Open Borders

DANIELLE CHILDLOW describes the challenges of giving the National Gallery a modern image

We live in a society where we are presented with ever increasing options for how to spend our free time, and yet people seem to have less free time than ever. The phrase "cash-rich time poor" is now widely recognised. It is not surprising therefore that in their "down time" many people look for what they think of as easy entertainment, and tend to view art galleries as too much like hard work.

As head of communications at the National Gallery, I was acutely aware of this situation. Our paintings' predominantly religious or mythological subject matters have become unfamiliar in an increasingly secular society. And this perceived inaccessibility is seen elsewhere: the Courtauld Institute's fine collection, located within the rather severe Somerset house, remains one of London's best kept secrets, as does the Wallace collection.

So art institutions are having to compete with one another for the attention of a timestrapped and brand savvy public. They are also competing with one another for funding, media attention, and sponsorship. Publicly funded institutions are under increasing pressure from requirements for visitor numbers, diversity, access and education. Clearly it is not good enough for galleries
to simply open their doors and expect people to want to come in. It's essential that these institutions are actively promoted and managed, and that more Britons feel ownership of and pride in the nation's collections.

Public awareness has been a hotly debated topic in the non-commercial world of galleries and museums. Many of them have discussed, at length, the merits of overt and self-conscious branding (which some feel is too "commercial" for such institutions) and whether promotion constitutes increasing access or whether it is just an excuse for dumbing down.

However, the truth of the matter is that every institution, like it or not, has a brand. The public makes up its mind about companies or products based on the knowledge available. Sometimes that knowledge is extremely limited, but it clearly doesn't stop people having an opinion. So the question of whether or not to brand or market something, in this case our national collections, is really one of whether or not an institution chooses to manage the public's impression of them and actively attract new audiences.

The past ten years or so have witnessed an era of unprecedented branding and marketing activity for art institutions in the UK, the timing roughly coinciding with the government's policy of free admission to public arts institutions. The results have been overwhelmingly positive. Britain has lead the way in arts marketing with examples of notable achievements seen at the V&A, the Sage Gateshead and the British Museum amongst others.

The development of the brand or image of an art institution presents an interesting and somewhat unique challenge given the entirely visual nature of the product. In addition, many of these institutions have a long and rich history that should play an important role in meaningful brand development. This challenge was keenly felt at the National Gallery, founded in 1824 and, unlike numerous European collections that were formed through state appropriation of a monarch's private pictures, it was very consciously established for the benefit of the British public. It houses one of the world's finest collections of western European paintings. The world has many larger collections, but few have the breadth of art that adorn the National Gallery's walls. Stars include Van Gogh's Sunflowers and Constable's The Hay Wain alongside others by the likes of Leonardo, Raphael, Canaletto, Monet and Cézanne.

Any worthwhile programme of brand development ensures that a core, irrefutable truth about a product or institution is at the heart of its image projection. This held true for our programme of brand development at the National Gallery, and was essential in guiding us as to how we should differentiate the gallery from its competitors. In line with its history, we based the gallery's brand communication around the fact that the gallery offers significant and profound experiences to its visitors. Not only does it inspire a myriad of responses and emotions from people, but these emotions are also portrayed in the pictures themselves. Our pictures tell stories of love, war, passion, death, betrayal, excess. And these subjects, being the very stuff of humanity, are as relevant now as the day they were painted. They are timeless tales. With this in mind, I felt that for the gallery to be seen as relevant and attractive we needed to provide people with a "way in" to the pictures, to understand their stories, to empathise with them and thus develop the means to enjoy them. So our brand has the public's experience of our paintings at its heart.

The Tate Modern's brand also draws institutional truths. The "look and feel" created by Tate is fresh, modern and laden with a sense of accessibility and democracy. This clearly takes its cues from both the collection of modern art and the Tate Modern building itself. It seems that Tate was conceived as a destination quite apart from the collection, with the restaurants, bars and
shops operating as attractions in themselves. And with the Turbine Hall one doesn't have to venture far into the building before experiencing the art itself. The Tate Modern illustrates how it is not just the collection of art but also the physical environment that influences galleries' brands and they way in which they're expressed.

The White Cube Gallery is another fine example. It was originally set up in1993 in St. James's, one of London's most traditional art dealing streets. However, the gallery was, as the name suggests, a simple white cube room within the building. And the newest addition to White Cube, at Mason's Yard, is a free-standing building that is, well, a white cube! The exercise of brand development for art institutions is certainly a particular one, where the works of art that they exhibit necessarily influence the way in which the institution is perceived and its image presented. But this is by no means a unique situation. A meaningful brand is always a summation of all that a product or institution stands for, and many other sectors and products have a strong visual element, fashion perhaps being one of the most obvious. Like art institutions, fashion houses offer creative products, they often have symbolic architectural manifestations of their brands and, in many cases, they also have a rich heritage on which to draw. Hermès is an interesting example, with its equestrian roots frequently displayed and celebrated through its seasonal collections.

And finally, when it comes to building brands and managing images, what institutions do and how they act is just as important as their creative products or their architecture, their actions greatly influencing how an institution is perceived. The Serpentine Gallery's annual pavilions and frequent celebrity-filled parties are more responsible than anything else for most people's impressions of it. The British Museum's practice of "cultural diplomacy", and the Royal Academy's exhibitions and public learning programmes do as much to influence their public image than anything else.

In this sense art institutions abide by the same rules as other sectors when it comes to brand building. The visual nature of their collections is key in influencing how they present themselves to the world, but their buildings and the activities they offer are just as visible and are central to engaging the attention of both their existing and their allimportant potential new audiences.

Danielle Chidlow worked as head of communications at the National Gallery, and oversaw the gallery's first branding campaign.