David's points are well taken. Personally, I don't see the problem with a
tasteful logo at the beginning of an exhibit or recognition panel (or on a
publication or web site. We shouldn't forget that exhibits are becoming a
smaller percentage of our overall offerings) with some text thanking the
corporation. However, I admit it is a slippery slope with some embarrassing
transgressions. I have recently noticed a trend in Science and Industry
museums that not only allow a logo but several panels that are
advertisements thinly veiled as part of an exhibit. This is usually done for
a company that has a technological connection to the exhibit. One recent
example had a Lucent technologies panel within an exhibit on communications
technologies. We couldn't tell where the exhibit stopped and the
advertisement began.  This line can be very blurry when the exhibit itself
is a history of a particular company that is important to the history of a
local community or is responsible for great technical innovation.

I do have two questions. The first one I have never seen brought up in this
context, and the second has been hinted at but not confronted. I have my own
ideas, but I am curious what others think.

1. If we can agree that corporate logos are a shaky idea at best, how do we
feel about government agency logos? A museum that would never allow a Coke
logo probably wouldn't hesitate to include a NASA or NOAA logo if they
contributed money. I have also had grants from local humanities councils
that required the placement of their logo on all publications related to the
event. Why do we accept one but not the other? It seems to me their purposes
are the same; to garner good PR from the granting group. And the issue of
control is still valid. As we all know, government agencies often assert a
certain amount of control on content both covertly and overtly. Government
logos can sometimes get good PR for politicians and bureaucrats who have
made it their business to gut the very programs that are getting them the
good publicity. I hate when that happens.

2. David used the phrase "selling out to commercial entities" in his post
below. However, I believe in an earlier post he eluded to the equally bad
influence of corruption by control of individual private donors and I would
like to explore that. Although I am no fan of corporation's various attempts
at controlling museum content when they donate money, I have long felt there
was a double standard when compared with private donors. I have seen museums
bend over backwards for individual donors in a way they would never do for
corporations. Sometimes editing exhibit text and choosing particular photos.
This is more maddening when a large donor is a board member and assumes that
such donation gets him/her more control than other board members. To cite
one example, a museum was opened in the last ten years in a major Eastern
City. (You find out which one I am talking about, sorry). It was opened
largely with one individual's money, spouse's money, and foundation money
which one or both had access to. (Exact numbers are hard to come by). That
individual had sole control over the design and construction of the museum
and  is currently the volunteer executive director of the museum. (last I
heard) The museum is often mentioned in Museum News and wins design awards
from AAM on a regular basis. (As far as I know all well earned awards, it is
a wonderful museum and the individual in question is doing a fine job by all
accounts) Can you imagine for a second that we (the museum community) would
sit still for a corporation doing the same thing? Can you imagine the CEO of
McDonalds opening an art museum and taking full control of the collecting
and exhibiting process and keeping him or herself in the director's seat?
That would elicit howls from the museum community as well as the popular
press that would be heard for decades.

One aspect of this I find especially curious is when the individual donors
are themselves high ranking officers in the very corporations under
discussion or are closely related to a corporation. What is the effective
difference between ten million dollars from the CEO of an oil company and
getting the same amount from the company itself? Sometimes I have heard this
expressed as a decision based on the ethics of the donor. Many of us (I have
heard) would never take money from gun or tobacco companies. We don't seem
to like what they do. Fair enough. But why don't we apply the same standards
to individuals? Some of this country's most generous donors have been guilty
of truly awful things as officers in the same corporations. Why do we not
send their money back?

Also, if we are worried about giving undue publicity to a corporation, why
would we not name a building or exhibit hall after a corporation but would
gladly do it for an individual who is closely associated with the same
corporation and may even share the last name. For example, at the Baltimore
Museum of Industry there is a small exhibit on Black and Decker and the
revolution in the home improvement and construction industries their early
inventions created.  But the exhibit is housed in the Alonzo Decker gallery.
Where does the exhibit end and the advertisement start?


Sorry that was so long, but I am trapped at work with a wonderful snow storm
raging outside and I just can't keep my mind off the slopes.


--
Matthew White
Director of Museums
Mount Washington Observatory
www.mountwashington.org


David E. Haberstich Wrote:

> This is exactly my point--there SHOULD be museum guidelines to prevent an
> appearance of conflict of interest or of selling out to commercial entities.
> At the same time, of course, each case should be evaluated on its own merits.
> Corporate logos seek to establish name recognition for advertising purposes,
> so they should be shunned, IMHO, in a museum context.  Donors should be given
> appropriate credit--but in the same typeface as the remainder of the label, I
> believe, because special logos connote advertising.  Obviously, mere mention
> of a well-known company as a donor and/or displaying its products represents
> a type of advertising in itself, the effect of which is unavoidable, but
> there's no need to overdo it.  Company logos connote commercialism.
>
> As a corollary, those with long memories may recall that this ties in with my
> previous comments in favor of giving all donors credit in exhibitions as a
> general practice--then the museum can't be accused of giving preferential
> treatment (and advertising) only to wealthy donors and big corporations.
> Give credit where credit is due, but no more.
>
> The use of company logos on entrance panels, it seems to me, is tasteless and
> unnecessary.  In one especially egregious example within recent memory, an
> exhibition's funder not only got its logo on an entrance panel, but in
> strategic locations throughout the exhibition--I counted several dozen
> occurrences. A newspaper critic noticed too and took the museum to task for
> it in his review, complete with a satirical, punning headline.  Museums would
> be well advised to avoid risking that kind of ridicule and loss of
> credibility.
>
> David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).