Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Rant: Vanity Fair follow up
My super cool 'chic' sister in NYC pointed me to Gawker's website. This article is histerical-- they count the number of men/women in the Tom Ford Hollywood issue, but in greater detail, and greater wit than I can produce here. Here's the link
Check it out.
Check it out.
Rant: Illustrations in magazines
Response
Watching all the presentations today about early magazines, I realized that I really miss illustrations in magazines. I almost feel photos have been overused by all the fashion magazines, and don't really have any impact anymore. The Vogue covers were really creative, drawn by real artists. Even the sketches inside the magazine were terrific. There were still photos in the magazine, but only in the articles that called for them. I think the problem with illustrations today is that every is so caught up in the Illustrator world, a lot of the skill has been taken out of it. It still is effective, but when you see all the cartoonish illustrations that appear in most magazines, it's just not at the same skill level. Eventually, everything looks polished and clean, but to a layman, it's just another computer drawn art effect.
I thought if I were in charge of a magazine, I would try to hire some really talented illustrators that did not depend on the cartoon style and really let that dominate the magazine. Two magazines I can think of now that still do a tremendous job at illustrations are the New Yorker--by FAR the best magazine covers around-- and Texas Monthly, which devotes a lot of its art space to illustrations. They do have the cartoony drawings though. Man, I wish the charactecture was never invented :-p
Watching all the presentations today about early magazines, I realized that I really miss illustrations in magazines. I almost feel photos have been overused by all the fashion magazines, and don't really have any impact anymore. The Vogue covers were really creative, drawn by real artists. Even the sketches inside the magazine were terrific. There were still photos in the magazine, but only in the articles that called for them. I think the problem with illustrations today is that every is so caught up in the Illustrator world, a lot of the skill has been taken out of it. It still is effective, but when you see all the cartoonish illustrations that appear in most magazines, it's just not at the same skill level. Eventually, everything looks polished and clean, but to a layman, it's just another computer drawn art effect.
I thought if I were in charge of a magazine, I would try to hire some really talented illustrators that did not depend on the cartoon style and really let that dominate the magazine. Two magazines I can think of now that still do a tremendous job at illustrations are the New Yorker--by FAR the best magazine covers around-- and Texas Monthly, which devotes a lot of its art space to illustrations. They do have the cartoony drawings though. Man, I wish the charactecture was never invented :-p
Critique: Vox Logo redesigns
Logos Critique
For the logos, I did different things. I started sketching out ideas a few weeks before, and spent the weekend trying to convert the best sketches onto Illustrator. The green, horizontal border logo is definitely my favorite. I think it's clean, yet modern.
One interesting item: Many times I could not get the fonts to do what I wanted them to do, so I just traced them with the Pen tool...can you guess which ones aren't actual fonts? The answer is sleek, and Modern...both are just vector lines.
The vibrations and blue waves logos came from the same idea. I was playing around with effects on illustrator, and suddenly the vibration style showed up. I kept it because one of my ideas I was working with was how Vox means 'voice,' and the vibrations could be seen as sound waves. Because that one might be a little too out there for Vox, I created Blue Waves by enclosing the same zigzag style inside normal type.
I really like my simple, sleek design. It's very clean, and I liked how I was able to work in the slogan. I think the magazine is missing that...I'm not sure how many of our readers actually realize Vox means 'voice.' The modern one came about after playing with pen tool...and watercolors was just a fun expressionist shout-out.
For the logos, I did different things. I started sketching out ideas a few weeks before, and spent the weekend trying to convert the best sketches onto Illustrator. The green, horizontal border logo is definitely my favorite. I think it's clean, yet modern.
One interesting item: Many times I could not get the fonts to do what I wanted them to do, so I just traced them with the Pen tool...can you guess which ones aren't actual fonts? The answer is sleek, and Modern...both are just vector lines.
The vibrations and blue waves logos came from the same idea. I was playing around with effects on illustrator, and suddenly the vibration style showed up. I kept it because one of my ideas I was working with was how Vox means 'voice,' and the vibrations could be seen as sound waves. Because that one might be a little too out there for Vox, I created Blue Waves by enclosing the same zigzag style inside normal type.
I really like my simple, sleek design. It's very clean, and I liked how I was able to work in the slogan. I think the magazine is missing that...I'm not sure how many of our readers actually realize Vox means 'voice.' The modern one came about after playing with pen tool...and watercolors was just a fun expressionist shout-out.
