May 16, 2008
Publishing eats itself
George Lois’s cover designs for US Esquire from the early sixties are currently being exhibited at MoMA in New York, including the now iconic Ali cover, above.
If you can’t make that, try the Hospital in London, where the UK edition of the magazine has an exhibition contrasting Lois’s original covers with a set of newly commissioned tribute images. (Esquire have also printed up a very limited run of the latest issue featuring the images).
It’s good to see Lois being acknowledged like this, and some of the tribute covers stand up well, but it’s pretty hit-and-miss as each of the tribute covers feature a fashion designer shot by a different photographer, meaning some of the new covers are quite far from the originals. Happily, one of the best features John Galliano in the Ali pose, below:
The Ali cover was a tribute itself, of course, a take on a painting of St Sebastian. Curiously, the original has a camp air to it that feels closer to the Galliano image than the Ali one.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is what the exhibition tells us about magazine covers then and now; in the sixties ideas were borne of their subject and the story angle – the Ali one related to the way he was being hounded for his politics. The Galliano version (shot by Jean-Baptiste Mondino) is just part of an orchestrated tribute to create a PR-able story. It bears no relation to the St Sebastian story, the whole idea has been removed from it’s roots.
It’s also worth noting again how magazines are re-treading their past, looking back toward a ‘golden age’ instead of concentrating on making today golden – think New York’s Lindsay Lohan/Marylin Munroe shoot.
We magaholics love all this of course, but what do readers who don’t know Lois’s Ali cover make of it? Does it add an historical lustre to the Esquire brand or are magazines beginning to indulge in repetitive sampling, eating themselves?
Here are some more of the Esquire tributes; a mixed bunch.
9 Comments
Comment on May 16, 2008 by richard says:
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.
Comment on May 16, 2008 by Ben says:
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.
Comment on May 17, 2008 by david says:
the exhibition is now over in london…
does anyone know where i can buy these covers?
Comment on May 17, 2008 by vanderleun says:
Crap. Pure crap. As for the Ali having a “camp” air, well, maybe for young twinks who have no idea of history.
Comment on May 19, 2008 by Graham says:
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…
Comment on May 19, 2008 by Ben says:
Hi Graham. Yeah, it is better than most, but it’s still a dubious link…
Comment on May 19, 2008 by Per T says:
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 ;)
Comment on May 20, 2008 by Daniel says:
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?
Comment on May 20, 2008 by jeff says:
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.
