The flag of Oregon is the only state flag with different pictures on each side.

Both sides have a field of navy blue with design in gold.
The front shows a heart-shaped shield with an eagle on top surronded by thirty-three stars.
( The number of states in 1859. )
The scene on the shield is the sun setting over the Pacific Ocean, mountains, forests and a covered wagon.
A plow, wheat and pick-ax represent farming and mining.
Of the two ships: The one leaving is a British ship and the one arriving is a United States ship representing trade.
The eagle represents the United States.
On a banner are the words “The Union” representing support for the United States.
Finally the flag is emblazoned with the words “State of Oregon” above the picture and the date of statehood “1859” below. (from 50states.com)
The beaver is the state animal, though this was determined without the written or spoken acknowledgement of any known representative of the species.

Terrific art direction in that flag.
Done without a computer.
When a person art directed a flag in 1859 it meant more than most communications do now.
Soldiers would carry what you designed into battle.
Governors and presidents would stand next to it.
It was going in books.
Here’s the question: do we not respect the work we do now as much as the work from a hundred years ago because there’s so much more of it now, or do we not respect it because we don’t make work meant to last, meant to be iconic, meant to mean something?
Conundrum.
If we do remarkable, salute-able work, will it draw from the audience a greater response?
Or is that over?
Can our post-modern hearts not gather feelings for symbols anymore?
What i like most, and what i think lasts, is there’s a story in the symbols.
There’s always a story in anything that lasts.