In a message dated 00-12-21 12:25:44 EST, David Haynes wrote:

<< David, if as a museum visitor I want to know who helped with the exhibit
 or who lent artifacts or who is responsible for the whole thing or who
 made it financially possible (and maybe influenced the exhibit's tone and
 viewpoint), I believe I have every right to expect the panel to
 communicate with me as effectively as possible. The use of logos will
 probably allow me to get the information I want more quickly and easily.
 Yes, the logos should be small; yes, the type should be small; yes, the
 credit copy should be placed in a less important location; but still it
 should be there and, once I find it, it should be as easy as possible for
 me to read it. >>

Let me stipulate that David Haynes is pulling our collective leg when he says
he seldom disagrees with me.  He and I disagree as often as we agree, it
seems to me, and have enjoyed numerous private e-mail debates.

One of the topics on which we have disagreed was private vs.public support
for museums.  In a lengthy message (it printed out to 6 pages, although to be
fair, half the content consisted of quotations from my posts) which he sent
me in November, he asserted that, in an ideal world, tax-supported
institutions would be fully financed by public moneys and not require any
private funding at all.  In such a world, I would suggest, there would be no
need for corporate or private logos on exhibit credit panels anyway (except
to credit gifts or loans of individual objects).  I suspect that his secret
agenda is to clutter credit panels with such a miasma of logos that the
public will run screaming to their legislators, demanding 100% tax support in
order to drive logomaniacs from public view.  (If I've misinterpreted his
previous position or jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, I''m sure he won't
be shy about clarifying.)

Again, I say, people and organizations who don't have nifty logos with an
instant recognition quotient are at a disadvantage in the credit-panel
sweepstakes.  Anyone who expects to fund a museum exhibit should design a
nifty logo now.  Don't go logoless.

If the issue is readability on credit panels, however, I must say I find
plain text a heckuva lot easier to read than fancy logos which need to be
decoded.  I'm not interested in viewing credit panels that look like laundry
lists in hieroglyphics.  Don't get me wrong--I love hieroglyphics, but I find
trying to memorize and read them slow going.  But that's just me.  Your
mileage may vary.

So I'm not convinced that logos are easier for everyone to read if they just
want information.  I liked T. W. Moran's comment about "globule"
corporatization.  A nice turn of phrase, that.  When I see too many logos on
a credit panel, I think that's what they look like--globules.

<<Here I most definitely disagree. My guess is that the folks at NEH really
hope that exhibit visitors will leave saying, 'Wow, that was a great
exhibit that NEH funded. I can't wait to get home and write my
congresspersons in support of that terrific agency.' OK, I never said the
NEH guys were terribly realistic (just look as some of the projects they
have funded <g>). Is this the reason they funded the exhibit? Of course
not. Is this the reason they would prefer to have their logo on the
credit panel? Hmmm, wouldn't surprise me a bit.>>

And it wouldn't surprise me a bit, David, if the reason Coca-Cola wanted its
logo in an exhibit would be to stimulate sales--just so they'll have more
money to contribute to worthy causes, of course.  A plain-text credit, while
good PR, probably wouldn't stimulate sales to the same degree.  If more sales
provide more money for worthy causes, it would be counterproductive for
museums to discourage the logos that increase the sales that increase the
profits that increase the contributions...  Ah, I see.  Then why stop at
logos?  Why not provide full-blown advertising with full museum endorsement?
"If you like this exhibit, this museum recommends that you purchase our
sponsor's products so they can better afford to support us in the manner to
which we would like to become accustomed.  When you purchase their products,
tell the dealer this museum sent you."

Regarding a separate message which suggested that NEH and other funders
require the use of their logos, I wonder if it's possible to quote such a
stipulation?  I took a cursory look at several NEH- and NEA-funded
publications, and didn't see any logos, just plain text.

Despite disagreements, the consensus seems to be that credit lines, with or
without logos, should be tasteful.  Of course, tastes vary...

About my subject line: In trying to think of--or coin--a word to connote
logo-clutter, logorrhea came to mind.  Possibly an example of a false
cognate, or playing fast and loose with facile suffixes, it doesn't work
because it already means something else.  But it may serve as an appropriate
characterization for a thread which may be getting too long, and, having long
since said what I wanted to say, I probably should try to--excuse the
expression--LOG Off from this discussion.

David Haberstich
(Personal logo: ?!!)

=========================================================
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).