The Indianapolis Museum of Art Gets a Break

Originally established in 1883, the Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA) is one of the largest, and oldest, museums in the United States, with more than 50,000 works of art in its collection housed in a 150-plus-acre area. Various components make up the IMA: There is the Lilly House and Gardens, a 26-acre historic estate and house museum; the 100 Acres: The Virginia B. Fairbanks Art & Nature Park, an art park that includes untamed woodlands, wetlands, meadows and a 35-acre lake; the Toby, a 558-seat theater for film, talks and performances; the Miller House, a mid-century residence designed by Eero Saarinen with interiors by Alexander Girard, located off campus in Columbus; and, finally, the Indianapolis Museum of Art itself, which renders the odd and redundant designation of “Indianapolis Museum of Art IMA.” Clearly, a large organization with a lot of related parts. And to make sense of all of them, IMA worked with Pentagram partner Abbott Miller — an Indiana native, for those looking for authenticity and street cred — to create a new identity.

Let’s talk first about the main museum lock-up that helps introduce the visual language that then permeates the rest of the entities. The most obvious thing that you will either love or hate is the aggressive cropping of the word “Indianopolis” by slicing the second “A” in half and splitting it into two lines. I happen to love this. First, it resolves the issue of such a long word throwing everything off. Second, it can serve as a reminder that this museum is located in Indianapolis, Indiana by isolating that first line. And lastly, well, I just think it looks cool and adds a certain edge to the museum. The lock-up with the IMA acronym is where things get a little unbalanced, and there is an unresolved relationship between the two elements and their colors, sizes and letter-spacing. After you see the chart of the whole program, below, come back to this and see if it makes any difference to you.

For better or for worse, I maintain a heavy load of work lodged in my brain and whenever I see something new, I inevitably sift through all that visual debris for references, and when I first looked at this logo it reminded me of the work Abbott Miller did for Architect magazine in 2006. And rightly so, since the type choice is the same, Taz by Lucas de Groot. It’s a fine choice for both instances, but I just had to mentally make the division between the two. Luckily, absoluelty none of the thousands of visitors to IMA will have the same problem I did.

When you see the relationship between all the elements is when you are able to grasp just how complicated this standardization exercises can really be, and how the whole is, if not more, just as important as the parts. The chart above also shows a quick view of what lock-ups work well small and which don’t and it also helps emphasize the need for a simple visual solution and in this case, the type choice has such an interesting personality that it helps tie everything together. Simply browsing through the IMA web site you get a sense of the identity design and it’s all achieved through these lock-ups and the deployment of Taz over and over. The overall effect of this identity gives the IMA a fresh and almost provocative personality that the old logo simply couldn’t. Ever.

Thanks to Gautam Rao for the tip.

Mog’s comment is:

I happen to love the split to, Armin.

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:01 AM

mog’s comment is:

*too, ahem.

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:02 AM

Swifty’s comment is:

Ugh. The split.

First of all, I love the identity as a whole. The color scheme works. The typographic weight contrast works. For the most part, I like it.

But the split. Ugh.

And I dislike it because it reads as “Indiana Apolis.” Even with the sliced “A” I have trouble linking the two words. The horizontal treatments work much better for me.

It’s a cool concept, but I just don’t think it works. I’m just glad it’s only used in one iteration and not repeated throughout the system…although that may have helped it by establishing some continuity.

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:11 AM

buruno’s comment is:

I still struggle to accept cropped words and/or letters within a logo, but I must agree that identity as a whole looks pretty nice. Taz typeface is a modern and, most important, distinct choice (rather than Gotham), which they managed to explore very well!

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:13 AM

Felipe’s comment is:

Reminds me of the “Pep Palau Von Arend & Associats” logo, from an office I used to work, Eumogràfic. http://www.eumografic.com/index.php?module=work&arch=1&cad=1&w=59

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:24 AM

Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:

I agree with Swifty, the overall system is solid, but the main lock-up with the split is a far reach.

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:30 AM

Erwin ’s comment is:

@Felipe

While initially I wasn’t happy to see yet another comparison to a discussed logo, I have to admit your Pep Palau logo looks a lot better with the split being far more appropriate than in the Indy logo! Well done!

