Jokes1 min ago
Virgin Atlantic Goes Diversity Mad.
43 Answers
https:/
representing-modern-Britain.html
representing-modern-Britain.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Actually, on reflection, I do have a comment after all -
Since, as advised, the original logo might have been seen as tongue-in-cheek, or an homage to previous images, but it was close to the line when it first came out, and has only looked more incongruous and inappropriate as time has passed.
To continue that design, and 'expand' it, seems rather to miss the point of diversity altogether.
Personally, I thought the black man icon was the gay representation, until I saw the image with the flowing locks and rainbow design.
If I were a gay person, or a person of colour, I would take exception to this level of trite standardisation and caricature that is the very essence of what diversity is actually fighting against.
And, as advised, if I was disabled, I would be miffed at not being represented at all!
Since, as advised, the original logo might have been seen as tongue-in-cheek, or an homage to previous images, but it was close to the line when it first came out, and has only looked more incongruous and inappropriate as time has passed.
To continue that design, and 'expand' it, seems rather to miss the point of diversity altogether.
Personally, I thought the black man icon was the gay representation, until I saw the image with the flowing locks and rainbow design.
If I were a gay person, or a person of colour, I would take exception to this level of trite standardisation and caricature that is the very essence of what diversity is actually fighting against.
And, as advised, if I was disabled, I would be miffed at not being represented at all!
I am also intrgiued as to why the black lady looks like a cross between Diana Ross and Beyonce!
If the designers had realised that stereotyping inb this manner is not only crass and offensive, it is utterly at odds with the concept of the diversity it claims to embrace, they may have decided that a completely new design, in keeping with the age we live in, was the way forward.
If the designers had realised that stereotyping inb this manner is not only crass and offensive, it is utterly at odds with the concept of the diversity it claims to embrace, they may have decided that a completely new design, in keeping with the age we live in, was the way forward.
//I am also intrgiued as to why the black lady looks like a cross between Diana Ross and Beyonce! //
Wouldn't recognise either of them in Sainsbury in any case.
As a matter for future reference what is the correct address nowadays.
Is it person of colour or black lady.? I thought we were treading on eggshells if we dared use one or the other. I forget.
Wouldn't recognise either of them in Sainsbury in any case.
As a matter for future reference what is the correct address nowadays.
Is it person of colour or black lady.? I thought we were treading on eggshells if we dared use one or the other. I forget.
Can we please stop over analysing everything?
Firstly it's just a logo, it didn't really need a redesign for people feel they were included, anyone with a brain knows they already are. It's just free advertising because it's made the press. Secondly how do designers portray black people except by drawing a black person? Gay people cannot 'look gay' so you have to add a well known emblem of 'gayness' in this instance a rainbow- we don't need to beat them up because they have drawn stereotypes, what else could they have done within that sort of remit?
The whole thing is, as Naomi right says, naff.
Firstly it's just a logo, it didn't really need a redesign for people feel they were included, anyone with a brain knows they already are. It's just free advertising because it's made the press. Secondly how do designers portray black people except by drawing a black person? Gay people cannot 'look gay' so you have to add a well known emblem of 'gayness' in this instance a rainbow- we don't need to beat them up because they have drawn stereotypes, what else could they have done within that sort of remit?
The whole thing is, as Naomi right says, naff.
Naomi - // But you're assuming they will be offended. They might be delighted for all you know. //
I am assuming - but i am also puting forward my own view, which is that the orignal design was on the edge of being tacky and unsuitable at the time it was introduced, and that opinion has only strengthened as time has passed.
Black and gay people may be delighted, but I wouldn't bet on it!
I am assuming - but i am also puting forward my own view, which is that the orignal design was on the edge of being tacky and unsuitable at the time it was introduced, and that opinion has only strengthened as time has passed.
Black and gay people may be delighted, but I wouldn't bet on it!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.