the spreads, the woman said, “Stop. Can I get my husband in here? He’s out in the hall.” The husband came in, looked at the work, then said, “I’m with Chronicle Books; do you think Ward would let us publish a facsimile of this?” In record time, Chronicle produced it as a trade book: Hate Is What We Need. The title is from one of Trump’s quotes.

And that might have been the end of it. But about the time I finished that first book, white supremacists marched through Charlottesville shouting “Jews will not replace us,” and Trump stated that there were “good people on both sides.” I felt compelled to make another book, this time including not only Trump’s incendiary words, but the words of others, both in support of Trump and those opposed. (That book is now in the collection of the Achenbach Foundation of Graphic Arts.)

However, my books are seen by few people, so I began making large broadsides in hopes of exhibiting them. I thought I might create 10, maybe even 15. I ended up creating 350. I am extremely grateful that the Letterform Archive has given each and every one of them a home in its collection. See their book Strikethrough. While I thought I’d quit a long time ago, I recently started doing more, which I mount on Instagram and Facebook.

Was it your intention to, shall we say, seduce the viewer into reading these?
My intentions vary, but first is always simply making certain others have seen and digested the latest vile words from Trump and/or his minions. If I have time, I might try to be clever, but most often it has been: What can I do quickly and still get my regular work done? And of course there is the fact that I’m a painter, not really a designer at all, so I have often embarrassed myself trying to be clever. I know some great designers and ask their forbearance.

You’ve succeeded at, in my view, what many “political artists” try and often fail to do, which is make intriguing art with a message that stands on its own. Was this your intent?
Thank you. I recognize that I don’t have the particular talent of esteemed illustrators (i.e. Edel Rodriguez) but I do value my paintings—and they’ve included words since I started painting, as a kid, back in the ’60s. So it has been a matter of simply doing what I do best: words-as-paintings.

How long did it take to make these broadsheets?
I started working on these in 2017 and I’m still making them. Each one is created using hand-cut stencils, so the longer the quotation, the longer it takes. The wordiest have taken three days to accomplish, others have been completed in one day. Often I start cutting words with no plan at all. I think of them as paintings, and my paintings have always followed that Rauschenberg rule: Do something, then do something else to it. It may not be the wisest way to work, but it’s what I know.

Is your work a kind of anti-DIY/DIY aesthetic?
As a kid I often raised my grade by doing what was termed as extra credit: making a book cover for biology class, for example, by pasting cut-paper words that said “Clothes don’t make the man, cells do.” As a 12 year old I was very proud of that. Of course I should have been embarrassed. Later, at the age of 35 I began illustrating, and my best work was definitely DIY because I didn’t know what I was doing.

Why haven’t I seen your Trump work on social media?
Early on I tried mounting the Trump Papers on Twitter. I was almost immediately thrown off. I wrote [to Twitter], asking for an explanation. Over and over I wrote. I got no response. Years later, a couple months after Biden was elected, I got a note from Twitter saying I could once again post on their site. Of course, I quit.

What do you feel is the most powerful piece among these?
Trump: “Women: You have to treat them like shit.”

Liz Cheney: “There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

And the most frightening—Trump: “This could very well be the last election this country ever has.”

How will you put these to use in the coming battle?
Truthfully, I don’t know.

What’s next for you in terms of where you’re feelings will drive your work?
Just before I hit 80, I started working in clay, and that’s been a joy. But Trump is running again and very possibly will win, so what can a person do?

The post The Daily Heller: Trump is Broadsided appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Sister Mary, led by founder Leigh Chandler, unveils a new limited-edition printed publication designed exclusively for The Signal, a global current affairs brand based in Washington, D.C. “The Long Game” highlights the global struggle between authoritarian states and democratic life.

Created in partnership with the Human Rights Foundation, in support of the Oslo Freedom Forum, the magazine features interviews with the Bosnian investigative journalist Miranda Patrucić, the American social scientist Francis Fukuyama, and others—on questions from how autocrats are adapting artificial intelligence to how corruption inside dictatorships is spreading beyond them to what the issues of democracy and human rights might end up meaning for your investment strategy.

The Signal’s team, including John Jamesen Gould and Hywel Mills, partnered with Chandler to infuse the inaugural issue with the alternative spirit of underground publishing. Samizdat, a term derived from Russian for “self-publishing,” refers to literature clandestinely written, copied, and circulated during the Soviet era, often critical of the government.

The Signal offers a different approach to current affairs. Its focus is on exploring urgent questions in dialogue with knowledgeable companions around the world—an approach meant to support readers and help them develop their interpretations of global events.

This debut issue not only pays homage to samizdat but reimagines it. The editorial design captures the raw essence of underground publishing while presenting it in a contemporary context.

The layout demands attention, using layering, cropping, aged textures, and bold typography to create a sense of urgency.

Unbleached newsprint was chosen for the paper stock, reminiscent of samizdat’s historical context. The color palette of light beige, black, red, and gold reflects the publication’s rebellious yet premium aesthetic.