As for the Indy logo, it looks decent, but nothing more… The split is not enough to make this exciting…

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:37 AM

Laura’s comment is:

I disagree with Swifty, Indianapolis is a lengthy word to deal with. How else would you split it?

INDIAN
APOLIS

INDIANA
POLIS

neither one makes sense…..the split is quirky and smart!

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:41 AM

anom’s comment is:

Just looks like a bad immitation of that ‘new museum’ ident by wolf ollins http://www.wolffolins.com/newmuseum.php

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:42 AM

Nick Irwin’s comment is:

seems to be a trend in art museums that you need big blocky type and broken up letterforms…personally, not a huge fan of the split because theoretically there needs to be a hyphen and I have a vendetta against hyphens. The other thing that slightly bothers me is the left justification (does the “O” seem a little indented??) and the other executions the bold letters dont seem to line up with the “IMA”… on the flip side I really enjoy the color palette

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:43 AM

David H’s comment is:

Arbitrarily truncating words for the sake of design is a trend I hope quickly dies and never resurfaces.

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:53 AM

Rob Russo’s comment is:

I hated it at first glance - but loved the split A!

Then when I saw the whole package it quickly grew on me. But yeah, I loved the split A from the start!

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:55 AM

Felipe’s comment is:

@ Erwin

Sorry to post a comparison! I just thought it was interesting. Actually it is not mine – credits to Albert Cano and Jordi Cano, the owners of the studio.

cheers

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:58 AM

cj’s comment is:

like the colors and don’t mind split—it’s necessary to create interest and it reads.

my only question is why so many iterations of each component? I don’t feel like they would be that useful since the footprint isn’t that different. usually one would expect 2 to 3, but there are 6. interesting. I don’t necessarily think it’s harmful, but I’d just love to hear why.

also, anyone else read the acronym and think, “IMA go to the store”?

On Feb.26.2010 at 07:58 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

One of the great city names. The split is logical and well-executed because the venue becomes the pride of both the city and the state.

However, I don’t particularly care for the tacked on IMA down below. In almost any iteration … it looks tacked. Maybe it will grow on me, because the split and color palette across the board are nice.

PS, I disagree with Felipe’s comparison … that example feels like it’s “trying too hard” to be cool. This one has a more precise split that feels “well thought out” and just IS cool.

On Feb.26.2010 at 08:07 AM

Brendan’s comment is:

It’s really well done - I think the different arrangements are really good.

However, I just feel like this has been done before. Many times.

Even the split “a” exists in Pittsburgh already:

http://citytheatrecompany.org/

On Feb.26.2010 at 08:11 AM

Jonsel’s comment is:

IMA let you finish but MoMA has the best museum identity of all time!

Ahem, umm, sorry for the retread Kanye reference.

Once you see the brand architecture it’s pretty apparent why they need IMA attached to everything. What’s unfortunate to me is the split letter isn’t able to be carried through the system. It’s so intrusive (not necessarily in a bad way) in the core lockup that it makes you think it’s part of a larger concept. Anything that clearly intentional should be. My first thought was that this is something that probably pays off on applications like collateral, advertising and even museum store gifts. Until I see that, though, this feels only half realized.

On Feb.26.2010 at 08:20 AM

Erwin’s comment is:

@Felipe

Don’t worry, as I said, you’re bringing a valuable comparison to the discussion, and I said “your logo”, because you brought it up! :)

Now that Brendan adds an even more similar looking logo to the discussion I’m getting less and less impressed with the Indy logo…

On Feb.26.2010 at 08:20 AM

Nate B’s comment is:

Here at the Plane Arium…

On Feb.26.2010 at 08:51 AM

Courtny Cotten’s comment is:

As an Indianapolis resident it is a bit disheartening to see the shift away from the old branding, as it carried with it a strong sense of solidarity.

As for Pentagram and Abbott Miller handling the redesign…seriously guys? This seems like a cop out especially considering they didn’t do anything particularly unique, aside from cropping letter forms on the INDIANAPOLIS. This crop effect alone makes sense, but it is awkward and looks like a mistake when compared to the whole visual system.

