Print Needs To Actually LOOK At Some Print

I bought gorgeous issue #13 of McSweeney’s and the new issue of Print. McSweeney’s, which is hardcover and beautifully printed, cost $17 – and Print, which is a pretty average looking normal magazine, cost $20! That’s fucked up, especially given that Print has more distribution and more actual copies printed up. So why are they so greedy with their price? God, the paper isn’t even particularly nice. Jerks.

Print is normally something I read at the library – it often has good articles, but it’s too expensive for what you get, and I hate supporting them. But the May/June issue is the European Design Annual and has a beautifully embroidered cover by Andrea Dezsö.



I’m usually more impressed by European designers, so I thought I’d see some good stuff – and read some informative articles. But no. Obviously they chose to showcase work that looked like bland, American commercial design. Do these people actually look? There is some impressive work, but it’s not really an accurate picture of European design; It’s a picture of what American’s think is good design. The European Design Annual was invitation only! I call bullshit on that. More proof that there is no such thing as objectivity, only the act of being objective. Print is an actor.

A designer must think in a certain way, and pull back his creative instincts to make a living. I accept that. But too many designers begin to think of that pulling back as the benchmark for quality. They begin to think that that is THE WAY. It’s not THE WAY, it’s the way to make a living – there’s a difference. So please, young designers, read Print – but take it with a grain of salt. It’s like the Oscars.

There is also an article in Print, by Steven Heller, art director of the New York Times Book Review, on design blogs. While reading it, I had the feeling he was talking about ME!

“Yet Accessibility has it’s downside: Some bloggers simply post to see their words in type - like being smitten by the sound of their own voices. I’ve come across so much blathering on blogs that I still put more credence into the accountability of an edited magazine or journal…”

Steven. I totally agree with you. I am definitely guilty of gross self-indulgence – but I love gross self-indulgence. A blog is just the modern version of a ‘zine – and what makes ‘zines great are a lack of professionalism, pissed-offness, and self-indulgence. A zine and a blog are like a person’s home – it’s the perfect time and place for self-indulgence. Anything less or more would be dishonest, boring and detrimental to real communication and self-expression. It has to be at least somewhat RAW, or it’s pointless. As I’ve repeatedly stated before, I don’t believe in objectivity. I respect that at least a self-indulgent blog is honest about its lack of objectivity, while a “well” edited magazine is not. An informed reader must wade through the lie of objectivity to create his or her own picture. And no one is guiltier of this lie than The New York Times and Print.

Now that my self-indulgent bitching is through, I will say that there was an article on one of my favorites, Swiss designer Ralph Schraivogel. It’s not a particularly insightful article (here I am bitchy again) – but it’s a good introduction to his work.



However, $20.00 is a bit much to pay for a skimpy introduction, when you can pay $14.00 to buy an actual book which collects many of his beautiful posters.



Don’t buy Print – just read it in the library or find it in a bundle on the sidewalk (thats how I first discovered it).

More on McSweeney’s soon.

Comments

Post a Comment