Project 1: Museum Rebrand
Responding to WHITNEY brand identity:
- What was your initial reaction to the Whitney identity system after reading the first article?
I find myself more or less being on the same page and agreeing with the intent of the logo redesign, believing that it functions as it was intending and was overall an effective and interesting choice for the museum. I think the choice to utilize responsive design was a good one, but at the same time, I can understand how this design could come across almost confusingly simple to people as well.
2. In your own words, describe what responsive design is. What are the pros and cons of applying responsive design to an identity system?
From what I understand, responsive design allows your logo and other aspects of your brand identity to function in a flexible manner. This means certain aspects are able to be manipulated to represent different things in different context, while still all falling under the same brand identity umbrella. I think a pro of this design method is the fact that is it significantly more engaging than a static logo. Responsive design allows the viewer to play more of an equal role in how the design functions than if they were just viewing it in a manner that was directly intended. The longer you can get a person to view your brand identity, the higher chance you have for them to actually absorb the information, gain interest, and remember it. On the contrary, static logos and brand identity are more easily recognizable and memorable for people once they are popular enough to gain familiarity. If the golden arches of the McDonald’s logo were responsive and changed consistently, it would not be close to as timeless and recognizable as it is. Responsive design creates an opportunity to engage the viewers more actively in your brand identity, but makes it more of a challenge to represent your brand well through it effectively.
3. The new Whitney identity has been criticized as boring and duplicitous due its simplistic, open-ended design. Do you agree or disagree — why? Are boring and simple one in the same?
I don’t perceive it to be boring, purely because from the moment you look at it, it is giving you something to do. The directional lines immediately start to carry your eyes through the different elements, your eyes start to play with the negative space between the lines to see what shapes begin to form. The level of activity this brand identity has makes it in my opinion, hard to call “boring”. However, that doesn’t mean it is particularly interesting. I enjoy the design from a personal standpoint, but I believe the level of simplicity is too much for a brand that isn’t considered simple. Museums are a grandiose collection of things from different locations, time periods, cultures, etc. (far from simple). I think this level of simplicity would function well for a brand that’s main advertising point is it’s ability to be simple. I don’t believe boring and simple are the same thing, but they aren’t mutually exclusive either. Simple designs can still be engaging, and boring designs can still be complex. A simple design can be boring at times, such as a logo consisting of a single period, etc.