The typography is bold and commanding, with headlines in Manuka and complementary text in Untitled, echoing the theme of defiance and urgency.

The publication’s imagery invites readers to explore deeper narratives, aligning with The Signal’s mission to engage with complexity in today’s rapidly changing world.

To be able to assemble our work in a print publication like this isn’t just beautiful; it’s transformative. It’s allowed us to bring a historical connection with the samizdat publications of the Soviet era to life in the language of design—and that’s allowed us to create a reading experience with a completely different emotional resonance and, ultimately I think, a deeper meaning.”

John Jamesen Gould – Editor, The Signal

About The Signal
Current affairs. Strange world. As our world becomes more intricately connected, changes faster, and seems only to get more disorienting, we’re all navigating it—or trying to—in a digital media environment dominated by algorithmic manipulation, polarizing engagement, and partisan spin. It can be hard to focus on what matters—and harder to think. The Signal is for people who want something different. The nonpartisan U.S.-based current affairs organization has diverse global contributors and is committed to liberal democracy.

About Human Rights Foundation
The Human Rights Foundation (HRF) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that promotes and protects human rights globally, with a focus on closed societies. HRF aims to raise awareness about the nature and vulnerability of freedom worldwide while strengthening the work of grassroots activists in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. Grounding its work in a deep commitment to individual liberty, HRF achieves its impact through unique policy research and legal advocacy, global events and educational initiatives, innovative and creative campaigns, and direct support to activists on the frontlines of democracy.

The Oslo Freedom Forum (OFF) is a global conference series hosted and produced by HRF. Established in 2009, OFF brings together the world’s most prominent human rights advocates, journalists, artists, technologists, entrepreneurs, and world leaders to share their stories and brainstorm ways to expand freedom globally.

The post Sister Mary Brings the Spirit of Samizdat to The Signal appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Anne Bobroff-Hajal is an American artist with a Ph.D. in Russian history. She paints detailed yet whimsical representations about power, greed, grief and fury through the lens of a woeful Russian heritage. Her mixed media polyptychs about Russia are influenced by icons, graphic novels, animation storyboards and political cartoons. A monumental 14-foot-wide multi-panel artwork Darling Godsonny: Ivan the Terrible Advises the Infant Stalin is currently on display at the Wende Museum in Culver City, CA; it contains over a thousand portraits of Russians, ranging from serfs to princes and Soviet nomenclatura (Communist party elites) to gulag inmates, each painted using tiny brushes and a magnifying glass. Their stories are narrated in song by satirical characters.

Her tour de force, meanwhile, Playground of the Autocrats, covers 500 years of Russian autocracy, spanning ideological and dynastic changes. It is the focal point for the conversation that follows below. And the timing couldn’t be better (or, at the same time, more depressing), what with the reelection of Vladimir Putin over the weekend.

What is your relationship to Russia and the Soviet Union?
My Russian immigrant grandfather Boris (Bornett) Bobroff—who died before I was born—was an ingenious early 20th-century inventor. And he made a mysterious voyage from the U.S. back to then-Bolshevik Russia in 1919–1920. No one in my family knew exactly what he did there. Then I was in college and Ph.D. grad school during the anti-Vietnam war and other leftist movements. We were all interested in revolutionary movements, including Russian ones trying to transform repressive Tsarist autocracy into a truly just society (my friends and I were emphatically never pro-USSR or pro-Soviet Communism). My dissertation became the book Working Women in Russia Under the Hunger Tsars (recommended on the Library of Congress website among best to read during the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Revolution).

My year of research in the USSR was one of the most extraordinary times of my life. I directly experienced working within the crazy Soviet bureaucracy; being bugged, followed, minded; the warmth of many Soviet people; the exciting research I was able to do there.

How has your conflict with Russian autocracy influenced your work?
It’s at the heart of almost everything I did in grad school, and much of what I’ve done since. I’m deeply interested in seeking the underlying causes for why an anti-Tsarist-autocracy movement of thousands of deeply dedicated people ended with most of them dead, and Stalinist autocracy in power.

Playground of the Autocrats is a cinemascope presentation of Russia’s dystopia. How did this come about?
I’m a historian whose native language is art. I love stories told in many pictures and fewer words. I’m influenced by art animation of the type I was seeing in NYC in the 1990s (often at SVA); by satirical late 19th/early 20th-century European/Russian/American political cartoons, by graphic novels and even illustrated children’s books.

I originally conceived Playground of the Autocrats as a series of satirical short animated films about Russian history. I wrote original lyrics to a Russian folk tune to be sung by autocratic flying godparents (Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great), sung by each as a blessing to the swaddled, mustached infant Stalin. All this later became the basis for my still painting/collages.

Did you have the germ of the idea before, during or after your Ph.D. studies?
I had grown up painting and drawing, always planning to be an artist—before I suddenly decided to go to history grad school. I felt torn for most of my time in grad school: It seemed I had to choose between the planet of image-makers and the planet of historians, jettisoning half my self into the void between them.

