In this blog, Caitlin Merlin explores the history of the Ribbon Project and its impact on reducing the AIDS stigma in the early 1990s.

It has been said that, ‘there’s a ribbon for everything’. In other words, for every medical condition and large-scale tragedy, there is an associated coloured ribbon to show support. There is a long and varied history of the use of supportive ribbons, but the modern looped charity ribbon only debuted with the appropriately-named Ribbon Project, or ‘red ribbon’ in 1991, to support People with AIDS (PWAs).

It was designed by the Artists’ Caucus of New York non-profit organisation Visual AIDS. The creators framed the ribbon as ‘a symbol of our sympathy, support, and a hope for a day without AIDS’. The creators chose the red colouring to reflect passion, but later extended the symbolism to the connection between AIDS and blood products.

Ribbons appeared locally in New York City from early 1991, but the full project launch did not occur until the Tony Awards on 2 June 1991. Caucus members made the ribbons at crafting ‘ribbon bees’, and Tony attendees were approached to wear the ribbon through personal industry connections and favours across the city.

Ribbon wearing of this kind was so new that there was no uniformity in their display at the Tonys. Much of this was due to the short timeline for making the ribbons and providing instructions, but the varied appearances amplified the grassroots nature of the project. By the time of the Oscars in March 1992, a broadened understanding was clear, with many more attendees wearing the ribbon.

The increased uptake is notable when comparing people who wore the ribbon at the Oscars but had not at the Tonys nine months earlier. This does not mean that wearers were previously against the cause, but instead that the grassroots nature of the project reduced its early outreach and made it a potential cultural risk for initial wearers.

By mid-1992 the ribbon had cemented its place in popular culture, with Jesse Green of the New York Times labelling it ‘the Year of the Ribbon’. Initial responses were positive, but as popularity grew, the ribbon indicated a central division in AIDS symbolism and activism between direct action work and symbolic outreach. The ribbon had developed as a silent but visible show of support, but Green argued that within a year the ribbon had moved from ‘a political gesture to a fashion statement to a small industry’.

When compared to the other major symbol of queer activism of the period, the pink triangle, the sudden turn against the ribbon is notable. Developed by Avram Finkelstein and the silence=death collective, the pink triangle and accompanying phrase ‘silence=death’ held direct political significance. It referenced silence about the AIDS epidemic and broader injustices against queer communities. The visual connection of the symbol to the pink triangle for homosexuality used by the Nazi regime strengthened the political significance even further.

Visual AIDS executive director Patrick O’Connell suggested that a wider audience used the red ribbon due to its comparably muted anger, and the triangle’s association with ACT UP, a prominent activism group known for their often incendiary protest tactics. In effect, O’Connell argued the Ribbon Project offered a way to support PWAs without potential societal backlash.

This perspective, however, caused immediate dissent. By splitting AIDS symbolism into ‘acceptable’ and ‘not acceptable’, activists viewed the ribbon as a way for prominent figures to display awareness while avoiding actively using their influence or funds. Art collective Gran Fury (associated with ACT UP) summarised this perceived ambivalence in its poster campaign, ‘YOU CAN’T WEAR A RED RIBBON IF YOU’RE DEAD’, reflecting the disconnect between public shows of support and the simultaneous lack of practical funding for PWAs, as seen clearly by activists in urban areas.

Rural activists instead sought representations that could start discussions and reduce negativity in areas without large PWA communities, acting as a ‘stepping stone to awareness’ in isolated regions. As disagreements and the Ribbon Project’s popular recognition increased, discussion revolved around deciding what purpose a symbolic gesture served in the face of constant preventable death.

While the Ribbon Project grew, division between its first purpose as a form of direct awareness campaigning and its broad use as a supportive symbol increased. Though the ribbon held strong significance for smaller communities, the New York expansion of ribbon-related merchandise created a dilemma for city activists as they observed the emerging ‘AIDS fashion’ market.

The appearance of growing selections of expensive ribbon-related items strengthened public perception of the ribbon as a fashion item, designed to be replaced by other commodities at the end of the season. This profit-generating commercialism directly conflicted with the project’s design, which encouraged giving ribbons away without payment.

Despite this, the Ribbon Project received prominent recognition from Brandweek and the Council of Fashion Designers of America in 1992. The visibility of these forms of recognition increased disagreements surrounding ribbon use, strengthening feelings that the ribbon was a fashion accessory rather than a unifying symbol.

Artists’ Caucus member Frank Moore suggested that the abundance of ribbons encouraged constant reflection on the epidemic. By 1993, though, general artist community sentiments demonstrated a growing unease. Photographer David Seidner’s comments were the most pointed, describing the ribbons as ‘trivializ[ing] this catastrophe’.

Media coverage ensured that the Ribbon Project would reach oversaturation, but it happened faster than expected, with activist backlash and copycat ribbons quickly reducing the project’s impact. By 1993, interpretations of the ribbon as an expression to ‘alleviate guilt through trickle-down awareness, to make people comfortable without having to do anything’, as suggested by Seidner, had moved from a niche perspective to a common understanding. The simplicity of the Ribbon Project’s concept had aided its turn from favour, as it was unable to reflect the cultural complexity of the AIDS epidemic.

AIDS theorist Simon Watney discussed the Ribbon Project’s trajectory in 1994, citing it as a core point of interaction between AIDS activists and momentary supporters. Feelings surrounding the ribbon shifted rapidly, but Watney stressed that while reasons for ribbon wearing could be unclear, activists needed to assume good intentions from all wearers. These assumptions could then work in tandem with continued demonstrations, to ‘articulate the fundamental issues at stake in the AIDS crisis in such a way that this is unambiguously what red ribbons come to mean’.

The red ribbon was a noble effort to reduce AIDS stigma in 1991, but influential figures using it without actively supporting PWAs quickly corroded the ribbon’s positive associations. Today, most institutional and governmental AIDS organisations continue to use the red ribbon in their branding, while the symbol is still contentious for independent groups.

In a world of injustices and symbols of support that have moved from fashion items to social media posts, the Ribbon Project serves as a reminder of the necessary balance between passive and active support.

Caitlin Merlin (she/they) is a PhD candidate at the University of Adelaide.

Her PhD research analyses artistic community development of specialised non-profit organisations in New York City during the initial AIDS crisis.

Caitlin tweets as @caitlinmerlin.

Copyright remains with individual authors who grant VIDA holding a perpetual, world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce and promote content. For permission to re-publish any VIDA blog post, in whole or in part, please contact the managing editors at auswhn@gmail.com.au