Why The Met Logo Failed
Davar Azarbeygui
Design Director | Adjunct Professor at DAAP University of Cincinnati
This past week Wolff Olins released the new identity for The Metropolitan Museum of New York, where approximately 7 to 8 million people visit every year. A significant New York City landmark and institution for visitors and students of art history. A place where I've spent countless hours studying Autumn River Number 30 by Jackson Pollock or hung out at the the Frank Lloyd Wrights replica of one of his living room designs, set in the most inspiring and virtual living space you can ever visit.
The Met Museum is not your average museum, nor it's set in your average city, it's a cultural cathedral of history, housing some of the greatest pieces of art of our time, a huge time capsule of mankind’s past and present achievements.
Therefore when you're the agency tasked to design the new identity and you spend two entire years creating the strategy, idea and new logo, it better be great, it has to be something for the ages, and it definitely has to be a worthy design that pays respect to the past masters housed inside this temple. Anything short of a masterpiece is pretty much going to be bashed by critics but also by tough New Yorkers who have no problem expressing their dislike in the most crude and honest way.
So, as a New Yorker, when I saw the new identity, what struck me the most what the lack of pride and respect for my city. It feels like it doesn’t fit in the pantheon of the iconic logos, like Milton Glaser’s I Love New York, or John Mcdowell’s Yankees logotype or even the current City of New York identity designed by Wolff Olins themselves!
What’s missing with the new, THE MET identity is that it’s doesn't have the brash attitude or the resilience of New York past, present and future glory.
The cool and fresh vibe of New York City is inherently missing, so is a fundamental sense of avant-garde style in typography design. Putting aside all the subjective critics I’ve read about, the crashing typography, the throw back to the 70’s style, and amateur design attempt, the flaws do not lie in the design alone, but more in the who and the what. Clearly Wolff Olins must have had a difficult time navigating the politics of 91 curators, but we know you cannot design by committee, or try to please everyone. Also being in an election year does not really help, just look at the Jeb! campaign logo, see any resemblance?
I believe that the museum should have really given this job to one of the many living premier logo designers, like Michael Bierut, Paula Sher, David Carson or even Stefan Sagmeister and Jessica Walsh. Designers who not only represent the best in the business, but embody New York design attitudes and styles over the past 30 years. Designers who can stand up in front of a committee and avoid getting bullied into delivering what they don’t feel represents New York or what they truly believe is great design.
After all the dust settles down, Wolf Ollins will still remain one of the best design agencies and the The Metropolitan Museum will probably revisit the logo in a couple of years. Unfortunately I don’t see the current identity represent the best of the best in design my New York has to offer.
Design Director | Adjunct Professor at DAAP University of Cincinnati
8 年I appreciate your comment. The strategy and thinking behind the brand development is spot on, but the execution of the identity does match what they preached. Wolf explains that the typography nature of the type running into each other is intended to demonstrate communication and connection. I just don't see it that way. In terms of a New Yorker I don't feel the connection to this word mark either, nor any sense of belonging or pride.
VP Strategy & Innovation, Western Europe at Marks, part of SGS & Co
8 年To be clear though, the design task was to brand The Metropolitan Museum, not the entire city. I think you're asking too much. Although The Met is a New York institution, they are a powerful iconic brand all their own. Therefore if 'the city itself' were indeed on your brief, (arguably it shouldn't be) it would need to reflect only the part/attitude/persona of the city that reflects the brand itself, which must take first priority. Perhaps locale, architectural elements, or clientele might inform this 'city' aspect of your priority of communication. But to say a mark fails because of an inability to reflect your subjective view, or indeed anyone's subjective experience of New York - in all its vibrancy, intensity, and nuance - is unfair and unfocused.