After completing my Ph.D., I left academia and for decades searched (while raising my children) for a way of uniting the two parts of myself. I took many, many wrong turns into playwriting, screenwriting and animation, which ended in a couple of bouts of clinical depression. Finally, I decided to create Playground of the Autocrats in a medium as easy to me as breathing: painting, which I had rejected for years as inadequate.

I passionately believe that art provides tools that can bring radically new perspectives to history. Filling an empty canvas necessitates thinking spatially; I’m very interested in “spatial history,” relating human actions to specific geographies. Art’s capacity to portray emotions means that, for example, I can take a dull academic diagram of social structure and paint it full of people, emotions, action, color. Also in art, you can shift on a vast scale, from an individual person to a map of the world—and everything in between, all within a glance.

Your technique is just as interesting—indeed, extraordinary—as your content. What is the process of creating satire on such a grand graphic scale?
I began Playground of the Autocrats with a series of smaller triptychs which developed my process and ideas.

It took me four years to complete the 14’ x 6’ Darling Godsonny Stalin (DGS), including a lot of both historical and visual research.

In order to go through all the work of producing this art, I have to find a way to laugh while dealing seriously with mass repressions, terror, and murders by autocrats of their own people. That’s where the satire comes in. I can’t really get down to work until I figure out a way to have fun with terrifying subjects, while still fully addressing the terror and why it happens repeatedly.

Viewers need respite within this art as much as I do. So in my painting, they can look at something joyous before returning to horror.

My original goal for DGS was to show the parallels between how Ivan the Terrible and Stalin consolidated power through almost identical terrors: Stalin’s purges and Ivan’s 16th-century Oprichnina. I wanted to portray the double role of terror and its inverse: every dedicated person eliminated during the terror left open a job that an often less-qualified person could move up to. Such people were so grateful to rise higher than they ever expected that they became loyal to the death to Stalin and what they assumed was a benefit from Communism. Because Stalin labeled those purged “enemies of the people,” the arrivistes felt no guilt about replacing them.

To paint anything, I need to understand it fully, visually as well as intellectually. When I began DGS, I assumed I’d paint Russian social structure in the typical pyramid made up of horizontal layers for each class, commonly used for every country in the world.

But as I familiarized myself with the new research about Tsarist class structure, I discovered it revealed that Russian social structure (beginning centuries ago with the rise of Muscovy) was made up of vertical patronage clans, where the autocrat at the top doled out patronage to top princes (Boyars), who in turn passed some down to their own less-powerful clan clients, who themselves passed down a portion to their clan clients, and so on. Those lowest supported the weight of everyone above them because that was their only access to crumbs of wealth getting passed down.

So I needed to invent a way of painting vertical clans instead of horizontal classes, with poorer nobles at the bottom shading into wealthier ones above them, and the boyars at the top. I used color to differentiate among clans.

Next, I had to create Panel 2’s Bolshevik social structure. (I had decided to plunge into painting Panel 1 without knowing what I’d do in the following panels.) Astoundingly, after a six-month-long long struggle to find enough material about Soviet social structure to paint it, I discovered a UCLA Soviet historian, Arch Getty, who was about to have a book published about his research on Bolshevik clans! I wrote to him, and he kindly sent me a manuscript copy, which I read with great excitement.

Here was the research I needed to be able to paint Panel 2! Bolshevik patronage clans were almost a direct copy of the Tsarist clans, with a few modifications! So Panel 2 became Bolshevik vertical clans that were nearly identical to Tsarist ones, with a few changes such as no longer being family based.

My artistic process: I create sketches in an insanely complex digital process in my computer (where each of hundreds of people, and often various body parts, are on separate virtual layers). Then I transfer the completed sketches to canvas. This process takes as long as the painting itself does. Much of that time is spent searching for online models for the extreme poses my people are in—poses no live model could hold beyond a split second.

Tell me about the reaction to your work.
I’ve been thrilled by the reaction to DGS. Most recently, at the Wende, it’s been so popular that the curator held over its exhibition for an additional five months.

I’ve engaged with viewers of all ages, from adults of many different backgrounds, through university students and day camp kids, all of whom become excited about the characters and people. They crouch down to study lower sections; talk with other viewers, point to specific painted people they’re interested in.

Over the last year, I’ve developed a new way of interacting with groups of viewers. I ask each to choose any two people in the entire piece who appeal to them, observing what actions their two people are taking, where they are in the hierarchy, whether they’re traceable over two or more panels of the polyptych, etc. Building up and out from these individual observations and wonderful questions, we have a terrific group conversation, often ending with discussing why this vertical patronage structure is so profoundly rooted in Russia.

Russian oppositionist artists who I met in Russia (pre-Ukraine invasion) weren’t happy with my portrayal of the continuity of their country’s centuries-old autocracy. They believed that they could create something radically new in Russia: a truly democratic society, so they didn’t want to hear about holdovers from tsarism. I completely understood how they felt. But I believe that without understanding the phenomenally strong forces of continuity, oppositionists will never be able to interrupt those forces. (The power of continuity is alive and well in the U.S., too; e.g., as we keep creating new iterations of slavery via sharecropping, Jim Crowe, redlining, mass incarceration.)