I guess the underlying point here is this approach could have been applied to any numerous art museums across the nation and had a similar effect; and there is no true originality like you’d expect to see from the likes of Pentagram. Blow us away! Create something uniquely beautiful!

In my opinion any of the excellent local firms such as Miles Design, Dean Johnson, or Timber would have injected much more life into the creation of this identity. I know that Abbot Miller is an Indiana native but I can’t help but feel a disconnect here.

On Feb.26.2010 at 08:56 AM

Elizabeth’s comment is:

Yeah, my biggest issue is the lack of integration between the name and “IMA”. The verticals in the A don’t allow lineup with anything.

I would have designed custom letters for IMA, and allowed that to be the primary point of interest, adapting it for the flush-left instances.

I agree with Armin that the weight and scale seem tacked on, arbitrary choices.

On Feb.26.2010 at 09:00 AM

Jason Laughlin’s comment is:

The color palette is great. The font choice is perfectly fine. The lockups work very well. And then my compliments end. The split A is just awkward and reads terribly. “Indiana Apolis” or “Indian//Polis” or “Indian Polis” it’s all incredibly odd. Somebody above mentioned they liked the cropping but were glad it wasn’t carried out through the rest of the system. Then why is it there in the first place? The one thing that makes the identity “provocative”, to use Armin’s word, just goes away in the rest of the system. It just seems arbitrary. On the whole, it will work fine, but the only thing it provokes is a slight touch of bewilderment. Or maybe I’m just cranky this morning.

On Feb.26.2010 at 09:10 AM

Kevin’s comment is:

I really liked the old identity, thought it was classy, distinct and had a really nice colour palette. The old website was pretty decent from what I remember too.

And though this new identity is definitely “fresher”, I love the use of Taz, it certainly does feel a little generic.

On Feb.26.2010 at 09:24 AM

M.’s comment is:

These varied-color “versatile” lockups are becoming so common for institutions & organizations, I worry that it’s getting to the point of cliché - they arrive as a panacea (a way to represent everything!) but I wonder how tired and eventually dated the concept will seem (regardless of how good the design is).

Ahem. That said, the sliced ‘A’ and the Indiana/Indianapolis revelation are very cool.

On Feb.26.2010 at 09:35 AM

Diane Faye Zerr’s comment is:

I love the use of a visual system, but with fresh eyes this looks as though the constant IMA is the logo and the rest is just a treatment. I love identities that are flexible, but this is a bit confusing to me. There is no set logo, how is this clarified in-house when being applied to materials?

It’s application on the website is gorgeous, it’s lovely when a logo and website can play nicely together and it’s obvious that these were developed with the other in mind. But I’m fond of a set logo over these complicated systems, personally. I guess I have a love/hate relationship with it.

On Feb.26.2010 at 09:38 AM

Juan Barrera’s comment is:

To me, the new identity looks more like a headline you would expect to see in an ad and not an identity. I enjoy the split, but IMA underneath seems like an afterthought.

Although the new logo feel more current, it was a trade of… traded charm and sophistication for bold and edgy.

On Feb.26.2010 at 10:06 AM

hyun’s comment is:

I don’t mind the break even though it feels a little gimmicky. The relationship with the IMA doesn’t feel right. I understand that a museum logo should be somewhat understated but I wish they did something with a little more personality. Feels very bland and I wonder if so many lockup variation were necessary…

On Feb.26.2010 at 10:09 AM

Josh’s comment is:

As an Indy native/resident, I’m not a huge fan of the change. It’s pretty nice in some of the applications around downtown, but the old identity really fit the location better. For those who haven’t visited the IMA, the grounds are just as important in the identity as this is, and it really doesn’t compliment them as well as the old one did.

That’s my 2 cents anyway.

On Feb.26.2010 at 10:14 AM

JC’s comment is:

Love the split. Hate the IMA

On Feb.26.2010 at 11:04 AM

David’s comment is:

The thin-face of the IMA acronym distracts the word mark. I wonder what would have happen if it was simply left out or made bolder.

