总共有多少组数据:91
段长：22
HandbagsMaMa.com Interview with Graphic Designer Michael Rock Part 1
Today’s feature— HandbagsMaMa.com Interview with Graphic Designer Michael Rock Part 1
luis vuitton saleHandbagsMaMa.com: Does designing for cultural institutions require a particular approach? Are there particular considerations in designing for culture?
Michael Rock: You can look at that question from two different directions: one: does the work need to be different because it is a cultural institution rather than a com¬mercial one? And, two: is there something about the organization of cultural institutions that makes working for them different?
In my experience, notions of hierarchy and inclusion are quite different in cultural and corporate environments. While corporate clients are comfortable with clear hierarchies and chains of command, cultural institutions often seem to be more invested in inclusivity. Even while the director might have absolute power, there is a desire to be sensitive to the rank and file. The process tends to be much more about consensus building.
Does that kind of view go for the audience as well? While a corporate client might have an idea of a hierarchy of con¬sumers, with the wealthiest at the top, a cultural client will take a much more democratic view?
Design for cultural institutions is directed at the public in a very broad sense, rather than at a demographic market. Of course cultural institutions have demograph¬ics, but they tend to see their mission in broader terms. For instance, we have just finished work for the Brooklyn Museum. It is the second largest museum in America in terms of its collection, coming in right behind the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but in terms of audience it is completely different. Brooklyn is probably one of the most diverse communities in the world. The Museum had to imagine their public mission in a very different way than, say, a corporation which is selling very specifically to eighteen-year-old boys.
Also, in general there is an altruistic aspect of a public organization. The work isn’t meant only to define or package the audience as a market segment. That brings me to the other part of my question: ‘Does the work itself have a kind of quality?’ I think it does in that it has the aspect of a public offering, it should be a gift to the public as well as a device to sell to them.
The public realm has become very finely graded in that there are now state-run museums and privately run cultural institutions and various shades in between. Do you try and reflect these types of ownership and control in your identity designs, or disguise them?
I don’t think we’re actively disguising. It usually happens in more natural way. When you are working for privately run cultural institutions, you are dealing with people who are already concerned with the aesthetic, people who see themselves as active players in culture. Relating to these issues, even when museums take a more commercial approach to branding, for instance the Guggenheim, which has become a franchiser developing a worldwide network of museums, it is still a cultural reaction to a commercial phenomenon. It is an example of cultural institutions realizing that they need to be part of commerce and to comment on it simultaneously. When a museum adopts a highly branded approach there is necessarily a level of commentary as well.louisvuitton
So you think that culture still makes sense as a category, even though it has an increasingly leaky boundary with commerce?
Yes it does, not least because cultural institutions don’t have nearly the budget or the level of exposure of big commercial clients. Ideas that might work for BMW or Nike, designs that would create a consistent message through sheer exposure, will not work for cultural insti¬tutions. Most museums don’t have one-hundredth, even one-thousandth of the advertising budget of a company like that, so they are relying on a much smaller number of impressions to create their image. It is a much more limited way of revealing yourself to the world.
Tou mentioned that the Metropolitan Museum has a very different audience to the Brooklyn Museum. Do these insti-tutions use design to try and change the nature of their audience, to make it younger for example? luis viton
To a certain extent, but while a big public museum needs to be aware of its audience, it doesn’t segment in the same way a commercial client does. The function of design for a commercial client is to create an audience that defines itself as a user of that product. For most cultural institutions that is still a fairly alien notion. They are public institutions and they want to be as broadly inclusive as possible. Their audience is limited purely by people who are interested in and love art. While, of course, all the contemporary critique is true — that museums have to sell things in order to survive, and they have to have corporate sponsorship and so on — at the heart of it, they are still organizations that demand nothing of the user other than that they show up and pay their $10. They don’t have to buy things in the bookstore or even have a cup of coffee, the market is very broad that way.
Are you simply trying to expand the audience?
All museums want to increase visits, that’s what proves they’re doing well. That means they have to create shows that appeal to certain markets, or they have to make their experience more pleasurable. They are trying to appeal to changing tastes in the market. Museum direc¬tors want to go to their boards and be able to say they increased visitor figures by 30% last year, or show increases in memberships, or simply bring in more cash.
But there is a reaction against this kind of thing, block¬buster backlash ..
Right, you get a lot of shows that people have problems with because they see them as dumbing down, or appealing too coarsely to popular taste. There is a big debate around all of those things.
The Director of the Art Institute of Chicago, James Cuno, describes all design and marketing, including shops and cafes, as clutter:, things that come between the viewer as the object.
Any gesture toward accessibility is seen as clutter, as dumbing down, but I think that there is an argument to be made from the other side. For a long time art museums have limited their audiences to the affluent, white middle classes and part of the dumbing down argument is about maintaining that status quo. If you want a broader audience, with different expectations of museums and different backgrounds, then you have to create different kinds of experiences. I don’t buy the purity argument, it seems to be somewhat classist and racist. I personally like the pure museum experience, but I am not sure that it’s the best experience or the only experience you can have in relation to art.
trackback:http://www.buyreplicahandbags.info/index.php/2010/05/handbagsmamacom-interview-with-graphic-designer-michael-rock-part-1/