How did you feel when Glasnost and Perestroika rose to the surface? Did you believe Russia could really change its Soviet trajectory?
In the 1990s, I tried to hold out some hope, but I strongly suspected that autocracy would reconstitute itself, just as it had after the 17th-century Time of Troubles and the 1917 Revolution. And in fact, a continuation of the patronage clan structure formed immediately after the fall of the USSR. The oligarchs we’ve heard about since the 1990s are the new name for the same boyars and nomenklatura of earlier Russian/Soviet autocracies.

Westerners look at Putin, and assume he could choose to transform centuries-old vertical-power institutions into democratic ones. They see his invasion of Ukraine as a result of a lunatic’s dream of reconstituting the Russian Empire. But when we label dictators “insane,” we do it at our own peril, because, since we can’t understand insanity, it’s pointless to try to understand the deep causes for Russian autocratic society today.

It’s crucial to look at how entire societies are organized, not only the person at the top, to understand Russia (or any other country) in a serious way. That’s why I paint all these three-inch-high people, to portray a social structure built of many, many individuals.

Do you think Putinism is here to stay, and will only spread, as it seems may happen with Ukraine?
I hope that Ukraine will eventually win this horrific, unconscionable war.

Sadly, I think Russian autocracy will likely stay. Russia’s entire society, for many centuries, has developed as a way to concentrate wealth and power in Moscow. Geographers call Russia the topographically least defensible country on Earth. So Russia has developed an entire society formed like a military chain of command—in other words, an autocracy.

Can art like yours (and others who satirize tyranny) alter the world in any way? Or are we headed toward the abyss?
I’ve asked myself that question all my adult life. It’s why I stopped doing art for years and went to history grad school. I thought studying social change in academia could alter the world more than art could. Today, I feel that a single artist can’t change the world. But maybe art designed to engage all kinds of viewers in a deeper understanding of autocracy—and other political systems—can make a small contribution, if many, many other people are working toward a similar goal.

What is next in your satiric arsenal?
For the past four, going on five years, I’ve been working on a 16-foot-wide polyptych titled Peter the Great’s Grand Embassy Through Europe: Peter Consoles the Infant Stalin. What’s exciting about this one is that it opens up all of Europe, along with Russia, for satire. It also allows viewers to very clearly see some of the many geographic assets in Europe that Russia didn’t (not only climate), helping us understand why Europe and the U.S. developed pluralistic systems while Russia remained autocratic.

The post The Daily Heller: Anne Bobroff-Hajal’s Takedown of Russian Autocracy appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

*My criteria for choosing my top African American Designers were simple: a) I must love their work, and b) they must be older than I (born in 1966).

I do not intentionally exclude well-deserved and talented younglings. But I wrote this article as a call back to my younger self, to recognize that the path before me was designed Black and beautiful.

Now, read on and shine on.

Charles Dawson (1889 – 1981)

Best known for his illustrated advertisements, Charles Dawson (Charles Clarence Dawson) was an influential Chicago designer and artist through the 1920s and 30s.

He was born in 1898 in Georgia and went on to attend Booker T. Washington’s Tuskegee Institute. After two years, he left when he became the first African American admitted into the Arts Students League of New York. Dawson abandoned the pervasive racism of the league when he gained acceptance to the Art Institute of Chicago, where, in his own words, their attitude was “entirely free of bias.” During his time there, Dawson was heavily involved and went on to become a founding member of the first Black artists collective in Chicago, The Arts & Letters Collective.

After graduation, he went on to serve in the segregated forces of WWI, where he faced combat in France. He returned to find a changed Chicago: one racially charged due to a slowed economy and trouble finding jobs. In 1922, Dawson began freelancing, producing work for other black entrepreneurs. Five years later, Dawson played a major role in the first exhibition of African American art at his alma mater called Negro In Art Week.

Dawson took part in two different Works Progress Administration programs under Roosevelt’s New Deal, including the National Youth Administration, where he designed the layout for the American Negro Exposition, a piece composed of 20 dioramas showcasing African American history.

He eventually returned to Tuskegee, where he became a curator for the institute’s museum and passed away at the ripe old age of 93 in Pennsylvania. Dawson will always be remembered for his great contributions to African American art, design, and advancement.

Aaron Douglas (1899 – 1979)

Known as a key artist in the Harlem Renaissance, Aaron Douglas was a pivotal figure in developing a distinctly African style of art through his blending of Art Deco and Art Nouveau styles with connections to African masks and dances. His illustrations, published in Alan Locke’s anthology, The New Negro Movement, showcased his detachment from European-style arts and evolution into his own style, clearly communicating African heritage.

Douglas graduated from the University of Nebraska in 1922 with a BFA. He then taught high school art before moving to New York two years later to study under German artist Winold Reiss.