On Feb.26.2010 at 11:08 AM

Jukes’s comment is:

The IMA just looks so out of place. It feels like the identity work was done without it and somewhere down the road the museum thought, “Hey, we should probably put IMA back in there.” So they added it themselves.

On Feb.26.2010 at 11:13 AM

niko’s comment is:

IMA go ahead and let you finish…

I don’t mind the typography with the split indianapolis but the old “IMA” was way better visualy than the new black boring version.

On Feb.26.2010 at 11:17 AM

tom’s comment is:

“Second, it can serve as a reminder that this museum is located in Indianapolis, Indiana by isolating that first line.”

Not trying to be a jerk, but I don’t think anyone needs a reminder that Indianapolis is in Indiana.

I’m fine with the system — just a remark on the logic / thought process

On Feb.26.2010 at 11:24 AM

Jennifer Moline, PsPrint’s comment is:

Like Nick Irwin, I’ve noticed this design trend for museums, too. The new Oakland Museum of California logo does somewhat the same thing: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/more_oak_less_cal.php

It’s a little pop art but also a lot confusing, I think.

On Feb.26.2010 at 11:55 AM

Mongoose’s comment is:

It’s.. the.. arhhr.. err…

I don’t like the split ‘A’ at all. I can see why other’s would, and it’s definitely aggressive and interesting, but.. for a museum?

I have the feeling I’d love the split if it were a two-shade split, or all on one line to be right-and-left justified with a ‘Museum of Art’ below’, but it’s just bothering me in an visceral way. I think a significant part of it is that very ragged right side, too. If the ‘A’ lined up with other components, you might have something.

The old logo had a simple geometric style, perhaps a touch on the muted and stodgy side, but it did give forth the solid feeling of Museum-ness. I’m just not feeling the ‘IMA’ in the thin font, though it does work well as a lock-up, agreed, with the overall visual identity.

I give it a personal C, with a split to a B if you dig that split A.

—Mongoose

On Feb.26.2010 at 12:09 PM

Mongoose’s comment is:

@Brendan

That City The/ \tre logo, I think, is a better realization. The split sort of makes sense to balance with ‘City’ visually, and the edginess of splitting the lettier is more.. appropriate and carried through in the typography.

—Mongoose

On Feb.26.2010 at 12:14 PM

Aron Rubin’s comment is:

C’mon does everything have to get the weak vertical text treatment now?
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/this_amer-ican_life.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/monospace_theatre.php http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/more_oak_less_cal.php
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/dancing_with_the_stars_season.php
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_brand_for_new_museum.php
http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/helvetica_as_world_culture_i_t.php

On Feb.26.2010 at 12:18 PM

Cam’s comment is:

IMHO, it’s kinda meh.

On Feb.26.2010 at 12:30 PM

Tom Smitherson’s comment is:

Completely irrelevant. The design may be clever, but it does a poor job of representing the museum.

On Feb.26.2010 at 12:31 PM

joe’s comment is:

Hate the split, It would be much better to have the IMA be two lines high to the left of indianopolis (top line) museum of art (lower line) as one of the green ones in the list does. That same format works for each part of the museum and the IMA give the impression of “I’m A (fill in the blank)”

On Feb.26.2010 at 12:34 PM

Matthew Lujan’s comment is:

Team Split! I don’t find it harsh or jarring whatsoever. The very moment I saw it I knew what it was saying and why it was being said that way. It is a nice suggestion of both within one element. I can see how the IMA will have some people doing a double take, but it will sit nicely quick enough.

On Feb.26.2010 at 01:01 PM

Andrea’s comment is:

I read “Indian” “Polis” and what the heck does that mean?

Sorry, thumbs down for me.

On Feb.26.2010 at 01:09 PM

Hot Dog’s comment is:

2 comments:

Is that the typeface from Absolut Vodka

and

Ewwww. No thank you.

On Feb.26.2010 at 01:30 PM

Steffen Boddeker’s comment is:

For those looking at the graphics online (vs. in print) and from a distance (no the Midwest), splitting the ‘A’ in INDIANAPOLIS is a great thing. It immediately calls out INDIANA and this is especially helpful for quickly communicating the museum’s place to people browsing online.

