Subsequently reading The Age of the Anti-Logo, I think it’s fair to say that developing a museum brand is a complicated task. Each logo needs to have an identity.
It sounds easy enough but many museum’s identities originally used serifs, focused on the building’s structure, and or the important ruler’s seal/emblem. However some museums can have more than one type of focus.
Recently museums like the Whitney changed their logo. Although the previous logo was relevant to the early 00’s (10 years old), the pixelated logotype (representation of the dot-com boom) has become outdated.
What I enjoyed about this reading was the way it made me question “the crisis of confidence”. I found this interesting because the article described how it’s good to adapt, be “flexible” and attractive to the viewer and donors but then question if in doing so your attention is drawn away from the museum’s original purpose.
Prior to this article I thought the focus was the target audience. Now I think what makes a logo successful is one that adapts and keeps originality. Like the Museum of Art and Design. The best way I can describe their logo is positive and negative space. The MAD remains but the image inside changes to the exhibition.
Print this page
I definitely agree with the fact that coming up with a logo that is timeless and adapts to the time is a complicated task. While you may not please everyone at the end of the day you have to create something that appeals to a vast crowd.