He became the most sought-after illustrator for black writers of his time after his covers for Opportunity and The Crisis, dubbed “Afro-Cubanism” by leading art critic Richard Powell. Among his other notable covers and illustrations are his designs for Carl Van Vechten’s Nigger Heaven and God’s Trombone, James Weldon Johnson’s epic poem.

Douglas was well-versed in Harlem nightlife, where he spent many nights gaining inspiration for his designs and depictions of the black urban scene. His murals, adorning the walls of various institutions, cemented his name as a major artist of the Harlem Renaissance. His best-known work is a series of murals called, Aspects of Negro Life, which Douglas created for the 135th St. branch of the New York Public Library.

He later left New York to become chair of the art department of Fisk University in Nashville, where he resided until his death in 1979.

Leroy Winbush (1915 – 2007)

One week after graduating high school, Winbush left Detroit for Chicago to become a graphic designer. His inspiration and mentors at the time were sign designers on Chicago’s South Side. He began creating signage, flyers, and murals for the Regal Theater, where he rubbed elbows with some of the most famous black musicians of the time.

Winbush then went on to join Goldblatt Department Store’s sign department, where he was the only black employee. In 1945, after years of working for others, Winbush started his own company, Winbush Associates, later Winbush Designs. Here, he landed accounts with various publishing houses, doing layouts for Ebony and Jet, among others. His ambition and charisma eventually helped him gain acceptance as a black designer and entrepreneur.

Later in life, Winbush began teaching visual communications and typography at various Chicago universities. He concurrently mastered the art of scuba diving, a feat that helped him land a position as part of the crew tasked with creating Epcot Center’s coral reef.

Winbush was adamant in his desire to be remembered as a “good designer,” as opposed to a “Black designer,” but was well aware of the influence he could have on the progression of the Black community. He designed a sickle cell anemia exhibit and exhibitions of the Underground Railroad for different Chicago museums to illuminate Black history, past and present, to the public. His accomplishments throughout his lifetime make LeRoy Winbush a notable African American graphic designer worth checking out.

Eugene Winslow (1919 – 2001)

Born in Dayton, Ohio, into a family of seven children, Eugene Winslow’s parents stressed the importance of education and encouraged their children to study the arts. Winslow attended Dillard University, receiving his Bachelor of Fine Arts degree. He then served in WWII as part of the revered Tuskegee Airmen.

After the war, Winslow nurtured his lifelong artistic interest by attending The Art Institute of Chicago and the Illinois Institute of Technology. Winslow then went on to co-found the Am-Afro Publishing house based out of Chicago, where in 1963, they published Great American Negroes Past and Present with Winslow’s illustrations. That same year, he also designed the seal commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation for the Chicago Exposition. Throughout his career as an artist, designer, businessman, and entrepreneur, Winslow always sought to promote racial integration wherever possible.

Georg Olden (1920 – 1975)

Born in 1920 in Birmingham, Alabama, to the son of an escaped enslaved person and opera-singing mother, Georg Olden was a revolutionary designer who helped pave the way for African Americans in the field of design and the corporate world.

After a brief stint at Virginia State College, Olden dropped out of school to work as a graphic designer for the CIA’s predecessor, The Office of Strategic Services. From there, the connections he made helped him land a position at CBS in 1945 as Head of Network Division of On-Air Promotions. Here, he worked on programs such as Gunsmoke, and I Love Lucy and eventually went on to help create the vote-tallying scoreboard for the first televised Presidential Election in 1952.

Praised in his day and posthumously, Olden appeared multiple times in publications such as Graphis and Ebony. In 1963, he became the first African American to design a postage stamp. His design showcased chains breaking to celebrate the centennial anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. By 1970, he had won seven Clio Awards for creative excellence in advertising and design and eventually won the AIGA (American Institute of Graphic Arts) award in 2007. Celebrated for his talent, charm, and business intelligence, Olden was a revolutionary African American graphic designer who made advancements in the industry and for all African Americans.

Thomas Miller (1920 – 2012)

Born in Bristol, Virginia, the grandson of enslaved people, Thomas Miller’s talent, hard work, and ambition helped him become one of the first Black designers to break into mainstream graphic design.

Miller graduated and earned a Bachelor of Education with a focus on the arts in 1941 from Virginia State College. Soon after, he enlisted in the army and served in WWII, achieving the rank of First Sergeant.

After the war, Miller was determined to learn about commercial design. He gained acceptance to The Ray Vogue School of Art in Chicago, where he and fellow student Emmett McBain were the only African Americans besides the janitors.

After graduation, Miller searched for jobs and denied one offer in New York because he worked “behind the screen.” Unwilling to tolerate the company’s overt racism, Miller passed on the offer and eventually joined the progressive Chicago studio Morton Goldsholl Associates. It was here that Miller, as chief designer, worked on high-profile campaigns such as the design for 7-Up in the 1970s. As a supporting member of the design team, he also worked on the Motorola rebranding, the Peace Corps logo, and the Betty Crocker “Chicken Helper” branding, earning accolades for himself and the company.