I have more thoughts on this at El Tercer Brazo:
http://www.el-tercer-brazo.com/going-to-indiana

On Feb.26.2010 at 01:54 PM

Josev’s comment is:

I think it’s trying to be clever but looks kind of stale. I don’t know, maybe as designers we see too many solutions like this and the audience will see it as being very fresh. The typography feels a little too neutral and not distinctive enough, so I feel kind of “meh” about the whole thing.

On Feb.26.2010 at 03:03 PM

qwertyale’s comment is:

How long these people spent to do it

On Feb.26.2010 at 03:06 PM

evan’s comment is:

Its kind of interesting how the “IMA” abbreviation was added after the full text. I think it would be more effective without it.

The only distinct aspect of this logo is the sliced A’s, which disappear as the identity is reproduced for other uses in the museum.

@Aron. i totally agree, the whole sliced-and-stacked type treatment is getting pretty familiar. this trend is going to be dated pretty fast.

On Feb.26.2010 at 03:31 PM

Douglas Karr’s comment is:

Completely agree with @Tom Smitherson, what’s it supposed to inspire?

On Feb.26.2010 at 10:38 PM

Bess’s comment is:

Love the overall concept. HATE the split.

On Feb.26.2010 at 10:56 PM

Tayfun’s comment is:

This is the kind of logo that’s going to look very dated in less than a decade.

What does the split communicate?

To me these new split/hyphenated logos give a sense of something being rushed, or generated by a machine. A default that hasn’t been reviewed.

How is this appropriate for a Museum of Art?

On Feb.27.2010 at 07:39 AM

Flaherty’s comment is:

I like the idea of splitting the A but I don’t like the result here at all. It makes me feel dizzy. I used to live in Indianapolis, it’s a horrible place.

On Feb.27.2010 at 09:55 AM

Q’s comment is:

Love the spit idea but this real great idea was ruined by the type choice!

On Feb.27.2010 at 10:00 AM

=David’s comment is:

I love this ident. I live and work in Indianapolis, and have been to the IMA several times. The new identity fits the culture of the museum so very well, and the fact that the split-A stresses that this isn’t just an Indianapolis museum — it’s an Indiana museum. Excellent work by Miller. It has to be everything to everyone, and while not perfect, it does a very good job of standing in several different worlds.

On Feb.27.2010 at 10:40 AM

michael scott’s comment is:

This is so unoriginal. The typographic logos have been done to DEATH—TO DEATH!!!

Also, what was wrong with the one before? If it ain’t broken, don’t fucking fix it idiot!

On Feb.27.2010 at 11:15 AM

reinko’s comment is:

I find Taz caps to be too generic for a class A museum. The split is A is quirky but good. IMA at the bottom could’ve been made much more interesting.

On Feb.27.2010 at 03:26 PM

qwertyale’s comment is:

I love when people say loved things that is shit only to be an INSIDER.

On Feb.28.2010 at 10:25 AM

Nate’s comment is:

IMHO, IMA, WTF?

On Feb.28.2010 at 03:17 PM

Tez’s comment is:

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeew! Bring back the old one! typography is so 2001! The colour scheme looks like my daughter just threw up cordial. And what is up with the chopping of the A? it makes no sense to someone half way across the world. Plus its heavy and cumbersome the old identity could quite easily could have been adapted to suit a suite of uses and still have had some style to go!

but that’s just my 2c worth tho.

On Feb.28.2010 at 08:30 PM

Clinton’s comment is:

I have to say this is a fantastic example of putting a different face on the problem, without addressing the underlying issue.

Why there is 5 lockups for each sub brand is beyond me. Why there is so many sub brands is also beyond me. WHy is there abbreviated and long form versions of the name? Why is the cafe called nourish? Why is the store called museum?

It’s a pleasant enough font and the colors are quite nice but I can’t really see a strong resolution to the client’s main issue: they have too many names for things that don’t need names. Addding to this the designer has now created 5 different versions of the logo for each one.

This identity is a bit of a mess.

