Whitney Museum Rebrand
Whitney Logo Redesign
- What was your initial reaction to the Whitney identity system after reading the first article?
Before I read the article, and just saw the visuals on the medium page, I wasn’t sure what the actual system was for the Whiteny Museum design. I knew there had to be logic for the different shapes of the “W” form, but I didn’t understand what that system was. After reading the article, I find the idea behind it’s responsiveness clever. I personally feel like the point behind logo designs is to get your brand, or identity, out in the simplest way possible. The Whitney identity system does this in a very modern way by incorporating the idea of a responsive logo that can interact with any exhibit in the museum, while still being identifiable as their brand. Although I can see how some people may see this design as too simple, you have to give credit to it. To come up with a design that simplistic, and responsive, that encapsulates the point of an art museum “framing” displays would have been a difficult venture.
2. In your own words, describe what responsive design is. What are the pros and cons of applying responsive design to an identity system?
I would say that responsive design is a method where your design can have multiple “solutions” to multiple “problems”. If you are in a situation where you are tasked with multiple compositions or settings you can adapt your existing design to solve the design issue.
The pros of responsive design are that you can modify and adapt your original design to solve new design problems instead of creating a completely new design. You can also keep your design more interesting and attention getting by having multiple solutions, perhaps making it more memorable.
The con of responsive design is that that type of freedom may cause the new design solution to stray too far from the original design’s integrity, causing a loss in brand identity. I could also see some areas where trying to manipulate a current design to fit multiple scenarios may be more difficult than creating a new design solution.
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 and the same?
I disagree with the criticism that the identity is too boring, simplistic, and open ended. I also acknowledge my bias in the matter, because I am more drawn to simplistic and purposeful designs. The Whitney identity has the bare minimum design elements they require to fulfill their theme. The Whitney Museum’s concept for “framing” their elements I thought was uniquely clever. It is difficult to create successful simplistic designs, and they somehow managed to create a brand out of one responsive “W”. I also think that the responsiveness of the design makes it more interesting and memorable. The W in all of its forms is still identifiable as the museums brand, but I would argue its changing forms probably makes viewers notice and acknowledge the brand even more.
Boring and simple are not always the same. I feel like any time you’re tasked with creating a simple design, there is the risk that it may become boring. But, that’s why we have specialized individuals who are educated in the principles of design. A trained and skilled individual can take something seemingly simple and boring and put a unique and interesting spin on it. If anything I think most simple successful designs are more impressive because they require the most time and energy to make them so.