Critique: Magazine Fair Poster
Magazine Panel Poster Critique
For the magazine poster, I wanted to keep it simple. The last contest, I went overboard, so I made sure to keep a simple, sleek design. I have always been a fan of lines, I think if you use them effectively they create a very professional, yet modern look to design. That's what I tried to do here--use the colored lines to draw the readers into the text, yet not distract from what the text was saying. They break up the different parts enough for the reader to examine each item without getting bored and stop reading.
For the magazine poster, I wanted to keep it simple. The last contest, I went overboard, so I made sure to keep a simple, sleek design. I have always been a fan of lines, I think if you use them effectively they create a very professional, yet modern look to design. That's what I tried to do here--use the colored lines to draw the readers into the text, yet not distract from what the text was saying. They break up the different parts enough for the reader to examine each item without getting bored and stop reading.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Rant: Vanity Fair ... Porn or Poetry?
You can't Miss (or can you?)
This week I want to talk about the March Vanity Fair issue. Every year this is the 'Hollywood' Issue, where fantastic photographers like Annie Leibovitz get to shine showing off her amazing portrait skills. This year, controversy was stirred up before the issue even came out, when Rachel McAdams apparently walked out of the cover shoot because she did not want to get naked with Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson. Why would the three starlets get naked in the first place? Two words: Tom Ford. He is the controversy behind the issue, and he is also on the cover (filling in when McAdams walked out)
The special editor for this issue, Editor Graydon Carter gave Ford full reign over the Hollywood portrait section, and Ford proceeded to deliver a portfolio that will not soon be forgotten. His arranging is seen all over the spreads, and the pictures are either of beautiful girls without clothes on, or devil-may-care men surrounded by naked girls.
Here is George Clooney..I get the picture, but why do all of the lackeys around him have to be women in their underwear? It reminds me of pictures of purgatory, and I see where they were going with this--but would the picture change at all if it had been both men and women in the picture?
Here is Tophur Grace's portrait, that lovable kid from that '70s show, definitely shedding his good-boy image. I've showed this to some people, and most think it's just a funny picture, but I think it almost goes too far.
Even though Ford is only on the cover, his vision is seen through the entire photo spread. Apparently his theme was 'the human body and its glory' or something like that, but in all honesty, it was about SEX. I have no problem with nudity, and think many of the spreads were tastefully done. The problem is that when you combine ALL the nudity together, I think the art is lost, and all that is left is that sick feeling that you've accidently been reading a porn magazine. I suggest that everyone go out and strum through the portraits, the magazine is $4.50, but I don't know if I want everyone buying this. It might encourage VF to try it again.
So what do you think, is this tasteful? Is it too much?
This week I want to talk about the March Vanity Fair issue. Every year this is the 'Hollywood' Issue, where fantastic photographers like Annie Leibovitz get to shine showing off her amazing portrait skills. This year, controversy was stirred up before the issue even came out, when Rachel McAdams apparently walked out of the cover shoot because she did not want to get naked with Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson. Why would the three starlets get naked in the first place? Two words: Tom Ford. He is the controversy behind the issue, and he is also on the cover (filling in when McAdams walked out)
The special editor for this issue, Editor Graydon Carter gave Ford full reign over the Hollywood portrait section, and Ford proceeded to deliver a portfolio that will not soon be forgotten. His arranging is seen all over the spreads, and the pictures are either of beautiful girls without clothes on, or devil-may-care men surrounded by naked girls.
Here is George Clooney..I get the picture, but why do all of the lackeys around him have to be women in their underwear? It reminds me of pictures of purgatory, and I see where they were going with this--but would the picture change at all if it had been both men and women in the picture?
Here is Tophur Grace's portrait, that lovable kid from that '70s show, definitely shedding his good-boy image. I've showed this to some people, and most think it's just a funny picture, but I think it almost goes too far.
Even though Ford is only on the cover, his vision is seen through the entire photo spread. Apparently his theme was 'the human body and its glory' or something like that, but in all honesty, it was about SEX. I have no problem with nudity, and think many of the spreads were tastefully done. The problem is that when you combine ALL the nudity together, I think the art is lost, and all that is left is that sick feeling that you've accidently been reading a porn magazine. I suggest that everyone go out and strum through the portraits, the magazine is $4.50, but I don't know if I want everyone buying this. It might encourage VF to try it again.
So what do you think, is this tasteful? Is it too much?
