Victoria and Albert (What the happy couple)

I believe this logo accurately captures the Victoria and Albert. The contrast between the thick and thin lines in the V and the ampersand. The serif's add an element of history and class to the logo which feels right because most of the artwork is historical rather than modern. If the museum was more full of modern exhibits, a font without serif's life helvetica would seem more appropriate. The consistency between the left branch of the V and the right branch of the A is very nice. In a way, the logo feels symmetrical, although it isn't. This symmetrical or patterned feel of the logo is reminiscent of the iron gates in the museum. Each had a distinct number of cells that were repeated, and the logo gives off the feeling of two cells where one has rotated and flipped over. It is a strong move to remind visitors of an exhibit while planning a logo, especially as this does it subtly rather than blatantly.

The cast courts were grand in every sense of the word. One large tomb was overshadowed by a larger tomb which was overshadowed by an archway which was overshadowed by the facade of a building. I felt like I was in Charles Foster Kane's storage unit in the end of Citizen Kane. Everything looked expensive and I was in awe. 

As for educational purposes, obviously the exhibit must be noted for its amazing detail, as plaster can capture those small details. Understanding the specific architecture is worth studying, however, that element was completely overshadowed by the grandness of the whole exhibit. I just wanted to stare at the big things rather than think. 

The isotype symbols certainly have more personality than the international symbols, but with more personality comes more detail, more to look at, and more to distinguish from other isotypes. The international symbols are simple only, but isotypes started the movement towards simplicity. What I was most impressed by was the use of graphs with isotypes. I found out that before isotypes, pictographs were uncommon. In this respect, isotypes took a very simple line or bar graph and made it more detailed while adding a new and understandable layer. So many maps, politically or geographically, that one sees on TV include graphics, or half graphics to represent half a quantity. Basically, coming up with the idea that a graphic can represent a quantity is genius, because I can see that Russia has more cheeseburgers than England, so therefor Russia has more of the cheeseburger fact I want to know about. Also, isotypes were clearly the inspiration for the international symbols, creating a movement that pushed away from only text, or text at all. It felt odd in the museum at first, but as a key inspiration to the international symbols which are everywhere, it certainly cemented it as a decorative art.

                             

These two patterns represent a more traditional cell versus a modern cell. The carpeting has bright colors, and each cell has a not-perfectly shaped football with a circle outside of it. The iron gate has a circle with an x inside and outside it. Obviously the iron gate is only black. Also, the carpeting has each cell repeating through the window of the other layer, as in they are off one to each other, while the iron gate repeats in a row and column perfectly. They seem different, but the sense of repeating cells, and in this case, circular cells, shows new inspiring old and artwork taking each other into account. It's almost as thought the two completely different types of art are speaking to each other.

 The London Underground has much more personality in the logo than Madison's Metro. For one, the underground tells people exactly what it is. It is a tunnel underground. The perfect O shape in the font is repeated as the logo as well. There is perfect contrast and simplicity to the logo, as it is also very recognizable. The color scheme works well together. I am a Chicago Cubs fan so nothing beats blue and red. The Madison Metro logo does not explain what it is like the tube. It is italicized with three different colors and white text. No where does it infer a transportation system like a picture of a bus. The London logo, while also not having a picture, allows one to infer that anything underground is probably transportation, and Metro does not necessarily mean transport.

The Madison Bus routes are very cluttered with geography. While this may be helpful to some, it distracts from the actual routes and how and where they intersect. No one is looking at a Madison map and specifically pointing at an area and saying, "I need to get there." Basically London's tube map forgets correct map scale but accurately shows how to get from one stop to another. London's whole transport system is much more thought out than Madison's.

This chandelier was my favorite piece in the museum. Unfortunately it didn't belong to any collection besides the lobby, but I stood and looked at it for a large amount of time and from many different angles. I also liked the Wisconsin connection from the artist. I marvel at the amount of preparation that went into planning this piece. Did the artist sketch every piece individually or improvise as he went along? I would certainly visit the V and A again just to get every detail and every angle of this beautiful work of art.

