Comments on: Publishing eats itself

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:52:23 +0000

I think the covers are a bit tongue in cheek. I think you’re all taking them a bit too literally/seriously. As for an ‘exhibition’, the Hospital is hardly the Tate is it? The ‘tributes’ are an article within the magazine.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:35:17 +0000

These “tributes” might have made an interesting article within the magazine, but they really don’t merit an exhibition of their own. It might as well have a big sign outside saying “You live on the wrong side of the planet to visit MoMA. Sorry.”

And that Vivienne Westwood is a funny looking sort, isn’t she?

By: Per T

Per T — Mon, 19 May 2008 22:30:58 +0000

I recently finished an magazine article on covers, and while working with it, the feeling that you pinpoint here – “the end of deeper meaning” – grew on me.
Lois covers was a starting point in the article, and when I compared his and some others work, it became obvious how shallow the magazine covers have become.

As I see it, Lois used celebreties to tell something about the society. It was a famous face used as a tool to make the reader / viewer interested about something else. Today, celebrities are more often used to tell something about the magazine, as a tool to give the magazine an identity.

One interesting example is the Nixon cover (Lois) and the Clinton cover from 99: in the first case, a story is told in the image. In the second, it’s a famous face (ok, they try a bit, but that seems more like a coincidence).

These new covers is not a tribute to Lois as much as a tell tale about the lack of editorial ideas of today. I dislike them and find them a bit insulting ;)

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:52:51 +0000

Hi Graham. Yeah, it is better than most, but it’s still a dubious link…

By: Graham

Graham — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:56:42 +0000

Ben – I think the Vietnam cover image actually featured an image of Lois himself, in an attempt to draw attention to the death of soldiers in that particular conflict.

From the text that accompanied Westwood’s “tribute”, it seems she was trying to make reference to today’s problems in Iraq, which at least has some sort of substance, unlike, perhaps, some of the other covers in this collection…

By: vanderleun

vanderleun — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:50:08 +0000

Crap. Pure crap. As for the Ali having a “camp” air, well, maybe for young twinks who have no idea of history.

By: david

david — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:18:38 +0000

the exhibition is now over in london…
does anyone know where i can buy these covers?

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 16 May 2008 20:01:15 +0000

Come on, they’re not “hit-and-miss” they’re shit.

In fact I found some of them insulting. The Ali cover stood for something and it’s gets re-shot as a PR stunt, as you’ve mentioned. Worse is the Vietnam cover which used to feature the 1,000th GI killed in the conflict and now features a fashion designer. I like Westwood, but come on.

The best thing about the exhibition is the originals in the little case.

I bought the Paul Smith one becuase I liked that a lot, but I found the exhibition excruciating.

By: richard

richard — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:37:49 +0000

im sorry.. i know i should be more positive, but they are all really bad arent they? sure theyve been planning it for ages, but its such bad timing with the ny lindsay lohan, us esquire.. and doing it all with fashion designers…eurrrgghhh.