In defence of commerce in culture

Earlier this month, the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge turned down a grant worth £80,000 from the Art Fund because it refused to display the donor’s logo next to the artwork bought with its support. This in turn triggered the loss of a further £45,000 from the V&A and the MLA Council towards the acquisition. It’s director, Dr Timothy Potts, argued that “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”.
In response, CultureLabel’s Simon Cronshaw champions uniting culture institutions with mainstream consumer culture.

We may or may not disagree with the particular design or colour of logos, but without thinking or blinking, as modern cultural consumers, we understand the messages - the values, the heritage, the story - to which they provide a visual short-cut.
The Art Fund logo represents the democratic “people power” of 80,000 supporters saying that this painting is a national treasure worth saving, that individuals have gone to the effort of digging into their pockets to pay for it. Modern cultural consumers can handle – and perhaps even expect – to see messaging of this kind.