Across a street, a flag can become a single patch of colour. Move closer and stars, lettering or an elaborate crest appear. The object has not changed, but the information available to you has. That small experience raises a surprisingly useful question: what should a public symbol communicate before we know its story?
In his 2023 video, So Many State Flags Failed I Had to Split the F Tier, CGP Grey turns American state flags into pupils receiving a pointed classroom critique. His grades are entertaining judgments, shaped by explicit rules and personal preferences. They offer a starting point for a broader investigation: how does a design become recognizable, meaningful and worth keeping? Watching today also requires a historical footnote, because some of the flags discussed have since changed.
A flag has to work in the wind
A design viewed on a laptop enjoys generous conditions. It lies flat, stays still and can be enlarged. A flag outside may be high above you, partly folded or briefly visible between buildings. The Flag Institute’s design guidance asks designers to consider these practical circumstances, including what happens in a breeze, a strong wind and still air.
Tennessee offers a concrete example. Its blue strip might seem incidental when the flag appears as a small rectangle on a screen. According to the Tennessee Historical Society, which preserves the original design, LeRoy Reeves added blue and white edging so all three colours would remain visible when the cloth hung limp. Grey likewise notices the difference between judging the design flat and seeing it fly.
This suggests a useful test for any visual criticism: describe the conditions under which the object must work. A design that excels on a commemorative plaque may struggle on moving cloth. Before calling a detail unnecessary, ask whether it solves a problem that your current view conceals.
Design principles make better questions
The North American Vexillological Association’s flag-design primer recommends simplicity, meaningful imagery, a limited colour palette, avoiding lettering or seals, and a distinctive design or deliberate relationship to other flags. These principles give a beginner something more useful than a vague feeling that a flag looks wrong.
Each recommendation can become a question. What remains recognizable at a distance? Which feature would someone remember tomorrow? Does the symbol need an explanation, and is that explanation worth learning? Questions keep the discussion open while making judgments more precise.
NAVA also acknowledges that taste varies and that flags departing from its guidelines can still inspire pride. That qualification matters. A community may value continuity, familiarity or a historical association more than a designer’s preferred level of simplicity.
Grey’s enthusiastic response to Maryland makes the role of taste especially visible. The value of watching a critic is partly learning to recognize the critic’s priorities. We can borrow a useful test without accepting every grade it produces.
Meaning needs a source
Recognizing a shape and understanding its meaning are separate achievements. A viewer can correctly identify a flag while knowing little about the people, events or decisions behind it. Conversely, someone may understand a design’s historical references without finding it easy to recognize from across a square.
Tennessee’s three stars, for example, represent its three Grand Divisions, according to the Historical Society’s account. That explanation comes from the flag’s documented history. Looking at three stars alone would not establish it. Another design could use the same number for entirely different reasons.
A responsible interpretation therefore begins by asking who supplied it. A designer’s explanation records an intention. An institution’s description records an official account. A resident’s recollection may reveal a personal attachment. These accounts can illuminate different aspects of the same object, and none should quietly be substituted for another.
Imagine a newcomer asking why an emblem matters. A clear answer might begin with its documented origins, then explain why one family displays it or why another questions it. That approach gives the newcomer evidence and a sense of the conversation. Simply declaring the design sacred, outdated or objectively excellent would tell them much more about the speaker’s verdict than about the symbol itself.
This also leaves room for disagreement. People can share a symbol without sharing every association it evokes. An honest account can describe the design, identify the documented intention and acknowledge that viewers bring their own histories. It need not force all those layers into one final definition.
The video needs a present-day footnote
Grey’s criticism of Minnesota concerns the flag in use when his video appeared. The Minnesota Secretary of State records May 11, 2024 as the adoption date of its new flag. The current design includes an eight-pointed white star, a dark shape suggesting the state’s outline and a bright blue field representing water.
Utah provides a different timing detail. The redesign appears near the end of Grey’s video, but approval and official use were separate events. The Utah State Library explains that the approving bill was signed on March 21, 2023, and the new flag became official on March 9, 2024. Its beehive carries official associations with community, history and industry.
These changes make the video a dated conversation rather than a current inventory. That is useful context, not a reason to discard it. Whenever an older explanation involves public institutions, distinguish the example that illustrated an argument from the situation that exists now. Neither a popular video nor a formal adoption, by itself, establishes unanimous public agreement.
Try reading one local symbol closely
Choose a flag, civic emblem or familiar sign near you. Begin with a description that another person could check: its colours, shapes, arrangement and visible words. Keep that first account separate from what the design reminds you of. “A red circle” is an observation; “a warning” is already an interpretation.
Next, find an account from the designer, issuing institution or community associated with the symbol. Look for dates and earlier versions. Ask whether the explanation describes the original intention or a later interpretation. If several accounts disagree, preserve that uncertainty instead of selecting whichever story feels most dramatic.
Finally, watch how the object is used. Does its main feature survive being folded, reduced or viewed in poor light? Is it displayed ceremonially, casually or only on official buildings? These observations cannot tell you what everyone feels, but they can sharpen the questions you bring to local history.
Shared geometry also deserves restraint. Two emblems might resemble each other because they use simple shapes, borrow an established convention or deliberately reference a predecessor. Visual similarity alone cannot determine which explanation applies. A persuasive interpretation supplies the missing historical connection.
Look again before reaching a verdict
The most lasting question in a flag discussion may be what we are asking the symbol to do. Identification, historical memory and personal attachment deserve attention, even when they pull a design in different directions. Stating those priorities makes a disagreement more informative.
Grey’s video rewards watching for the comparisons and humour. Carry its questions outside afterward. Find one symbol you pass regularly, notice how it works at a distance, and learn who gave it meaning. That is a small, practical exercise in seeing familiar surroundings with greater care.
Original video: So Many State Flags Failed I Had to Split the F Tier, by CGP Grey. This article adds independent analysis and updated historical context.
