I'll begin by admitting I didn't even know there were Maggie Awards (for the best magazine covers in the U.K.) until I saw a gallery of the finalists in the Guardian today.
Embedded above are some of the selections. I have previously admitted in this blog to a certain degree of what we might call artistic insensitivity re modern art; I suppose I will now need to do the same for the realm of graphic design.
I don't understand why these covers are nominees for the best of the year in their respective categories. They appear to my eye to be just another group of the cluttered, visually unappealing covers that one sees every week in the rack by the grocery store checkout line.
I'm not mocking the award or the artists. I just don't get it...
As you look at these covers, try thinking rhythm. I guess the closest musical equivalent would be jazz, with a good-sized ensemble of soloists.
ReplyDeleteThe "clutter" is a given--the trick is to find a way to give the elements of the clutter a pleasing visual rhythm.
If you were to see the same clutter poorly arranged, I think you'd get why these are so good.
My favorite is the one with the front-loaders. I think it's brilliant.
you have to admit the beth ditto cover is pretty amazing.
ReplyDeleteOh God!!! More tractor porn!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the first two, but clearly the third and fourth were chosen for going against stereotypes: chubby woman as sex object, man interested in good housekeeping.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the first two, but clearly the third and fourth were chosen for going against stereotypes: chubby woman as sex object, man interested in good housekeeping.
ReplyDelete