Wednesday, June 6, 2007
News / Chicagoland But it's not a Good Books issue...
Posted by Whet Moser on 06.06.07 at 04:03 PM
Just one of those things that might be dependent on culture (specifically, being southern): when I saw Time Out Chicago's books issue, my first thought was "why are they depicting a born-again baptism?"
If I accomplish anything in my career, I want to do away with the "generic model shot" magazine cover. Time Out falls into this trap periodically, but the worst local offender is Chicago. I fail to see how unrecognizable yet appropriately clad attractive people move magazines. Obviously, it's time for an illustrator riot.
Comments (14)
Showing 1-14 of 14
Sounds like someone has a bit of "New Yorker" envy. Agreed with you about "Chicago", this month's cover about the south Loop is more insipid than most.
like
dislike
Sometimes, but they've been heavy on Barry Blitt recently. And New Yorker illustrations are a bit... New Yorkery? I dunno. I probably misspoke when I mentioned illustrators. Even photography is fine with me, just something besides Idealized Young Urbanites In Saturated Colors. "Chicago"'s years-long attempt to depict the Platonic ideal of the city yuppie makes my head hurt. And it doesn't do justice to the magazine, which actually runs interesting interviews and literary journalism on a regular basis (check out some of Robert Kurson's old pieces, they're the shit).
I have a long standing subscription, and also enjoy the content -- now I have to wonder if the covers actually have an *opposite* the desired effect, in that people not familiar with it would write it off as the tourism fluff in a hotel room magazine.
I wonder where the photo was taken. Does Lake Michigan in the Chicago area have water that blue? And what about the surf, or I should say very mini shore breakers?
You may "fail to see how unrecognizable yet appropriately clad attractive people move magazines," but I can assure you the mag's management sees how just fine, they have the newsstand sales figures to prove it. There's a tension between the good stuff and the stuff that sells the publication -- every editor knows that, or ought to. And Chicago is not really the worst offender in town. At least they have an occasional real person and once in a while a food-porn shot. The most egregious (if invisible) offender is New City; their covers are little more than Babe of the Week.
I actually like New City's cover shots when they aren't the Babe of the Week; they're usually smart and well-composed. But the Babe of the Week shots are pretty ludicrous.
Chicago mag does miss out on SO many opportunities to look like, well, a Chicago magazine with their yuppie-centric cover shots. Fantastic stories on Chicago people and instead of featuring them on the cover they always opt for the staged twenty-somethings-on-the-go shot (riding a moped! walking down a gereric street with tons of shopping bags! Picnicing in bright pastel colors!). I always thought their audience was older than that anyway. I mean I never see anyone under the age of 37 (I'm guessing) reading the thing and that includes ME. As for Time Out, I have the not-so-sneaking suspicions that that same book-reading water chick is on the cover of Time Out New York, Time Out San Francisco, Time Out Los angeles, etc...
I don't touch TOC with a ten foot pole. Sorry, the whole thing is a bunch of bs. Pay, what, $5 for a magazine with a few insipid articles and no useful information that you can't get elsewhere for free? Bah. Chicago Magazine is also a waste. The cover makes it clear that they are targeting the upper class, North Shore housewife. Perhaps there is something of value inside Chicago magazine, but it isn't marketed in a manner that would convince me to buy it.
While I agree a lot of the articles are "insipid", I have to disagree with your assessment that TOC has information that you can't get elsewhere. Gotta admit their weekly calendar of music events, clubs, bars, comedy nights, literary readings, etc. all in one source are pretty kick-ass. Even the usually exhaustive Reader doesn't have many of the things I've found in TOC. I'll admit I wanted to hate their carpet-bagging asses too when they came to town. But as a one-stop source of events, locations, prices, times, they do a damn fine job. Then again, I've had a free subscription for the past year when I signed up for it at last year's Newberry Library book fair. Maybe they'll do it again this year.
Stock photography sucks. There are plenty of phenonmenal photographers in Chicago, hustling more and more now to pay the bills, because magazines and agencies rather pay .99 cents to download a stock shot. Thank you digital revolution. Thank you cheap companies.
Re TOC, I'm a Mark Geelhoed fan. Their dance crit is supposed to be good, but I'm totally ignorant of that genre.
Thanks for the props and the link, Whet. (And the correction; no hard feelings. Don't you mean "vide," though?) I like yr. work, too. I'm not involved in these sort of life-and-death editorial and art dept. decisions, but I do know we've never recycled a cover image or any other original art from another TO publication. Stock photography, of course, is used in the listings sections at the back of the magazine all the time, bc. it would be impossible to photograph 7 bands every week. Erika DuFour took the Books issue cover photo, and her website (http://www.erikadufour.com/) IDs her as a Chicago resident. There also aren't Time Out magazines in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Thanks.
