Larry,
I believe that a museum should not fear edging towards advertising in a time where institutions are forced to compete for attention with so many other venues. In most cities, museums and galleries can ill afford not to try to "draw the people in from the street".
I beleieve all this must be tempered though with the strong beleive that these institutions are mainly for the purpose of education and not amusement. And its in this that the real minds behind our galleries and museums face their real challenge.

"David E. Haberstich" wrote:

> In a message dated 00-12-28 12:44:41 EST, Larry Burke wrote:
>
> << I do believe that logos can be used on credit panels, but only on credit
>  panels (unless part of the actual exhibition), and the museum should have
>  restrictions on size, with all logos monotone (matching the rest of the
>  credit panel-- why should the museum have to pay for four-color printing,
>  and if the company pays for it, it does begin to edge towards advertising).
> >>
>
> Aha, moron logos!  Wait!  I meant more on logos! :-)
>
> Sorry, folks, I couldn't resist!  At the continuing risk of carrying this
> discussion too far over the edge, I'm going to strike a seemingly
> self-contradictory pose and say let logos be logos!  I'm not sure such a
> compromise is necessary.  Stop!  Cancel that wimpy sentence.  I meant don't
> mess with your sponsor's precious symbols. Most logos incorporate colors as
> central design elements, and if you're going to show the logo at all, I'd say
> show it in all its tawdry, commercial, tasteless glory.  Go for the gusto.
> If I were a Coke exec sponsoring an exhibition and you told me I couldn't
> have the red in my logo--and the precisely right red at that--I'd say
> fuhgeddaboutit.  If the point of showing the logo is "readability", why omit
> one of the key features which makes it instantly familiar and "readable"?
>
> The color issue is one of the practical reasons I'd be inclined to avoid
> showing sponsors' logos.  It's just easier to work with plain text than to
> worry about reproducing the sponsor's logo accurately.  (My primary reasons,
> as explained before, involve questions of taste, philosophy, ethics, etc.)
> But good grief, it you opt to show the logo, reproduce it faithfully without
> alteration.  (IMHO, of course.)
>
> Back to "readability", I think this is variable, depending upon your
> audience.  I've been assuming that a plain-text rendition of a corporate name
> would be more readable to a wider range of people--all they have to be is
> literate; they don't need to be familiar with commercial symbols.  Perhaps
> there are more people, including children and the illiterate, who would
> recognize a widely disseminated commercial symbol than could read the
> plain-text company name.  But once you get beyond the most widely recognized
> logos, this recognition factor would diminish to the point that the plain
> text would be more "readable".  In the case of companies with less
> recognizable logos, it might be argued that what the museum is doing in
> displaying their logos is helping to make them more viable in the marketplace
> by enhancing public recognition of their symbols--in a word, helping them to
> advertise, which I don't consider appropriate for museums.  If the display of
> the most instantly recognizable logos doesn't exactly constitute advertising,
> it's merely because the company or products are already so familiar that the
> "advertising" effect is minimal--our environment is already saturated with
> it.  (However, doesn't the mere display of a Coke logo advertise it at the
> expense of, say, Pepsi?)  In any event, I'm concerned that displaying a logo
> seems to imply the museum is giving its stamp of approval to the company and
> its products.  I think a lower-key, plain-text credit line is more likely to
> be interpreted as a simple acknowledgment of support, rather than a stamp of
> approval.
>
> By contrast, I think displaying a logo for a non-commercial, nonprofit
> foundation or funding source SHOULD be interpreted as the museum's stamp of
> approval, so, aesthetic considerations aside, the use of such symbols is
> fine.  Apropos of that, however, I'm still waiting for some verification of
> the assertion that organizations like NEA and NEH require the display of
> their logos.  In fact, I'm not sure I've ever even seen their logos.
>
> As usual, I didn't intend to write a lengthy addition to this thread.  I've
> learned a lot from the discussion, and I appreciate the opportunity to
> express my views and clarify them in my own mind.  I think (I hope) I've said
> everything I have to offer.  I'm secretly hoping no one else will stimulate
> me with new provocative arguments on this subject!  Note: that doesn't mean
> I'm asking to have the last word!
>
> 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).

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