Science Museum

The logo of the Science Museum accurately describes half of the museum. The logo feels digital and futuristic. It gives off a binary-computer feel with the straight lines and angles. I really appreciate the symmetry and consistency among the letters. Every letter has the same shell, the three outer lines, and those are rotated to make the letters. M's and E's are the same, as are C's and U's. The I is very interesting, as it blends in at first glance, but uniquely, they've separated it. While it is lowercase and the other letters seem to be upper case, it blends perfectly and does not take away from the balance of the logo. The cleverness and futuristic look endow this feeling into me of the "possibilities of science" despite it's clicheness. However this "pushing the boundaries of science" really only applied to half of the museum. 

Photo courtesy of google.com

The South Wing of the museum was, for lack of a better term, cool. The five story display felt fresh in content and in appearance. The lights dimmed and the room looked like the blue in the logo. The content was glowing, drawing ones attention to it, and interesting. It used computers and interactive displays. However, most of the other half of the museum was more a "history of science" with boring text panels and plain glass displays. The futuristic look the logo and South Wing established was gone. The History of Medicine felt like it belonged in a natural history museum, not this cool science museum. However, the Plasticity exhibit, where all of the content was painted onto long rectangles of red plastic, again had a unique feel without being "spacey" but still pushing boundaries. Maybe it didn't push any scientific boundaries rather than display boundaries, but plastic is continually developed, so it fit the content. Overall, the logo appeals to the younger museum patrons as a recognizable pattern and to trained eyes, catching the creativity within the logo.

I found the museum to be easily navigable. I saw signs for cafes and bathrooms in every room, as well as maps near elevators and at the entrance to every new room. However, we learned about consistency with font and color, and as I said before, half the museum was unified and the other half was disjointed. Colors, designs, and text fonts (and even maps) were all consistent with the logo in the South Wing, but there were different fonts and a rainbow of colors around the rest of the museum. 

photo courtesy of google.com

My one complaint regarding navigation would be that I didn't know the South Wing did not connect to the rest of the museum until I reached the top floor. I think some signage on or near the maps for the South Wing, notifying visitors they needed to go back to ground level to see the rest of the museum, would have been nice.

The gift shops were aimed at children, but nevertheless they had cool science related toys. Certainly part of the point of the museum is to teach visitors some information, so some of the gift shop items were books and some were just toys. The food was a typical expensive cafeteria. I noticed the shops and restaurants were more consistent with the logo than the rest of the museum, which shows me the museum is trying to convert the rest of itself to this one brand. I didn't eat because I'm not made of money.

photo courtesy of google.com

The display cases, again, were half great and half boring. Reading a panel on a wall about an object sitting in glass is tedious and not critical to read in my opinion. However, when the objects and text panels are glowing and the display cases are not boring rectangles but busy 3D objects or interactive computer games, everything seems vital to explore and touch. The South Wing had fantastic computer activities and unique group games. Socializing in these exhibits were about the exhibit rather than talking about something else while pretending to read about old cars. In the main museum room, only the plasticity display was one I wanted to read the information because of the uniqueness and touchability (probably not a word) of the panels. It was a fun and bright place to be in, which made the information seem more interesting. Science museums should be interactive (as opposed to an art museum which probably should be less so) and the interactive exhibits taught me information, and the ones with objects in a case (History of Medicine, History of Communication) certainly didn't.

photo courtesy of http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk

My favorite exhibit was the Listening Post. I sat for about 10 minutes watching, and even a few minutes with my eyes closed. The Listening Post took real time I-Statements from the Internet and posted them across one of over 100 small screens while a narrating voice said them out loud. There were some beeps along the way as well. It was a large room that had very little light, but these many computer screens glowed in the room. I sat in one of the chairs right in front and just listened and felt serene. It was oddly peaceful and disturbing at the same time. The amount of material this machine had to process but presented it rhythmically was incredible to listen to. Further, this exhibit can most accurately depict how technology can be art. It served a purpose and made me think: both signs of art. 

Some facts I learned:

When a museum does not stick to a specific brand throughout the museum, it bothers me. I hope the administrators are planning on transforming the main building into the South Wing-type museum because the two clash. Very few things were interesting in the main building while everything was interesting in the South Wing.

It is possible for a museum to target children and adults. Some information was incredibly interesting for adults only, like most of the South Wing, but children were still playing because it was interactive. 

Interactivity is crucial to museums like this one.

The content is less important than the display. Computer displays and unique shapes are more interesting than text panels and rectangle glass boxes.

There aren't many water fountains in London Museums.