Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

What's in a logo? More than meets the eye

Please, beloved Philadelphia Museum of Art, before you print one piece of stationery or a single promotional flier, reconsider your new logo.

Please, beloved Philadelphia Museum of Art, before you print one piece of stationery or a single promotional flier, reconsider your new logo.

Never mind that it's a product of the world's most highly respected design collective - it's simply not a logo; it's a lifeless arrangement of (subtly customized) ordinary typography. It lacks the gravitas, the distinction, the tradition, and the personality of one of the undoubted jewels - indeed, the centerpiece - in the crown of Philadelphia's demonstrative dedication to the arts. And, by the way, it lacks the Gryphon. The typography in the previously existing logo may also have been bathwater, but let's not throw out the baby, OK?

That a logo should honestly and proudly represent the entity it was designed for should go without saying. And this logo fails on that most basic criterion. A logo is the very face of an organization, be it a corporation or a public institution, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art deserves better than such a featureless face.

A logo should, at the very least, be able to catch the attention of the otherwise preoccupied passerby or reader. This is often achieved through the use of contrast, which should draw attention to a focal point - the concept of the logo. In this case, the word Art employs size contrast, but the word is entirely generic, the typestyle lacks character, and if the concept is that the Philadelphia Art Museum contains art, that's a pretty weak message.

Perhaps most relevant, a logo should be distinctive. It should create a visual impression that is unlike any other logo, and its distinction should match the distinctiveness of the entity it represents. It is in this regard that the new Philadelphia Art Museum logo fails to the greatest extent. As my parodies reveal, the look of the new logo could be applied to an infinite number of other institutions.

I have read that the rationale for the new logo is that it allows for a great deal of ostensibly clever substitutions for the letter A. Granted, each of those will give it a more engaging personality and a stronger focal point.

But when the logo is presented on stationery and signage, it's likely to appear in its weakest state - unadorned by one of the interchangeable images.

A logo design should not be driven by the games that can be played with it. A system that allows for creative interpretation is a great idea, but the system should serve the logo - the logo should not be designed to serve the system.

A logo should last for decades, and the energy inherent in the substitution of images for the letter A cannot remain fresh for very long at all. The interest derived from those images is shallow - skin deep. Like a mask, it will merely hide the ordinariness of the personality beneath it. And when the games have run their course, the lifeless arrangement of ordinary typography will remain.