To start off, when I first looked at the new “THE MET” logo, I saw it as an attempt to become more relevant to current and potential museum goers which would lead to more revenue and allow the institution to carry on its mission. Isn’t that the goal of most brand marks? I’ve read a lot of negative, subjective comments and they all seemed to be based on a “not what I would of done” critique. Remember Pepsi, and MTV? Rules are meant to be challenged and or broken.

As designers we need to embrace change and be a champion for it—in a positive way—otherwise we become stagnant and not relevant. I like the way the mark sits and creates its own space and personality. It’s classic, yet contemporary in that the forms create new shapes and experiences.

For me it also communicates the Museum’s mission of “encouraging and developing the study of the fine arts, and the application of arts to manufacture and practical life, of advancing the general knowledge of kindred subjects, and, to that end, of furnishing popular instruction.”

Below is a link to the article in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/arts/the-met-and-a-new-logo.html