This installation of the series is two-fold as the Sun Records logo helps magnify two things that are distinctly modern American: the iconography of a logo, and the post-slavery cultural significance of the South. Additionally, both of these things are in the forefront of America today because both directly apply to our new President.
I may be alone here (or, at the very least, part of a minority) but I happen to think that the Sun Records logo is one of the greatest ever produced. The color range only consists of three rustic colors and a rooster is a focal point, yet it completely envelops and projects perfectly the image of Sun Records. The rays of the sun that suddenly stop and give way to an outer atmosphere of musical notes (which looks so playful and ingenious when watching it spin around on a record player) convey everything you need to know about the label, short of coming right out and printing the words “WE ARE A SOUTHERN COUNTRY AND BLUES MUSIC LABEL” underneath the logo. If you have never seen this logo before you would still know that it is emblematic of a country record label. It is so upfront it is unmistakable. Which leads me to my second point about the logo and that is that Sun Records played an integral part of ’50′s Southern culture which, in turn, had a hand in completely shaping all of America’s views towards the South not only as a cultural region but also as a cultural force that would spawn other diverse, mimetic forces throughout the country. Which is to say that it had a hand in shaping how we began to view black people during the nascent post-WWII era.
I am not going to get into all of the specifics associated with the post-slavery culture and its influences on pop culture starting in the ’20′s and ’30′s (I would recommend the book Hip: The History as a good read for digging deeper into that facet) but the fact is that Sun Records was the first home of Elvis Presley, an extremely important and polarizing figure of the last six decades. And when you’re the first home to Elvis you simply cannot escape the racial angles. The idea that, to most people, Elvis made his $ and created his Legend by copying black artists is nothing new. While the previous sentence is inherently true, it’s context is up for debate… just like a logo and what it really represents.
To be sure, America did not invent the idea of having a logo become a representation of a company or a person. A coat of arms essentially did the same thing for a medieval family that the Starbucks logo does for a coffee-purchasing customer: it lets others know who you are, whether it be a member of a land-owning family with bloodlines to the Teutons or a member of a community who enjoys Venti Raspberry Mocha Frappuchinos.
What really served as the tipping point for me to write this particular installment (I initially was going to write something about To Kill A Mockingbird—another powerful image of the South and for which Atticus Finch is a pseudo-logo of justice and positive values) was Pepsi’s revamping of their logo and the inauguration of Barck Obama. The two, on the surface, seem utterly mutually exclusive but I do not think so and here is why.
First, the previous Pepsi logo and the Obama logo are oddly similar in that the red, white, and blue colors are used to abstractly evoke movement and a quasi-American idea (Pepsi: ripple-like movement of a flag, Obama: the Heartland, a sunrise).
Second, Obama’s logo is a fully fleshed-out logo. Every other candidate before him (removing, for purposes of this argument, Eisenhower’s built-in and marketable “I Like Ike” slogan/quasi-logo) simply had their names in red, white, and blue and usually incorporated a flag or some form of American emblem. Gore-Lieberman, Bush-Cheney, and Dukakis-Bentson bumper stickers and pins did not have a separate logo; their names physically brandished everything related to their ticket. When you look at what I will dub from here on out as “The Heartland O”, Obama essentially announced that he is company. He is Pepsi and Wal-Mart and Exxon and Nike. His name (and especially Joe Biden’s name) are not required to make people aware of who he physically is and what he represents. This also makes him the first “Elvis” of U.S. Presidents. Oh sure, the Roosevelt’s, Adams, Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson may have been more popular or, in some cases, had more verve but Obama is like Brand New. And Brand New things need marketing—lots of it. Especially if you are to appeal to both white people and black people, so says our conventional wisdom today.
(The idea of Obama’s “Heartland O” logo—and his ubiquitous “Hope” poster–is also not without its irony in that its very ubiquity is something that most liberal-minded people associate with as being Big Brother-like. Most people who voted for Obama probably have some, be it tepid or rabid, level of contempt for corporations and its use of logos yet when they are well-made and promote your guy then all is right with the world. This makes me think of Dennis Miller’s comment once upon a time about how people don’t root for players on their favorite teams per se, but for laundry. But I digress.)
My point is this: logos are extremely polarizing in our society—they are, for the most part, looked at as cynical relics or, at worst, a mask that a seedy organization uses for its cover—and I find it delightfully… revealing at how we as Americans have embraced the ubiquitous “Heartland O” and “Hope” logo. You can certainly divine from this that I am being whole-heartedly cynical about Obama’s marketing campaign—the fact that I am not actively killing myself to try and steer you from this outlook is what it is—but this is not my ultimate point. My point is subjectivity and how logos feed off of it.
I look at the Sun Records logo and think about great music, the country feel of it, the ingeniousness of the simplicity of the design, how, by itself, it is iconic and a great piece of art. It makes me think of Sam Phillips, Elvis, Carl Perkins, Johnny Cash. To others: it may evoke racist-type thoughts because of it being associated with the segregationist South and primarily white artists copying black artists. It may also generate absolutely no emotions or opinions. But the fact is that once you have created a design or a logo to embody your company, your philosophy, or what-have-you, it, the logo, morphs into an even more abstract idea—one that is practically ungovernable except by continuous reminders and marketing and reiterations of what its intended meaning is supposed to be. This is most likely where the disconnect occurs between people and their contempt for logos, the needless but necessary repetition of its meaning.
Conversely, this is also why there is such a gigantic connection between Obama’s supporters and his marketing materials; his logo transcends himself and represents the same ideal he has been espousing non-stop since his campaign began. I am not an Obama supporter but I can respect his team’s foresight to market him how they did. He was the first black Presidential candidate with a legitimate chance of winning–his image needed to transcend everything about him as a person and as a President. There’s nothing inherently wrong about that.
I wish the people who subscribe to the No Logo way of thinking (and your run-of-the-mill anti-advertising, anti-corporate garden variety people) would realize this. Obama did. His people wanted to “sell” him as an Idea, not just a Man (or even a President). We are all being sold on something, whether it be via the “Heartland O” or a rooster centered amongst an atmosphere of musical notes. Or like Pepsi informing us that every generation spawns a refresh. What timing.