is this logo worth £80,000?

It's for The Art Fund and you may well already know that it was designed by Johnson Banks. And I bet you're now thinking that Johnson Banks' fee was £80,000, aren't you? Well, perhaps it was, or perhaps it wasn't. That's not what this post is about.

No, this post is about this painting:

 

The dead Christ supported by the Virgin and Mary Magdalen by Marcantonio Bassetti.

You see, The Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge wanted to purchase this fine work for £175,000. And it successfully applied to various bodies for grants to aid the purchase, including the V&A, MLA and The Art Fund. The Art Fund's contribution was to be £80,000, but it came with a condition: that their logo had to appear alongside the painting when it went on display. The Art Fund's position is that it is an independent charity, which does not receive any Lottery or Government funding, and it had insisted on the display of the logo after the Fitzwilliam failed to show it next to other recent purchases acquired with its help. According to the Cambridge News, a spokesperson for The Art Fund said: "To raise money we have to raise our profile. If people see our logo next to a painting they see what their money buys." Fair enough, you might think.

But Dr Timothy Potts, the museum's director, does not agree: he says "Logos are the currency of marketing and commerce and this introduces a promotional element into the galleries that we regard as an unnecessary and unacceptable distraction - no matter how worthy the object of promotion."

Apparently, the Fitzwilliam offered to credit The Art Fund's contribution in a list alongside other supporters, as well as alternative acknowledgments: which were, one assumes, perfectly adequate for other grant-giving organisations and benefactors.

It's an argument that calls to mind my post about sponsor logos.

So, who's right on this? Discuss.

Comments

[Richard]

Think I've got the answer: http://www.twitpic.com/6wnyj

[Ben]

I suspect the problem is that the art gallery perceives that logo as being to "marketing".

Imagine if the Ben Terrett Charitable Fund (set up to spare my descendants Inheritance Tax) had bought that painting. The Trustees may have asked for a small gold plaque bearing the phrase 'Part funded by the Ben Terrett Charitable Fund'. I bet that would have been allowed.

And it's the same thing, no?

[davidthedesigner]

Ben - well, yes. That might well have been allowed. In fact, that's probably in effect what the Fitzwilliam offered by suggesting listing The Art Fund alongside other contributors.

So, it's the logo it objects to. But not just this logo - it's any logo in fact. And if they allowed one logo, then they'd have to allow them all, wouldn't they?

And if you then had six (or maybe even more) logos displayed alongside the painting, wouldn't that detract from the enjoyment of visiting the museum? It is, after all, only a small painting (29cm x 38cm).

[Jeanne]

Art is also about marketing. Art Galleries are as well. Artists who can market their work are successful. Others are not. There is no definite distinction between marketing and aesthetics. Some logos are so beautiful they have more aesthetic value than many pieces of art.

It is the deep contrast between this (in my opinion horrible) logo and the classical beauty of the painting that makes things extra problematic here. And I agree we should keep logos out of the museums altogether!

But how about Andy Warhol? Or Wang Guangyi? Logos and art are one and the same thing.

[caroline]

I have issues sorting my ideas and feelings, if you gain anything from the following jumble, well done!
I think the painting with the logo alongside it is a juxtaposition too far purely going on visual impact. But then I wouldnt insist that the text that sits next to a painting should be hand written in ox blood with a quill or whatever...this painting is in an uncomfortable setting anyway, but to have a rude pink bum alongside it, one may as well paint a red nose on Christ...(I HOPE the plan was a black and white version of the logo to sit next to the painting?).
Having curated before, i'd stick one of these paintings in an empty white room and hope for the best, humans are too distracted anyway. Maybe then have the logo and info at the door. Obviously not viable in most circumstances.
The best option for the art fund is to give out lolly pops wrapped in their logo at the door, or maybe rock with 'we paid for that' running through it, or perhaps anything which didnt look like someone pulling a mooner?