http://www.lclark.edu/webadmin/index5/shield.jpg
"About Lewis & Clark College - On 137 deeply wooded acres in Portland’s southwest hills, the next generation of global thinkers and leaders gathers to discard conventional thinking, civic complacency, and outmoded preconceptions. They gather to explore new ways of knowing through classic liberal learning and innovative collaboration."
"Shield - Heraldic shields have been used throughout history in the seals of nations as well as in those of colleges and universities. Such shields symbolize what is integral to their institutions and mirror the artistic ideas prevalent at the time of their creation. The College shield or logo represents Lewis & Clark’s tradition of excellence in the liberal arts and sciences, education and counseling, and the law, and its evolution into one of the nation’s outstanding institutions of higher learning. While incorporating traditional heraldic elements, the shield uses abstract forms that allow for interpretation. The curves of the design recall features of the Northwest’s natural landscape. The shield is the official College logo."
Michael Swanson wrote:
While incorporating traditional heraldic elements, the shield uses abstract forms that allow for interpretation.
Can anyone spot a traditional heraldic element in the above shield? I can’t.
Gee, Darren, depends on which tradition. This does evoke the stylized heraldic work done in Scandinavia.
Patrick Williams wrote:
Gee, Darren, depends on which tradition. This does evoke the stylized heraldic work done in Scandinavia.
The Scandinavian arms I’ve seen may be stylized, but this doesn’t look like them at all.
I’ve got it! It’s the shield itself that’s traditional! :D
Is that supposed to be a fess wavy voided or something? As for the curved pale… well it might not even be that… I don’t know…
Donnchadh wrote:
Is that supposed to be a fess wavy voided or something? As for the curved pale… well it might not even be that… I don’t know…
This reminds me of the once-proposed Ottawa arms and the problem with heraldic swooshes.
Quote:
Heraldry has a vocabulary of its own. Peculiar to outsiders, it is a language which enables heraldists to describe a coat of arms in words alone. The description is called a "blazon". The question on the lips of heraldists is: "How does one blazon such a travesty?" The "swoosh" is not found in any armorial. Even the Canadian Heraldic Authority is struggling to find suitable words for theblazon. This is one occasion when words really do fail!
http://www.ngw.nl/int/can/images/ottawan.jpg
http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/ottawa.htm
Quote:
The clear favourite of the public and the Visual Identity Advisory Committee was Series A which was developed by Accurate Design.The Ottawa logo was adopted with no modifications. To represent Ottawa as the nation’s capital, the tips of the three streamers comprising the stylized O peak into an abstract, subtle suggestion of a maple leaf and a hint of the local architecture. The two-colour version of the wordmark, blue and green, speaks to our quality of life, particularly our rivers and green space. These colours were most frequently suggested by our citizens in the public consultation process.
Yes… it does remind one of that Mike. 
I still like the crest of the Ottawa arms however.
Madalch wrote:
The Scandinavian arms I’ve seen may be stylized, but this doesn’t look like them at all.
I wrote that it ‘evoked’ Scandinavian design, not that it ‘looked like’ it. I agree that this may not be the most attractive CoA in the bunch. It does, however make for an interesting heraldic discussion.
Graphic design in the non-heraldic community is (and has been for some time) moving through a much more stylized phase. It’s natural, then, that this kind of artwork is showing up in heraldry. Should we ignore it? Should we decry it? Or should we figure out a way to blazon it?
I’ll play the devil’s advocate for a bit-
These questions bring Polish arms to mind (I’m really going to start that thread someday soon 
). When the French heralds got into Poland they were aghast because there was no convenient way to blazon the tamgas, the traditional heraldic devices of the Poles. So they started changing them in their rolls (without, I might add, consulting the Poles) into shapes and figures that they could blazon. After a few centuries, even the Poles, for the most part, couldn’t remember exactly what the tamgas meant anymore or what the differences were between their traditional symbols and the new ones that were thrust upon them.
This situation is different, of course: we’re not talking about ancient heraldic symbols that a group of artists are changing to suit their own needs. But we are talking about excluding a valid school of design because we don’t find it suitably heraldic and/or easily blazonable. Does that make it ‘bad heraldry’, or make us ‘inflexible heraldists’?
If our art cannot grow and change, it ceases to be ‘living’. Where do we ‘draw the line’?
Go back and look at the design for L&C at the top of the page.
Is it unique? Is it easily recognizable? Does it conform to the basic rules of heraldry? Except that we’d have difficulty blazoning it, I think the answer to all 3 questions is "Yes."
Here’s a crude attempt at the blazon: Per pale enhanced dexter Sable and Tenne an endorse Argent embowed to point. In sinister base upon a bar wavy pointed Argent a barrulet wavy of the field.
Patrick Williams wrote:
Here’s a crude attempt at the blazon: Per pale enhanced dexter Sable and Tenne an endorse Argent embowed to point. In sinister base upon a bar wavy pointed Argent a barrulet wavy of the field.
Here is mine: Per pale Sable and Tenne fimbriated Argent, the line of divison in chief skewed to dexter and in base counter embowed about the nombril point passing between the dexter and middle base points to the nether edge at center, in sinister base a bar gemel serpentine* each bar fitched at both ends Argent.
I am never sure how to blazon the small line between divisions. It is not fimbriated, and I don’t think it is an endorse. Maybe it is not really there.
Michael Swanson wrote:
Here is mine: Per pale Sable and Tenne fimbriated Argent, the line of divison in chief skewed to dexter and in base counter embowed about the nombril point passing between the dexter and middle base points to the nether edge at center, in sinister base a bar gemel serpentine* each bar fitched at both ends Argent.
I am never sure how to blazon the small line between divisions. It is not fimbriated, and I don’t think it is an endorse. Maybe it is not really there.
Oooohhhh…bars gemel! Cool! i don’t know about the ‘fimbriated’ part, though, doesn’t that indicate a border around something? I wasn’t sure it was an endorse either, maybe an endorselet? :confused: However, I do think it’s there as it’s Argent and thickish. If it were a thin black line, I’d say it wasn’t there.
Patrick Williams wrote:
i don’t know about the ‘fimbriated’ part, though, doesn’t that indicate a border around something? I wasn’t sure it was an endorse either, maybe an endorselet?
How about "edged"? According to Parker:
Fimbriated, (fr. bordé): said by strict heralds to be applied only to an ordinary or other charge having a narrow edging of some other tincture all round it, so that if any part touches the outer edging of the shield without the border being continued in that part the term should not be applied, but the term edged instead.
Endorse, endorce, or indorse: a diminutive of the pale, of which it is one-fourth, or according to some authorities, one-eight. It bears exactly the same relation to that ordinary as the cottice does to the bend.
Take care,