Miller also freelanced, starting when he served in WWII and continuing through his work with Goldsholl. Through his independent work, Miller was commissioned to create a memorial to the DuSable Museum’s founders. This job resulted in one of his most well-known pieces, the Thomas Miller Mosaics, now featured in the museum’s lobby.

Miller’s hard work, dedication, and artistic talent helped him pave the way for many African-American artists and designers to come.

Emmett McBain (1935 – 2012)

Emmett McBain, born in Chicago in 1935, is lesser known than some other designers I’ve profiled. But McBain made major contributions to the advertising and design world and for all African Americans through his successes in the business world.

Emmett McBain, a true visual thinker and communicator, attended The American Academy of Art and the Illinois Institute of Technology, where he became a talented watercolor artist. Post-graduation, McBain worked for several notable agencies and firms as a designer, art supervisor, and creative consultant before co-founding Burrell McBain Incorporated. This advertising agency, which later became the largest African-American-owned agency in the States, aimed to serve their accounts while gaining the trust and loyalty of the Black community. McBain was key in running the agency, landing valuable accounts, and constantly developing new and fresh ideas. His former partner, Thomas J. Burrell, praised his leadership skills and ability to think outside the box.

McBain left Burrell McBain in 1974 to focus on independent art and design in his Hyde Park, Chicago neighborhood, where he later passed away in 2012 at 78.

The University of Illinois at Chicago has a collection featuring his works entitled Emmett McBain Design Papers. You’ll find print ads, record album covers, and transparencies of Billboards, all McBain designed.

Archie Boston (born 1943)

Known for his blatant self-deprecation and humor, Archie Boston was a pioneer in challenging the racism of the 1960s and 70s through his designs and attitude.

One of five children, Boston grew up poor but well aware of the importance of education. In 1961, his artistic talent landed him acceptance to Chouinard Art Institute. While at university, he interned with the advertising agency Carson/Roberts, where he cemented his desire to work in design and eventually returned to the agency years later.

After graduation, he worked at various advertising and design firms before forming Boston & Boston with his older brother, Bradford. It was here that they created provocative pieces showcasing their race, as well as creativity, in pieces such as “Catch a Nigger by The Toe” and by selecting the Jim Crow typeface for their logotype.

For the majority of his career, however, Boston was an educator. He landed a position as a full-time lecturer in the art department at California State University, Long Beach, before creating their design department and eventually becoming head of the visual communications design program. He influenced countless young designers there, inspiring them through his encouragement and standard for excellence.

Emory Douglas (Born 1943)

The former Revolutionary Artist and Minister of Culture for the Black Panther Party, Emory Douglas’ career in commercial art has been centered around civil and equal rights propagation from its beginnings.

Douglas’ first exposure to design came when his crimes landed him in the Youth Training School of Ontario, California. Here, he worked in the print shop and learned about typography, illustration, and logo design. Later, Douglas enrolled in commercial art classes at the City College of San Francisco after running into a former counselor from the center who encouraged him to do so

During this time, Douglas became active in the Black Panther Party after being introduced to the founding members, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale. Douglas offered up his design skills while watching Seale work on the first issue of the party’s paper, The Black Panther. He was well aware of the importance of having illustrations and artwork to help reach the many illiterate members of the communities the party was targeting. Much of his art and illustration for the paper initially focused on Black rights, but it soon expanded to include women, children, and community figures alongside the party’s focuses. While working on The Black Panther, Douglas coined and popularized the term “pigs” in reference to police officers.

In the 1980s, the Black Panther Party, as Douglas had once known it, was mostly dissolved by law enforcement efforts. Later, Douglas moved to care for his ailing mother and continued to pursue some independent design. His revolutionary artwork helped to educate and agitate repressed and suppressed communities of the time.

Sylvia Harris (1953 – 2011)

Noted for her unwavering desire to help others, Sylvia Harris was a graphic designer, teacher, and business owner who used her research and skill set to reach far and wide.

Born and raised in Richmond, VA, Harris experienced the desegregation of the 1960s directly. This experience provided the foundation for her interest in social systems and their effect. After receiving her BFA from Virginia Commonwealth University, Harris moved to Boston, where she worked with various creative types. Through her work with WGBH and Chris Pullman, she realized the design field’s breadth and depth. After much prodding from her mentor, Harris enrolled in Yale’s Masters in Graphic Design program.

Two Twelve Associates was created with two of her former classmates in 1980 after graduation. Here, Harris began to explore how to use and grow her skill set to develop large-scale public information systems. Her work with Citibank set an early precedent for human-centered automated customer service.

In 1994, Harris left Two Twelve to create Sylvia Harris LLC, where she changed gears and began focusing more on design planning and strategies. Harris helped guide some of the largest public institutions, hospitals, and universities with systems planning. As creative director for the US Census Bureau’s Census 2000, Harris’ rebranding efforts helped encourage previously underrepresented citizens to participate.

Harris was awarded the AIGA medal posthumously in 2014, three years after her untimely death at the age of 57. Harris will always be remembered for her contributions to the design field and far beyond.

