you've strategically hit upon the logo & icon portfolio and blog of UK logo designer Graham Smith — the original Logo Smith since '86.
Found this on Twitter yesterday, so if it was you who Tweeted it, just leave a comment below and I will add a credit to you in the text here, because this is just too hilarious or disturbing to pass up without further examination. A classic example of a innocent, good meaning logo turning bad due to sexual meanings and references changing over the decades.
Original Post Credit
The original post was made by www.afrojacks.com and the following text has been taken from their site :
In the 70s, this picture stood for God’s children. Now it just stands for boys giving priests a good ol beej. Yes, this is an actual logo designed in 1973 for the Catholic Church’s Archdiocesan Youth Commission. It even won an award from the Art Directors Club of Los Angeles.
Please go and visit Afrojacks if you wish to leave a comment, after all, they found it not me, I’m just a messenger.
The Original Logo Message
Religion and Sex goes hand in hand.
Clearly, the intended message is one of guidance and being protected. The vicar/priest holding the youngster in a so called protective posture. No harm will come to you my child. Yeah right. Snort.
A slight improvement – Hmmm. No.
Just quickly knocked up in PhotoShop. Raising the childs head above the ‘groin’ and inverting the shoulders makes a difference without loosing meaning or integrity of the original logo.
Unless you are always looking at things sexually, then this would presumably also resemble the priest ‘doing it from behind’, as in ‘i got your back son’. Ack. It doesn’t take much for something to become a possible sexual reference. Seems people can see sexual references in everything, even when there isn’t. :)
Oh lordy, I give up.
Related Posts
- → The Gmail Logo
- → British Steel Logo 1969-1999 Designed by David Gentleman
- → The Arabic FedEx Logo
- → Wrecking Ball Coffee Branding and Coffee Bean Subscription
Still freaky though! :
It’s our culture, just how we are programmed to see things now. Sexual meanings are abound, even in the most innocent of images.
Still a giggle.
LOL
ROTFLMAO
LOL
ROTFLMAO
hilarious!
hilarious!
This is a real tough one. I have a feeling that an overlapping approach won’t work with this imagery. In order for the child-adult images to succeed without causing unintended implications, they will need to be placed side-by-side rather than on top of each other.
This is a real tough one. I have a feeling that an overlapping approach won’t work with this imagery. In order for the child-adult images to succeed without causing unintended implications, they will need to be placed side-by-side rather than on top of each other.
Graham,
First off, yes this is hilarious. Secondly, I took the image and in one swift swipe of the clone stamp completely changed the connotation of this logo. You can see what I did here:
http://schweitz.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/inappropriate-religious-logo.jpg
Graham,
First off, yes this is hilarious. Secondly, I took the image and in one swift swipe of the clone stamp completely changed the connotation of this logo. You can see what I did here:
http://schweitz.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/inappropriate-religious-logo.jpg
This logo is simply great even if they would have wanted to make sexual it could not have been able to make something this bi meanning logo. Excellent post
This logo is simply great even if they would have wanted to make sexual it could not have been able to make something this bi meanning logo. Excellent post
“Oh lordy, I give up.”…possibly the funniest line all week. Great post & commentary, Graham.
“Oh lordy, I give up.”…possibly the funniest line all week. Great post & commentary, Graham.
Yeah, this definitely shows how advancing culture changes the meaning of icons.
Advancing cultures you say? Maybe we are de evolving, Im a big fan of Devolution in the human species.
Agreed. Perhaps its a mixed form of evolution where we loose ‘good attributes’* in the name of modernisation and advancement or just plain ‘being cool’.
Interesting write-up though. Thanks for sharing.
*those have always been subjective anyway.
Yeah, this definitely shows how advancing culture changes the meaning of icons.
Advancing cultures you say? Maybe we are de evolving, Im a big fan of Devolution in the human species.
Agreed. Perhaps its a mixed form of evolution where we loose ‘good attributes’* in the name of modernisation and advancement or just plain ‘being cool’.
Interesting write-up though. Thanks for sharing.
*those have always been subjective anyway.
It would be better if the Vicar was stood along-side a child, with no contact. Sadly, in this age, and as stated, even the most unsexually-orientated minds with see there is something Very, very wrong in the 1973 original :(
It would be better if the Vicar was stood along-side a child, with no contact. Sadly, in this age, and as stated, even the most unsexually-orientated minds with see there is something Very, very wrong in the 1973 original :(
perception is everything!
these people who made this logo in 1973 and approved spent their time around faith believers. last thing they see on any visual is sex. they avoid it to focus on worship of god.
now i am not one of them but i think its too much to say it was sexual.
perception is everything!
these people who made this logo in 1973 and approved spent their time around faith believers. last thing they see on any visual is sex. they avoid it to focus on worship of god.
now i am not one of them but i think its too much to say it was sexual.
:))))))) :)))))))) the greatest logo ever……. :)))))))
:))))))) :)))))))) the greatest logo ever……. :)))))))
The priest and child need to stand side by side holding hands or perhaps he carry the child, symbolic of how God carries us (i.e. footprints poem) because this above is terrible! Lol.
The priest and child need to stand side by side holding hands or perhaps he carry the child, symbolic of how God carries us (i.e. footprints poem) because this above is terrible! Lol.
WoW. I don’t even know what to say. To think this ever could have been ok is weird. Reminds me of the days I spent dealing craps in a casino. Everything said got twisted around to be sexual. With this one, though, I think you just have to abandon the concept and start over.
okay.. i admit it. I laffed out loud at first sight… then thought, how sad is that? We definitely look differently things nowadays. De-evolution? Maybe. Thanks for the post, Graham. Love your commentary… “Oh Lordy, I give up.” … classic.. may borrow that ;)
WoW. I don’t even know what to say. To think this ever could have been ok is weird. Reminds me of the days I spent dealing craps in a casino. Everything said got twisted around to be sexual. With this one, though, I think you just have to abandon the concept and start over.
okay.. i admit it. I laffed out loud at first sight… then thought, how sad is that? We definitely look differently things nowadays. De-evolution? Maybe. Thanks for the post, Graham. Love your commentary… “Oh Lordy, I give up.” … classic.. may borrow that ;)
As my friend Ro would say ‘ooyyyyeee’!
Perhaps dropping the human forms all together would be best…a much simpler approach may be best.
As my friend Ro would say ‘ooyyyyeee’!
Perhaps dropping the human forms all together would be best…a much simpler approach may be best.
It’s our culture, just how we are programmed to see things now. Sexual meanings are abound, even in the most innocent of images.
Still a giggle.