Zeus strike me by lightning if it is not true that today the museums are brands.
The B2C market and the communications market primarily work by following the logic of branding and given that museums to remain active, creating exhibitions and cultural activities for the development of society, must have income that will enable this, can not afford to not communicate and better if with a brand identity that can emphasize the virtues.
The opening of a museum or a gallery today is worth as the most important event in the city and as not ever happen, maybe it is really, because it’s really important to have them.
The museums also attract much tourism for the city, increase the value and create (hopefully) a better social structure. That said, let’s see how works the brand of a museum.
The most important international museums related to modern and contemporary art have a fundamental peculiarity if compared to the oldest museums … drum roll … no matter about their branding where in the world they are.
Modern art is not tied to the territory and if the museums, as a means of informational culture and stable concrete involved in the urban fabric of a city in an active and often predominant in the district in which they are located, in their brand that does not matters at all.
Let’s say the branding and market museum has lived in the past ten to fifteen years a revolution. The revolution by the need of private capital to bring out a task, to go to exhibitions and museums that for too many years had been in decline, which has not only brought new liquidity, but also a new mindset and a type of competition which we believe has done so much good for the sector.
Today the museum has to be cool, because otherwise you know how boring. The museum is always a bit ‘more Dinsey Land, with its thematic restaurants and shops. Good, very good, as opposed to what you might easily think, if this is to bring more people to the museums will be great for two obvious reasons: first, there will be more money for culture and art as always are key , secundis most people go to museums, statistically there will be more person that interested for artt and culture even in an deeper way.
That said, to understand this new trend we have to divide the museum into two types.
There are, basically, historical museums that have a brand identity tied up to the territory and their long history. For example, the Uffizi can not have a brand awareness that is not tied to Florence, the Louvre can only be linked to Paris, the Victoria & Albert in London and so on … These museums, less than serious political and economic crises related to their countries are so strong in terms of brand awareness and are so tied to the city of belonging that is almost impossible not to visit if you are in town and are so tied to the city taht is very difficult for them to have attendance or communicative power problems, cause much of their communication is made it by the thousands of people who are photographed and put online their shots inside or in front of the museum.
It is something between a museum and a monument. Remember, we’re not talking about the intrinsic value of these institutions, we speak of the brand, so in these cases what have to understand is that there is not much difference in terms of brand awareness among the Louvre in Paris and the Colosseum in Rome. Of course, even these institutions are always in need of support policies, including branding, but is not the case that we handle here.
This article want to explain how works the branding of the museum with M at the beginning of the name, so to speak, though not all are so. Then The Moca, the Mambo, the Maxxi, the Met, the Mudec, the MCA, the Mamac, the Mac, the Cam, Mass Moca, the Ivam, but also the MOMA, the Guggenheim and the Tate (excluding Venice) etc etc etc … What they have in common? All.
They are the beauty of art in the globalized world, museums are where the brand identity is totally unlocated, that is put into a place that no one knows where it is, are “no-places” that are in “no-space” where then can happen “Everything”.
Let’s make another example with the Louvre to easily understand what we’re talking about. The Louvre in Paris and the Louvre would not be if it was in Berlin. The Tate Gallery in London could be also in Berlin, in Dublin or Bruxelles and it would still be the Tate, his brand would not be absolutely different.
So, fully consistent with the pleasant trend of contemporary art that still asking to us like a audience, that we were a bit ‘tired of being standing just there looking at the art works, to take part at the work.
From the relationship with the structure of Bob Morris until the extraterrestrial meetings with Marina Abramovic, has disclosed the work of the artist who lives between the thought of artist and the emotion of the viewer and in the museums of the last generation the space so it is not located, is not a perimeter that acts as a rule, but is a permission of active expression.
Multiforme is the watchword, so the concepts that tie to the place are bandits if are not suitable for mixing. All this cultural movement has exploded in the generation of museums born for contemporary and modern art that has contaminated cities in all continents without distinction as the best global will. And if someone says, in this way at the end that are all the same, in some ways he’s right, but these equalities is crucial that exists, in our opinion, because the interaction and freedom of expression that dialogue, are the instruments on which the construction of the new global society is based and it is right that everyone has the same tools.