Art Sims (Born 1954)

From his first foray into the art world with the “Draw Me” test from magazines and TV of the 50s and 60s, Sims excelled. He attended Detroit’s Cass Technical High School, known for its dedication to the arts. From there, Sims gained acceptance to the University of Michigan on a full scholarship. During the summer between his junior and senior years, Sims landed a job with Columbia Records to produce a series of album covers. After graduation, the Sunshine State called his name, and Sims headed to LA.

Sims scored a job with EMI, but he was ultimately let go for pursuing freelance work. He went on to work for CBS, where he continued building his independent portfolio. When he was let go this time, Sims was prepared and already had the office space for his firm, 11:24 Advertising Design.

After seeing one of Spike Lee’s films, Sims knew he had to work with the director. He went on to design posters for Lee’s New Jack City, Do the Right Thing, Malcolm X, and most controversially, Bamboozled.

Ever the entrepreneur, Sims is developing a greeting card line and writing screenplays while teaching graphic design to African American middle schoolers. Art Sims is the epitome of talent, drive, and ambition, someone every graphic designer should know.

Gail Anderson (Born 1962)

Known for her uncanny ability to create expressive, dynamic typefaces perfectly suited to their subject, Gail Anderson is a designer and teacher with an impressive tenure in the field.

Born and raised in New York, Anderson’s ever-burning curiosity about design began with the teen magazines of her adolescent years. It was cemented while studying at the School of Visual Arts in NY. Here, Anderson began to develop her methodologies and no-holds-barred approach to design.

After college, Anderson eventually landed at The Boston Globe for two years, working with those responsible for pioneering the new newspaper design of the late 1980s. Moving on to Rolling Stone in 1987, Anderson worked seamlessly with AIGA medalist Fred Woodward, where their creative process always included lots of music, low lighting, and late nights. Her work with Woodward was always exploring new and exciting materials and instruments to create Rolling Stone’s eclectic design. They utilized everything from hot metal to bits of twigs to bottle caps to create their vision.

After working her way up from associate to senior art director, Anderson left Rolling Stone in 2002 to join SpotCo, where her focus shifted from design to advertising. At SpotCo, she’s been the designer behind innumerable Broadway and off-Broadway posters, including that of Avenue Q and Eve Ensler’s The Good Body.

Praised as the quintessential collaborator for her inclusive, expressive, and encouraging attitude towards working together, Anderson also admits that many of her “high-octane” designs occurred at night, solo. Whether it’s her collaborative work, solo projects, magazine layouts, or theatrical posters, Anderson designs work with and for her subjects, always emphasizing their highest potential.

The Unknown & Overlooked Designers

They are many, often invisible, but we feel the impact of their work throughout history, and we should acknowledge them. Many African American graphic designers worked behind the scenes and did not receive credit for their work due to the racist norms of the times. 

These include:

• The logo creators for the uniforms of the Negro baseball and basketball leagues;
• Trail-blazing entrepreneurs like Madam C.J. Walker, Annie Malone, Carmen C. Murphy, Mae Reeves, Anthony Overton, Frederick Patterson, and many more;
• The unknown graphic designer who painted the bold and sobering “A MAN WAS LYNCHED YESTERDAY” flag, hung by the NAACP from their New York offices whenever they learned of a hanging;
• Those presently active (Black Lives Matter) are creating banners, posters, signs, and media protesting discrimination of all kinds. Graphic design, after all, is about communicating a message effectively.

The truth of all history cannot be understated. As a designer of the African diaspora (African-Jamaican-Canadian), I believe in knowing those who paved the way. These men and women boldly pushed past racial inequality with their talent and perseverance to help create the way for all.

Glenford Laughton is founder of Toronto-based agency Laughton Creatves, a design studio that believes design is a highly-collaborative endeavor (hence the missing ‘i’). This article was written and researched by Glenford Laughton and originally published on the Laughton Creatves website. Republished with permission of the author.

Sources: AIGA, The Design Observer, The University of Chicago Library, Atlanta Blackstar, The History Makers, Wikipedia, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Design Archive, and The Root.

The post 13 African American Graphic Designers You Should Know appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The post The Daily Heller: When a Small “d” is a Big Deal appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

We will start with American democracy. This is not an attempt to be chronological but to exhibit, as we find them, the artifacts that remind us to preserve and celebrate democratic ideals—and uphold the Constitution. By the end of this tense election year we should have what amounts to an archive of diverse objects that represent how designers view(ed) the democratic experiment.

These pieces will be random at the outset but as they build, they’ll grow into a visual dictionary of democracy. Contributions are welcome. It will be fascinating to see what “brands” democracy, and for whom.

