For many years now, I've done posts in which flags figure prominently; these were not really about the flags themselves, but flags as symbols of other ideas. I've thought the question to myself on many occasions, but I've never written about it:
"What makes a good flag?"
The study of flags is called vexillology. The name comes from the Latin vexillum, a square flag carried by Roman cavalry, and -logia; the Greek suffix meaning to study: meteorology, geology, astrology, etc.
There are several organizations devoted to vexillology, and the most famous vexillologist in recent memory is the fictional Sheldon Cooper, Big Bang Theory genius/autist who did a podcast called "Fun With Flags." Very "meta." The running gag is that nobody watched it. Along with rampant misogyny, the big bangers celebrated geekdom in all it's forms. I suppose vexillology is one of the geek Hydra's heads.
If my posts are any indication, I'm something of a vexillologist myself. I also love Sci-Fi. Hey-ho! I own three flags: US, Spanish, and Portuguese. I don't collect them, I just ended up with them somehow. I have always coveted a Jolly Roger though....
People get really emotional about flags. In America there is all manner of etiquette surrounding them: how they're folded (in a triangle), flown (always highest; upside down indicates SOS), stored (folded) and disposed of (ceremonially burned). Military widows (and widowers) receive them. If someone burns one in protest, it could lead to a drubbing. Constitutional amendments have been proposed to make burning one as a protest a federal offense. The 1st Amendment makes this unfeasible. Signified trumps signifier?
Flags are important. Have you seen the Civil War epic, Glory? At one point in the climactic final battle, the flag-bearer falls. All becomes chaos, the advance is halted. Then a soldier picks up the flag, waving and yelling, and the advance continues. A doomed advance as it turns out, but the importance of the flag, a standard around which men rally, is undeniable. This is actually based in fact, and flag-bearers were especially significant in the US Civil War (1860-1864).
Sayeth Wiki:
"...as far back as Roman warfare and medieval warfare the standard-bearer had an important role on the battlefield....the standard-bearer acted as an indicator of where the position of a military unit was, with the bright, colorful standard or flag acting as a strong visual beacon to surrounding soldiers. Soldiers were typically ordered to follow and stay close to the standard or flag in order to maintain unit cohesion, and for a single commander to easily position his troops by only positioning his standard-bearer, typically with the aid of musical cues or loud verbal commands. It was an honorable position carrying a considerable risk, as a standard-bearer would be a major target for the opposing side's troops seeking to capture the standard or pull it down."
So, what makes a good flag? One supposes being easily seen, and recognizable, would be important in the context of warfare, but what else?
What follows are my opinions, some of which leading vexillologists agree with, as it turns out.
Shape-wise, the basic rectangle is best. Flags which are square (Switzerland) or doublet triangles (Nepal), or otherwise tapered and forked (Ohio, Tampa) are rarities for a reason. Nepal's flag works, and Switzerland's does as well. The shape seems to fit the nature of those countries. Ohio and Tampa, not so much. The shape does them no favors, but the colors and design are abominable. I'm from Tampa, and our flag is, well, a mess.
 |
| Switzerland |
 |
| Nepal |
.png) |
| Ohio |
 |
| Tampa |
On rare occasions, flags can work with even one color, but this is very rare. Libya's flag was just a green field until 2011. The black flag of anarchy or the red flag of communism have power because of the ideas behind them.
Two colors can be effective. The Japanese and Bangladeshi flags make it work; they are also very similar in that they have a monochromatic field with a red, stylized sun in (or offset from) the middle. Qatar's flag has always been attractive to me. A nice maroon color with a serrated white band on the left.
 |
| Japan |
 |
Bangladesh
|
.svg.png) |
| Qatar |
Personally, I think three colors work best, although there are some with more that pull it off.
Text should be avoided. Dates or slogans are useful for other parts of the national identity, but the flag is a visual medium of color and basic forms. It's not a sign. From a distance, one can't read the text anyway.
Flags should avoid overly-complex images with lots of finicky details. The aforementioned Japanese sun is a case in point. That said, the smiling sun on Argentina and Uruguay's flags work. They aren't complex per se, but instead of a circle they have faces. How cool is that? I'm not a big fan of the light blue and white color scheme of Argentina, but the sun, a whimsical fellow, makes up for it.
 |
| Argentina |
 |
| Uruguay |
Colors should be in large (-ish) swaths: vertical bands or horizontal stripes are pretty common. The French flag is simply 3 vertical stripes, and it works. Better, in my opinion, than Italy's tricolor, which uses green and not blue. It's not ugly, but just doesn't have the verve of the French. Russia and the Netherlands also have the same colors as France, but they are horizontal, and to my eye lack the force of the French "Tricolour".
.svg.png) |
| France |
 |
| Russian Federation |
 |
| The Netherlands |
France's flag is red, white and blue. Many countries use this color combo: Chile, Cuba, France, the USA, Russia, the Netherlands, Taiwan, etc. It's a good mix. Malaysia has a similar flag to the USA. Red and white stripes, blue canton in the upper-left corner. But where Old Glory has 50 stars, Malaysia has a yellow crescent moon and a single star. It's known as The Stripes of Glory. The stripes and points on the star represent the states in Malaysia, much like the US flag represents the 13 colonies and 50 states.
 |
Malaysia
|
So, I wrote the text above, then Googled the query, "What makes a good flag?" and landed here:https://www.atlasobscura.com/artlicles/we-asked-a-vexillologist-how-to-design-a-great-national-flag
This article discussed a downloadable booklet called Good Flag, Bad Flag by Ted Kaye:
https://nava.org/digital-library/design/GFBF_English.pdf
The author has 5 basic ground rules:
Flags should be simple, have meaningful symbolism, have no lettering or "busy" seals, have generally no more than three colors, and 5) either be unique....or refer to other flags with some significance for the new one.
