Janet Davies head of the V&A Purchase Grant Fund
"It's essential for funding bodies' work to be recognised, and museums also benefit from showing they have external endorsement.
I want to see a big Purchase Grant Fund logo against every object we have helped to buy but, as a museum person, I know it's not always appropriate. Logos can detract from the effectiveness and aesthetic qualities of a display, especially when several funders have contributed - you must include them all.
We are content with alternatives as long as our support is clear and not just tucked away in guidebooks, leaflets or online. Many museums are clever at achieving this. People go to see the objects; logos shouldn't get in the way."
Jonathan Wallis assistant head of museums, Derby City Council
"Many museums would not be able to acquire new items for their collections without generous donations from individuals, trusts and grant-giving bodies.
It is only right that donors are credited appropriately for their gift. Donors often have different conditions attached to their donation, and are credited in different ways as a result. This can mean that the smallest donor receives the largest credit.
The use of a brightly coloured logo can be disruptive in an exhibition, especially when there are several in one gallery space. My preference would be for a word credit on each label and a credit label with logos in one place. The donor deserves credit, but the credit should not take away the item's integrity."
Sally Cross collections coordinator, Museums Association
"To me, it seems automatic to include the donor's details as a matter of courtesy, custom and gratitude. However, when I question why (or how) Effective Collections branding should be used in museum displays, I struggle for a strong rationale.
Who is supposed to read the credit line? Are the public supposed to see the Effective Collections logo - in my case - and understand that the display appears as a result of the museums involved making a concerted effort to share their stored collections more widely? It is unlikely that this will be the case.
The logo is about highlighting the support given by the donor to an already interested and knowledgeable audience, and for me there are much more efficient ways of reaching them."
Jim Richardson managing director, Sumo
"The Art Fund brand should be well known enough that the name alone means something to people without the need for the logo to be displayed next to artworks that they have helped to purchase.
I'd suggest that it would be more beneficial to the Art Fund to have more detailed information about the work they do on display in the lobby of the museum to raise their profile with the public.
This would say a lot more about what the organisation does then a logo can possibly communicate and would be, I'd imagine, more acceptable to the Fitzwilliam Museum.
"It's essential for funding bodies' work to be recognised, and museums also benefit from showing they have external endorsement.
I want to see a big Purchase Grant Fund logo against every object we have helped to buy but, as a museum person, I know it's not always appropriate. Logos can detract from the effectiveness and aesthetic qualities of a display, especially when several funders have contributed - you must include them all.
We are content with alternatives as long as our support is clear and not just tucked away in guidebooks, leaflets or online. Many museums are clever at achieving this. People go to see the objects; logos shouldn't get in the way."
Jonathan Wallis assistant head of museums, Derby City Council
"Many museums would not be able to acquire new items for their collections without generous donations from individuals, trusts and grant-giving bodies.
It is only right that donors are credited appropriately for their gift. Donors often have different conditions attached to their donation, and are credited in different ways as a result. This can mean that the smallest donor receives the largest credit.
The use of a brightly coloured logo can be disruptive in an exhibition, especially when there are several in one gallery space. My preference would be for a word credit on each label and a credit label with logos in one place. The donor deserves credit, but the credit should not take away the item's integrity."
Sally Cross collections coordinator, Museums Association
"To me, it seems automatic to include the donor's details as a matter of courtesy, custom and gratitude. However, when I question why (or how) Effective Collections branding should be used in museum displays, I struggle for a strong rationale.
Who is supposed to read the credit line? Are the public supposed to see the Effective Collections logo - in my case - and understand that the display appears as a result of the museums involved making a concerted effort to share their stored collections more widely? It is unlikely that this will be the case.
The logo is about highlighting the support given by the donor to an already interested and knowledgeable audience, and for me there are much more efficient ways of reaching them."
Jim Richardson managing director, Sumo
"The Art Fund brand should be well known enough that the name alone means something to people without the need for the logo to be displayed next to artworks that they have helped to purchase.
I'd suggest that it would be more beneficial to the Art Fund to have more detailed information about the work they do on display in the lobby of the museum to raise their profile with the public.
This would say a lot more about what the organisation does then a logo can possibly communicate and would be, I'd imagine, more acceptable to the Fitzwilliam Museum.