These advertisements for The New York Times, created in 1940–41, echo warnings of the threat of hard-right thinking today. Democracy needs a free press. Although there has always been partisan editorial pages, journalism is meant to be fair and balanced—in 1940 especially, when America was under attack from within. Anti-democratic forces under various banners were infiltrating state and national government, the courts and the law. These cautionary ads were not just handsome pieces of modernist collage but calls to action. It is not entirely clear who designed them: George “Kirk” Kirkorian was the Times promotion art director from 1939–1941, when he took a leave-of-absence to work for the Office of War Information (OWI). Shirley Plaut, the first woman promotion AD at the Times, replaced him until war’s end. Then he returned as art director until 1953. It is possible that she, who worked in a modernist style, did the ads with Kirk as AD, or on her own. Either way, they are splendid examples of graphic design in the service of democracy.

The post The Daily Heller: What Does Democracy Look Like? appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The post The Daily Heller: The Campaign Begins Now! appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

In 2018 I wrote about dystopian fiction such as Sinclair Lewis’s famous 1935 bestselling novel It Can’t Happen Here, in which a ambitious demagogue, Democrat/populist Senator Berzelius “Buzz” Windrip takes the nomination away from the incumbent FDR at the party convention and goes on to beat his Republican challenger. Upon taking office Windrip outlaws dissent; jails political enemies in internment camps, and recruits a paramilitary group of thugs called the Minute Men, who violently enforce the policies of the new “corporatist” state. The government curtails women’s and minority rights, and eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors. When It Can’t Happen Here was first published, America First, Christian Front and German Bund organizations were rapidly growing around the country, advocating revolution to “save the Constitution” from aliens, with many members of Congress supporting the cause.

It did not happen here then but America came perilously close to losing its democracy, replaced by the rising fascist tide that drowned Europe in hate and was growing in the U.S. too. We dodged the bullet. Yet not by much.

Rachel Maddow’s recent, Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism (Crown) is a sobering (and horrifyingly timely) history of the rise of American hard right populism that Sinclair Lewis cautioned against. Maddow reveals many forgotten psuedo-patriotic power-seekers, anti-democratic organizations, and some infamous onerous figures, including Henry Ford, Father J. Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh, that held sway from coast to coast ruling over millions of followers — a well armed army of would-be insurrectionists who make January 6th’s mob seem like a garden party. They weren’t just fringe fanatics but politicians, business men, members of police, military, clergy and more belonging to illiberal cadres including the Black Legion and Silver Shirts (possibly the most militant gang of states rights white supremacists) poised to violently rebel.

Maddow’s title, Prequel, indicates that this widespread threat to democracy, which was thwarted by American journalists, public servants and private citizens, was just the first of many such attacks on the constitution leading to the current MAGAists. It is furthermore a wake-up call for those who, as Liz Chaney says, are “sleep-walking” into the abyss of an authoritarian United States. Just how strong a call to action depends on how many of us will wake-up on election day and do the right thing and reject the Trump-thing.

Authoritarianism in America relies on those in power preying on a wide array of citizens to sanction anti-democratic illegitimacy. The divide in America today is perhaps deeper than it was in the 30s and 40s, the period covered in Prequel, but millions of people were just as fervent about following a totalitarian leader. It is curiously similar to today’s “radicals” and the stakes are just as high. There is a clear choice: moderate liberalism versus rampant demagoguery.

What can a designer do? Campaign, advocate, support and vote. Cast ballots for freedom, liberty and American principles. Designing a poster is a nice gesture to show solidarity but is not going to defeat democrafascism. If there is no clear action to back it up, whatever that may be, the red, white and blue is doomed.

The post The Daily Heller: It Can Happen Here on Day 1! appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Here, Thompson tell us a bit more about it.

How do you see this campaign being used?
I have no clue. When I’m not writing or painting, I default to my mild-mannered ad-man identity. I see myself as an ad artist (adtist?). When I come up with something I think is good, I can’t help myself, I have to express it. And the difference between being an artist and an adtist is that when I’m working in the ad form I have to have some idea of my audience, strategic goals and expected outcomes. 

Once I create new ad-art, I put it on my Facebook page to get feedback. Facebook gives me an instant, worldwide focus group … free. With my D-Day button, I figure I’ll contact my local politicians and see if anyone bites. I already exposed it to Robert Creamer and Pete Giangreco, two big Chicago political consultants, at an Indivisible Chicago meeting and radio show a few weeks ago.    

I’m planning on buying a button-making machine so I can actually make the first versions of my D-Day buttons myself. I’ll sell them as limited editions. But my dream scenario is to get the national party or PACs to license using my button and ads for their campaigns. 

Do you think enough people know what the original D-Day was these days?
Good question. I was born about three years after D-Day and I probably didn’t really know what it was until I was in my late teens, or when I watched movies like The Longest Day. But I think even young folks know it’s about something big and will be intrigued enough by its message and design to Google it. I actually think the macho images of Americans in the fight for democracy might make it sexy to the video game crowd. 

Given the (petty) criticism about Biden’s age, would you consider that the D-Day reference might bolster it?
No. I think if we use it right, the D-Day reference can punch up Biden’s gravitas, seriousness, coolness under fire, experience, “grown-up-ness.” It might even make his age a plus. 

The post The Daily Heller: The Countdown to D-Day 2024 appeared first on PRINT Magazine.