On Feb.28.2010 at 09:49 PM

Jeremiah Ragsdale’s comment is:

I’m pretty sure it’s typographic “taboo” to split a word like that. Generally you do not break letter form. Yes once you understand the rules you then know how to break the rules, but this is not one of those circumstances.

The form as a whole does not flow well. IF they’re going to split the A, at least split it so the separated forms could fit back together.

Just by reading “Indianapolis” you already know it’s in Indiana. Indianapolis: “City of Indiana” “polis” is of Greek origin. No one would think Indianapolis is in another state. There simply is no need to make an effort to point out it’s in Indiana, if that’s what they were even trying to do.

The branding concept as a whole is fantastic. I really do like the contrast between the bold and light letterforms. The horizontal iteration is perfect.

As a life long resident of Indianapolis and living 5 minutes away from the museum no less, I strongly disapprove of the vertical style of the IMA name.

On Feb.28.2010 at 11:17 PM

Eric G’s comment is:

Being a lifelong resident of Indianapolis, I was really liking the last branding package. I am going to guess this rebrand misses the mark with locals and will be changed within a few years. But I guess that seems to be the cycle of branding these days anyways.

I love that the design team was trying to put the “Indianapolis” back in the brand, but this is just weird and uncomfortable. I dont see any innovation here, it might as well be a hyphen.

On Feb.28.2010 at 11:40 PM

Dave’s comment is:

This institution deserves a better effort.

On Mar.01.2010 at 12:02 AM

slashjasper’s comment is:

long time reader, first time non-native english poster:

Though I like quirkiness, I too have trouble reading and combining the Indianapolis word. And though I love to ‘prickle’ an audience to think or do, I think this is a bad thing for a logo/brand.

And to add to the discussion about splitting the Indianapolis word;

Indiana
Polis

actualy makes sense to me, as polis is the ancient Greek word for city-state, if anything my old classical languages lecturer ever said stuck.

On Mar.01.2010 at 12:15 AM

aaron’s comment is:

My problem is I read the headline and thus knew what was meant to be read. I have a hard time reading it as Indianapolis cut like that, it’s a good try at fitting the large name, but it doesn’t work.

However, my real problem is with the overall identity, simply put: it’s boring.

On Mar.01.2010 at 12:37 AM

ByDesign’s comment is:

Scanning all of these comments it seems to me that too many of you out there are falling into the trap of expecting the world out of a mark. We could debate all day about the split typography - I find it smart, thought provoking and memorable - kind of like a trip to and art museum. But this typography is only a piece of the puzzle. How the institution conducts itself will define the identity. How the museum - and this mark - permeate the local cultural scene over time will define the identity. How people feel about visiting the museum will define the identity. And yes, how the mark is used will define the identity.

I am sure any number of local shops could have handled this project. Pentagram got the nod - get over that. I think we all expect “spectacular” solutions from the Pentagram team 24/7. Sometimes quiet strength is the order of the day.

On Mar.01.2010 at 07:34 AM

Mr Miyagi’s comment is:

Am I the only one who prefers the original logo? It is classy and I see hints of architecture, design, fine art in it… Maybe I am old school designer but destroying a letterform (split) just does not seem necessary. The colors in the new version seem very fad. Few years from now those colors will seem outdated as they are showing up everywhere now.

On Mar.01.2010 at 08:48 AM

Anthony Oduro’s comment is:

The Split is trendy and represents the museum’s direction of thought which I believe is future oriented. Let’s not forget that the typography is a piece of art which is meant to generate a response or reaction from the viewer. So I believe the design has achieved its aim. Good work.

On Mar.01.2010 at 09:00 AM

Chris Rugen’s comment is:

I’d have to see this one in the flesh to get a true read on how effective it is. It certainly reframes the institution as more contemporary and less warm (read: modern art museum).

There’s sophistication here, but I’m concerned that you’re getting all the look of sophistication by (metaphorically speaking) draining the blood out of the identity and saying “white is so classic”.

The family of lockups makes me think of Absolut Vodka’s type style. All of them shown together just gives me visions of AV’s section on liquor store shelves. Perhaps that feeling is what they want: crystalline, sterile, modern, simple. It’s not my ideal but it’s not a bad one, all told.

