This author seems to have a very prescriptive stance on what a logo "should be." I see the logo as abstract art. Maybe you don't know that it says MITP or that it vaguely represents books on a shelf until you are told these things, but then you (might) go "oh cool, I can see it now." It achieved critical acclaim because it is clever and ultimately resonated with people, that's it.
I don't see how it "failed" at anything except meeting this author's subjective preferences of what makes a good logo. He even admits, "this became part of the charm of the logo for those in the modern minimalist establishment, for whom ambiguity is a virtue." So, he's free to disagree, but shouldn't act like he's "more correct" for having different values.
The problem here is that this is taking place in the context of design as a profession. If it doesn't matter what your logo looks like because its meaning will be imbued by history, and if the form of the art isn't important, then why do you need professional logo designers? Why would you want the opinion of an 'expert' if an expert's opinion isn't important?
Is the author's opinion an expert opinion? Would you pay for it?
So we can paraphrase Beirut: "I'm a world renowned master logo-smith. I will be heralded as a master communicator. But you could do almost anything. I don't design my logos to communicate, because that's not important." And we're left to work out the values and hypocrisies that are all established into this culture.
The thing is, it's all so subjective. This expert does not appreciate Cooper's logo and the minimalist/Bauhaus style in general. He admits that it has received critical acclaim, and clearly many people do appreciate it, undoubtedly some who are considered experts. Who is right? Who is the true expert, the professional? By what metric is that determined? Experts and critics constantly disagree with each other, often vehemently so. They have different values and different goals.
I would probably not pay for this person's opinion because I don't share his values. I like abstract and minimal. I would rather pay for the opinion of someone whose taste I share and/or whose work I admire (in the context of choosing a logo for my business. In general life I like to be exposed to opposing/different perspectives).
Basically I just wish people would generally act less as if they have a claim to what's right or good or truthful, on such subjective matters, because they are really just sharing an opinion. To this author, communicating the brand identity is an important feature of a logo. No matter how many people agree, nor how many textbooks it's written in, nor how much data shows it drives profitability and brand awareness - it still can't be used to say that a logo is objectively wrong or bad.
An expert is a child wise beyond his years, who sees the state of emperor's clothing for what it is. An "expert" is anyone who can persuade the presumptively adult fools that he knows something they don't.
Your argument re: experts fails because it reaches for the authority of "experts", while that's exactly what OP lampoons.
I don't see how it "failed" at anything except meeting this author's subjective preferences of what makes a good logo. He even admits, "this became part of the charm of the logo for those in the modern minimalist establishment, for whom ambiguity is a virtue." So, he's free to disagree, but shouldn't act like he's "more correct" for having different values.