Just arrived in Boston today for the ALA Midwinter Meeting 2010. I picked up a great book on the way here, a book that will keep me thinking as I wander around ‘all things library’ for the next few days. My new book is about Geigy, a chemical company based in Switzerland and the story of how their art & design department created a unique, flexible visual vocabulary that defined a corporate image for the company from 1940-1970. The book is beautiful and the design is breathtaking, but what is most fascinating to me is the that a constantly changing art department full of rotating faces managed to produce a consistent, fresh, but totally solid brand identity for 30 years. Even more amazing, they created an identity for a CHEMICAL company, based on ABSTRACT imagery. This is no small feat. But think of how simple the logic is: chemical products are basically abstract, they can be perceived in whatever manner they are presented. Abstract imagery is the logical way to communicate with the consumer.

Geigy’s identity is an interesting one to consider as public libraries examine what their role is for their patrons and what kind of image a library might want to project to represent itself in its community. Libraries also traffic in the abstract, but rarely do we take the leap to build an identity that way. I’d say nearly 3 out of every 4 public library brand identities is built around an image of a book. Think of logos featuring pages being turned, a glow radiating from within a leaflet, or some other abstracted version of a bound volume. Public libraries find themselves in a weird place as books are only one facet of a complex relationship between communities and the information they require. What if libraries defined themselves with more abstract imagery that represents knowledge exchange itself rather than the formats in which it is delivered? This would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction if we wish to encourage a clearer understanding of what actually happens in libraries.