The split is intriguing. I didn’t like it at first, but it’s grown on me (in a span of minutes). However, I’m not sure that it’ll play as well as they hope. The IMA piece is more important, in my opinion, as it’s the ever-present element, and it is just absolutely lifeless.

On Mar.01.2010 at 09:38 AM

Barclay D’s comment is:

It is quite unfortunate that the city has to have such a long name, but the solution of chopping the A yikes. If your going to chop the A keep chopping it. If not it just looks like you messed up. Or when abbreviating IMA chop the A there. Overall I think it’s a concept without a concept.

On Mar.01.2010 at 09:38 AM

Sara Tack’s comment is:

I don’t have hard and stead fast rules about split typography being good or bad. For me, if this logo didn’t have the split it wouldn’t have any story to tell. While I understand the need for an easy to use system, these bold and brightly colored sans caps of recent typographic logos are beginning to feel like the malling of America. Too much of the same stuff everywhere. The structure and conceptual implications behind the old(er) modernist logo could’ve been built upon to create unique single color marks for each of the entities. I think they lost the opportunity here to create an ownable system.

On Mar.01.2010 at 10:23 AM

ilovetype’s comment is:

I don’t see the “personality” of this type choice. Perfect for secondary components, yes. But to act as the glue to the mark? Eh. I don’t see it. Sadly, the old logo is more interesting.

On Mar.01.2010 at 11:26 AM

David Timmerman’s comment is:

Personally, I hate the split, and hate that its just a redundant stacked type that we have seen time and time again. I actually prefer the IMA-SITE side-by-side better, as then you can keep the name its proper size.

The old logo was essentially as generic as the new one, just feels dated. In five years, the new stack will feel even more dated.

Using type alone for a logo is fine, especially if you are a business like accounting. But c’mon, this is an art museum and its logo has less creativity than the H&R Block logo. How about a corresponding symbol that correlates with each of the entities, and those are combined for the total organization.

I guess they should get props for not using Gotham as their typeface….

On Mar.01.2010 at 11:38 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

Don’t like the split. Color palette is pretty nice, but other than that the new identity is not that interesting. I would have like to see the old logo with a few minor updates instead of a complete revamp.

On Mar.01.2010 at 12:06 PM

Drew Coughlan’s comment is:

Really like the execution.
And the development of the brand architecture is great to see.

Also, its a nice use of Auto…

On Mar.01.2010 at 04:08 PM

Paul Rand’s comment is:

Why fix something that is not broken…

On Mar.01.2010 at 07:39 PM

FG’s comment is:

It’s a nice typographical interpretation, but I feel as though it’s been done a million times before, like with El Banco Deuno and a few other identities that were posted over here. I think that there were a few other museums posted here that used similar split text identities, which makes it look even less distinctive. I don’t know, though. *shrug*

On Mar.02.2010 at 02:30 AM

Baseline Shift’s comment is:

Here’s an idea…

INDIANAPOLIS
MUSEUM OF ART

Most of the people I’ve met in a museum are able to read a word longer than six and a half letters long!

On Mar.02.2010 at 03:29 AM

matt’s comment is:

It is needlessly utilitarian and unbalanced. A more clever and playful design system was executed by the in-house designers at the Walker Art museum in Minneapolis.

The split is unsettling. It seems like its one of those clever
design moves. But the colors, the typography and the presentation make it feel like one of those long forgotten modernist tangents of the early 1980’s. It feels more like a yuppy bank, than a modern art museum.

On Mar.06.2010 at 05:12 PM

Grant Hutchins’s comment is:

The old logo is reminiscent of the logo for the Austin Museum of Art, for what it’s worth.

http://www.amoa.org/

On Mar.21.2010 at 11:34 PM

Alex’s comment is:

Abbott Miller is a partner of Pentagram, one of the most famous and respected design groups on the planet and he couldn’t think of new design to do so just re-used something he did before?
Therefore no imagination has gone into the design and it is for an art museum for god sake!

I actually quite like it, but come on, at least try to think of something new or different!

On Apr.12.2010 at 08:16 AM