The last rule bears citing an example. Liberia's flag is much like the US flag; it isn't unique, but it references the US flag because the country was founded as a refuge for free blacks or ex-slaves who migrated to Africa from the US. So, a new flag is either totally unique or integrates elements from the history of its people.
I pretty much picked up on Kaye's rules. I didn't discuss symbolism and I'm not sure uniqueness is required. Even the author of this pamphlet praises the French flag, which is neither unique in it's design (Italy, Belgium) nor choice of color (Russia, the Netherlands). Why does France's flag work? Good question. For me, it just does.
The US flag is simple enough, a bit busy, bit it's a works. Red, white, and blue go well together. I think Malaysia must have looked to the US, as did Liberia, logically.
Most US state flags are awful, but there a few I like: Alaska, South Carolina, and New Mexico are my top three. Rounding out a "top ten" would be Indiana, Texas, Tennessee, and since we're aiming for 10, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Maryland for being so crazy, and Arizona. I actually like the Arizona flag. It sometimes appears top-heavy, but it is a striking design, unusually-colored, but totally appropriate for the skies and rock formations of the Arizona desert. That Maryland flag sometimes strikes me as ugly, but it is unique. Most state flags are boring; so many are basically the state seal on a field of blue. And with the name of the state writ large, they break all the rules of good flag design.
 |
| Maryland |
 |
| Arizona |
 |
| New Mexicos |
This guy doesn't mince words in his video. I agree with the gist of his ranking. My biggest disagreement is his high marks for the Washington state flag. No offense Washingtonians, but that bust of George is just goofy. I like the green field but that's about it. He also places Colorado at number one. Maybe further reflection will endear me to it, but to be honest, I don't like it. I can see why people do, but I dunno. The big C is kind of cheesy. It's not a bad flag, but I honestly think dropping the C would help. I'll sleep on it.
There are a few things I wanted to query here. The first is the Principality of Sealand. Sealand is a micronation consisting of a structure built by the English during WW2. The current "Prince's" father seized it from pirate radio broadcasters in 1967 and the Prince even repelled an attack by a disgruntled ex-partner and a group of mercenaries in 1978. Like many of these self-proclaimed nations, they issue currency, stamps and ID cards to collectors. Apparently, they once had a serious business offer as a secure data-haven.
Do they have a website? Of course they do. I think Sealand raises interesting and legitimate questions about what constitutes a nation. And by what right. Possession being 9/10ths of the law and all that. Heck, why does the Catholic Church have a state? Why is the President of France co-prince of Andorra, along with the bishop of Oviedo? Or some Spanish Bishopric. Look it up.
From a vexillological point of view, is their flag a success? I like it, but would like it better if the red and black were of equal proportion. The Red and the Black. Perhaps my fondness for Stendahl predisposes me to like it.
The colors are also those of Nazi Germany's flag. I include it here, along with that of the Confederate States of America, because I think from a design point of view, they are effective flags. The problem with that assessment is self-evident. Or should be. Can we appreciate a flag or a design separately from what it represents? The Marseillaise, the French national anthem, is rousing. But it speaks of irrigating French fields with the blood of it's enemies.
The Nazi flag represents an odious ideology. Genocidal bigotry. The Confederate Battle Flag represents the fight to preserve slavery. I look at them and can't help but think of what they represent. But part of me has to admit that they are well-designed and follow Kaye's 5 rules. Perhaps this is why the battle flag persists as a symbol of the South, whereas the actual national flag of the CSA is all but forgotten.
It strikes me that perhaps I've become too amoral trying to be "objective." Is it normal I can look at the Nazi flag and admire the design? It's not that I forget what it represents, just that I think it's powerful. It also occurs to me that the "power" isn't in the design at all, but in the actions performed in its shadow. There must be some semiotic falderal about signifier and signified to delve into here, but I'm just not that clever.
Ancillary questions: Can we admire Pound's poetry knowing he was a fascist? Can we admire Coco Chanel knowing she cavorted with Nazis? What about H.P. Lovecraft? He was racist and antisemitic even by the standards of his time. And Polanski sodomized a 13-year-old with a champagne bottle. I still enjoy Fearless Vampire Killers....
I don't mean to be flip or dismissive. I think it's a legitimate aesthetic issue; how much can we separate a design from what it symbolizes?
Thoughts?
 |
| Sealand |
.svg.png) |
| Nazi Germany |
 |
| The Confederate States of America |
I know that puts me at odds with many. I'm not trying to sneak in some nastiness under the guise of vexillology. It's just a an ethical and aesthetic question I've pondered for a long time. I wonder what Kaye would say....?
.svg.png)
.svg.png)
.svg.png)
.png)
.svg.png)
.svg.png)
.svg.png)
