The new New Yorker cover
Of course the brilliant people at the New Yorker did something unique and striking for the Sept. 11 anniversary. Except, and I'm ashamed to say this didn't quite work for me. Maybe it's the fact that it's two covers, and the impact sort of gets lost. Maybe I'm insane. Anyone else have thoughts?
(Also, it's worth following that link just for an interesting perspective on the creative process at work.)
(Also, it's worth following that link just for an interesting perspective on the creative process at work.)
posted by AnnaRay at 1:42 PM
7 Comments:
I puzzled over the cover when the new issue came. In fact, I was thinking of how much I liked last weeks Ian falconer cover, and his work in the Olivia books (which I am sure he wants to be remembered for in the end) while I puzzled over it in the driveway. Being a retard of some renown, I decided it was me who was obtuse, rather than the cover art obscure. Then, as I settled in over the issue at lunch on Monday: Just before chowing down on roast turkey, stuffing, giblet gravy and mashed potatoes (the peas went uneaten) and cranberry sauce at one of New Jerseys finest home cooking diners (baking on the premises!) I TOTALLY got it (before I opened the issue). The issue date was important to the art, so much so that if I had not read it on the 11th then I think I would not have gotten it. So I am OK with the art but certainly understand how those without the blind dumb luck of the old and infirm might find it waaay to obscure a reference. I do not, however, like how the New Yorker hedged their bets with the inside cover art. Thats whimpy if you ask me.
Alright, so I checked out the link. I still ike it better without the inside art but I am withdrawing whimpy. I appreciate the process, but I like it better without.
And thats all I am going to say about that.
Me too - love it w/o the inside one!
That's sort of what I told Judybat when we talked about it last night. I actually like both pages -- and I think either one would have been quite powerful standing alone.
Although I'm not sure anybody not from New York or familiar with Phillipe Petit or "The Man Who Walked Between the Towers" would have gotten it.
Anyway, I like that they try different things. Makes me feel like my subscription money is well spent. That and Seymour Hersh. And pretty much everything else from cover to cover. Except the ballet reviews. And David Denby. Why does he always have to give away the plot?
Thanks for the link to the ZenPop. Very interesting and -- like you said -- a neat glimpse into the creative process.
I like the reference to M. Petit. This all reminds me that between work, the NY Times, the kniting, trying to get exercise and cooking like a nice homebody that I am (today is chicken soup with farfalle), I rarely could get through the New Yorker before 10 more arrived. I started to feel like Lucy in the chocolate factory. BTW, if you ever want to see something impressive, just TRY to cancel your New Yorker subscription. It was an ordeal to say the least.
what i found most curious at his site was that he keeps pitching ideas to the New Yorker that they buy and then have other artists actually fully illustrate. that'd get annoying after the first five or six times they did that.
Post a Comment
<< Home