Going through some old notes taken at the TIOH record room a couple of years ago, I came across notes of the exchange between the Institute and the then-new Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1966.
After HUD was established, its leadership approached the Institute of Heraldry to design a seal for the new department. TIOH responded with a proposal, Vert billety a pale bretesse Or, on a quarter Sable a sun in splendor of the second charged with a wheel Gules.
<i></i>
Here’s my emblazonment of the design, working from the blazon (I didn’t make a copy of the drawing in the file).
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeohzt4/TIOH-HUD.gif
On October 29, 1965, the Commission on Fine Arts, the governments advisory group from the artistic community, rejected this design on the grounds that the heraldic emblem was too “complicated and out of context and its meaning, although presumably based on traditional associations, would be understood by few, if any, people.” The CFA recommended the task of designing a seal be approached in contemporary terms, using "an artist of recognized talent."
The result was this design, approved by Secretary Robert C. Weaver and still used by the department today.
Ironically, having rejected the Institute of Heraldry’s classic heraldic design, HUD nevertheless turned to the Institute to prepare the official description of the contemporary design for publication in the Federal Register. On December 16, 1966, Colonel Ed Henderson, the Institute’s commanding officer, replied to HUD’s director of “graphics and visual,” Charles Shinn:
Quote:
In a sincere effort to comply with your request, I discussed the seal with my Creative Heraldry and Design and Illustration people. They are in agreement that we cannot do you justice in this matter without knowing what the artist had in mind when he created the design.
Quote:
although presumably based on traditional associations, would be understood by few, if any, people
And this seal can be understood by people? I don’t even get the point of the ‘fragmented eagle’....
Thanks for the interesting topic, though, Joseph.
Cheers,
I liked the reply by Col. Henderson, a polite way of saying this design sucks.
MohamedHossam;54606 wrote:
And this seal can be understood by people? I don’t even get the point of the ‘fragmented eagle’....
I’m guessing it’s an eagle that is supposed to look like it’s made of buildings, but I don’t consider it successful.
They say that the British are masters of understatement. I think we can all take lessons from Col. Henderson.
James
The seal is the typical logo-style so much in favor by the U.S. government. I think it’s an eagle rising above a group of buildings. I think the original proposal is nicer but I also have to admit that I don’t "get it" as a coat of arms for housing and urban development. I hate to admit that the Commission on Fine Arts appraisal is correct. Any explanation available?
gselvester;54622 wrote:
The seal is the typical logo-style so much in favor by the U.S. government. I think it’s an eagle rising above a group of buildings. I think the original proposal is nicer but I also have to admit that I don’t "get it" as a coat of arms for housing and urban development. I hate to admit that the Commission on Fine Arts appraisal is correct. Any explanation available?
Yes, the idea of the HUD seal is an eagle rising out of a group of skyscrapers—the since-discredited kind of low-income high-rise housing favored at the time HUD was created.
I agree that the TIOH design was less than inspired. The pale bretesse is apparently supposed to connote building; I guess the billety field is houses or something like that. The crest had a mural crown with an arm issuant holding a pair of rafters—a chevron, I guess. Don’t remember what the black quarter with the sun and wheel were for—perhaps urban development or something. There was an explanation of the design, but I took the notes when I was researching federal departmental flags, and since the TIOH design was rejected I didn’t pay much attention to what it was supposed to mean.
Marcus K;54608 wrote:
I liked the reply by Col. Henderson, a polite way of saying this design sucks.
Indeed! And is too abtract. The rejected design, IMHO, was much better; the billets, etc. look like a city map!
Since the image was deleted when Verizon got rid of personal webspaces, here it is so people can see.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1404&stc=1&d=1424649262
Not unattractive, though IMO could do without the black quarter & sun; would work nicely for an Army engineering unit, with the Corps of Engineers castle for crest. But for HUD the allusion seems a bit strained.
The seal actually adopted clearly isn’t heraldic, or at best a badge. But it does visually suggest the Federal eagle, and high rise buildings (however discredited by subsequent history), in a distinct visual format, which is about as much as I’ve come to expect from the civilian bureaucracy. (Grump, harumpf…)
Yeah, the TIOH design really doesn’t do it for me. Maybe a "per chevron" design might have been used to symbolize a roof—Perhaps something like, "Per chevron azure and or, in dexter chief a sun in splendor of the second, in base an eagle displayed of the first"
Well, keep in mind that when HUD was established, it was more about urban "development" AKA "renewal" than about housing. I think the TIOH design says "city" reasonably well. Not claiming it’s brilliant, but between that and what HUD actually chose?
Marcus K;54608 wrote:
I liked the reply by Col. Henderson, a polite way of saying this design sucks.
If only the colonel had simply replied, "Nuts!"
Off the immediate topic, but does Col. Henderson have arms? I don’t remember seeing him in Joe’s recent "piles of piles" project on the HSS site.