首先得說的是，台灣現今的設計環境好似七〇年代現代主義教條開始僵化的荷蘭。但脈絡上卻是以反向進行。荷蘭人是其來有自的想要擺脫當時奉行已久的傳統，尤其在那個冷戰方興未艾、急於突破的時代。有的設計師像是Jan van Toorn以降，很積極地想要參與貢獻內容的主體性，以較為龐克、破壞的形式企圖喚醒社會責任與案件的滲入。反之，也有固守現代主義的中堅（產）如Wim Crouwel一派，堅持標準模式與規範典型為主的現代主義形式。這裡面並沒有對錯，尤其當我們以當代的角度回首觀望。
說回今天這個雙十主標的設計，我覺得我們的確有點在前述類似的情境路線，只是以相反的方向。我們才剛開始要追逐現代性，以現代化具清晰辨識、具格律的表現形式去設定我們的社會型態；但殊不知有些腳步是追不上的，而追上了也不適切，即便追上了，兩組社會的本質與時代也不同，因而在這追逐複製文化轉移的過程當中，很多事物其實就喪失了。
最近的三耳師的總統郵票、這兩屆的國慶主標剛好成為現實裡最佳的範例。事實上，這種設計現象，對我們這群關注的人是好的傾向，尤其在這還持續發展中的台灣。這些設計都很好，只是賣豬肉給出家人從來不是恰當的事。再讓我們回看這國慶設計本身，以視覺溝通這門專業來說，其實在設計商標時是有些執行基準的 — — 也就是陰陽正負空間上的平衡。依據以此，這商標要是縮小的話似乎會變得有點難以辨識；還有顏色上的使用，不是不行使用螢光色，但必須清晰，尤其在使用四個不同光譜端的螢光色時（黃色似乎又顯得更加黯淡）。最後，還有在雙十網格與那個藍色圓點的標記之間，在位置與切角上有點尷尬。諸如此類，加上作者針對內容的說明似乎跟國慶主題不太相關，的而且確地，因而留下了一些問號。
作為一個關心我身處社會環境的設計專業與市民，可以從同溫層感覺得到我周遭大多數的同僚無不歡欣鼓舞地讚賞，但似乎沒人對於這個專案的目的與用途為何質疑，特別是這年復一年的主視覺製作，以此在這雙十佳節代表「中華民國」。也許我們該簡短地問的是 — — 為何我們在這特別的日子於一個不存在的國度會如此地開懷，尤其看到一組不同過往的視覺表現；或問，為何，我們無法超越這藉由視覺好感度提升的視覺以強加「中華民國國慶」的集體意識的動作，而反能用一個非同以往黨國色彩濃厚般，卻怪畸的、古奇的、變形的主視覺去喚醒國人思考，所謂的「一國建立之日」對我們而言究竟是什麼。
不過，以一門認真嚴肅的學科來說，這邊我們以視覺溝通來講，懷抱如此具政治意涵宣傳訊息的任務，不會讓人覺得有點太過強加工務在僅僅是一幀視像上嗎？這當然有些諷刺，但身為一個邦交友人一位接一位的逐漸離去、不被聯合國諸眾接受為世界村的一份子的幼小島國來講，也許我們必須自問的是，是否生活中的任何事都要牽扯到政治；又或許，如同湯瑪斯・曼所言：
「我們對於敵對的一方常會感到生氣與興奮，而漸漸默默地被誘導過去；尤其當我們自己對於自身所在之處感到迷惘之時。」
Some notion about the 2018 National day logo design of ROC in Taiwan
First of all the current design environment in Taiwan is a bit rigid obsessing in the Modernist dogmas like Nederland in 70s, yet the context is kind of reverse; Dutch were trying to get rid of the long-standing convention of the time from Modernism, especially during the Cold War era. Some Dutch designers like Jan van Toorn and so on were very active in trying to participate and devote into the subjectivity of content, provoking the participation in term of the social responsibility, tried to do it in more destructive, punky way to breakthrough whether the content or the context. On the other hand, there were also backbones that adhere to Modernism, insisting the standardized module and guidelines of Modernism that should be preserved, such as the infamous Modernist Wim Crouwel. There’s no right or wrong in that period of time as we look back from the eyes of contemporary.
Talking back to the design of Double 10 in Taiwan today, I feel that we are now in the similar path mentioned above yet the opposite way around, especially we only start to chasing after the Modernity, to set up our social form in design, with concise, clearly-identified and rhythmic expressions; however, we do not know that the same paces to the old generations won’t lead us to accelerate posthaste to the goal in today’s Formosa, we will never be able to catching up, nor being appropriate to do so. Even if we’ve made it, the essences of different societies and times are never the same, not talking about there are a lot of things that have lost its core in this sort of culture transition, regardless of the process of imitating.
The recent presidential stamps design of Aaron Nieh, and the National day celebration identity in these couple of years are perfect examples to brief the truth. This kind of design phenomenon, as matter of the fact, is a good tendency for people like us to witness that how it grows in a developing market like Taiwan, they’re not bad design at all, just selling beefs to the monks is never the right deal. And once again, when we look back to the National day design itself, in the profession of visual communication, there is a very important principle in the implementation level of visual identity / logo design which is the significance of the balance of the positive and negative space. In term of that, this logo seems difficult to see once it shrinks. As well as the usage of colors, it’s actually fine to apply contrast colors, but the recognition needs to be clear, especially using four vivid colors. And I’m not sure if there is any consideration in between the mesh grids and the corner of the circle, it’s indeed embarrassed. The appropriateness of the design explanation according to the topic apart from the form is also irrelevant, hence it is open to question.
As a design professional and a citizen pays concerns to the circumstance of the society where I situated in, it seems that the reflection of my peers are all having a plenty of joy as the praise arose as a whole, yet no one has a thought doubting the orientation and purpose to create one and once again yearly a logo to represent the ROC in the day of double 10. In short, maybe the question we should ask is: why we are so happy to see that we have a refreshing look image in this particular day in term of celebration of a national that doesn’t exist, and why, we cannot surmount the enhanced collective memory based on the favorability of a good looking logo, instead to generate an ugly, wiggy or eccentric one to educe people to think of ‘the day of the establishment.’
Notwithstanding a serious discipline, hereby we say visual communication, holds such a mission to deliver this political intentional propaganda message, does that make us think that carries on too much effort to be a mere symbolic image? Well it’s kinda ironic yet as a nation denied by UN and generally and gradually lost its diplomatic relationships one by another, perhaps, we have to ask ourselves if everything is politics in the life we live in, as Thomas Mann noted:
‘We are most likely to get angry and excited in our opposition to some idea when we ourselves are not quite certain of our own position, and are inwardly tempted to take the other side.’
