The Met and a New Logo

In the case of the new Met logo I find it intriguing to consider the extent to which the public’s reaction might be influenced by a persuasive re-education campaign involving explanation and justification by publicists for the museum.

I don’t like the visual crafted by Messrs. Wolf Olins.  I laughed out loud as I read Justin Davidson’s “ . . . the whole ensemble looks like a red double-decker bus that has stopped short, shoving the passengers into each other’s backs” and a caustic Twitter follow up (@davidruston613):  “You may need eye surgery after viewing”.   My professor, however, modulated those barbs—when I impulsively griped:  “If it needs to be explained it’s obviously not very good.”—by observing that it is not unusual for something unfamiliar to be opposed at first.  I am not yet persuaded my gut aversion will dissipate, but her caution resonated even in that instant.

Some brands that were initially met with derision have long since transmuted into the lexicon of their industries. They have proven, and commonsense also predicts, that initial opposition may abate as a mark becomes familiar over time.  Acceptance, rejection and perception are also often affected by evolving social mores, trends or politics.  Further, this effect may be enhanced if the mark is attached to an already iconic institution and is the single unpopular element in an otherwise successful re-branding. Accordingly, criticism of The Met may quickly become yesterday’s news if it ignores the controversy and contentious commentary.  In the meantime, none of this nattering impacts its membership or visitor rolls one whit. Provided a brand performs well the clamor of its most fervent critics should still.

As for the character that until recently bore the responsibility of conveying the Metropolitan Museum of Art to its public, I cannot even recall that solo M.  It might well be a signature indelible in the memory of those closely affiliated with the previous brand or which art critics of renown are loath to relinquish, but the colloquialism has always been “The Met”. The mark formerly known as M has never portrayed the museum to me and I do not think I am alone in that impression.  This aspect of the re-branding scores an impeccable grade.

I may concede, at some point in the distant future, on the issue of the disastrous double decker bus if it no longer jars my eye.  By then I too will have long forgotten what the fuss was all about.