May 6, 2009


So, presentations are over! (but you already knew this.) Everyone did a great job, and although it was fulfilling to finally present something we have been working on for almost four months, it seemed a bit anticlimactic to me. Perhaps it's because the editors of my particular publication made it clear from the initial meeting that they had no intention of using our ideas, as they have recently hired a new art director. However, these past few months have taught me so much more about publication design and publishing than ever, and the experience of conceptualizing a prototype, presenting creative ideas through public speaking and hearing professional opinions and feedback was invaluable. 

What was most surprising for me was that the execs seemed to think our redesign was a bit too conceptual. I had considered perhaps applying there (and still might) but now I am not sure I like how literal and obvious their respective publication designs need to be. I understand we must cater to the readers and ensure that legibility and understanding comes before the design itself, but some of the things the execs strongly disliked, like the white bar and the vertical bar (I'm sure we were all expecting some controversy concerning these elements), to me just don't seem to be that unorthodox. It's a white bar. We understand that it will cover part of the cover photo, but what about all those sell lines that do exactly the same thing? I guess I just think the cover should, yes, showcase a photograph, but in the end the cover's sole purpose is to sell the magazine. If we can sell a magazine better with bold sell lines and the establishment of a clear visual identity, then that is the greater success to me. 

I think I prefer a bit more creative freedom in my designs and would prefer to work at a more design-oriented publication that values current, classic and a little crazy design and typographic trends.

No comments: