Subject:
|
Re: Making magazines (was Re: This is incredible!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 May 2000 13:55:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2295 times
|
| |
|
|
Suzanne Rich wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Rich Manzo writes:
> > [...]
> > Lego went out of their way to give us a little smile when we opened up
> > our mania magazine [...]
> > They put that logo in the mag because they thought we would like it [...]
> > They put it there as a private message for us.
>
> Sorry for the heavy editing, but I just want to address these parts of your
> post. You make these statements with such certainty that I would expect you to
> have actually been in their art dept. when decisions were made.
>
> I'd love to discover that you had proof of the above. However, if there is no
> proof, then it is only a speculation. a guess. I've thought about this too. And
> many other possible scenarios.
>
> [sorry this is so long]
> Now, I just want to remind or inform readers that I worked in magazine
> publishing for a number of years. I was a freelance illustrator (my drawings
> accompanying editorial content) for many magazines. I was also a page layout
> designer and eventually head designer for two magazines at Sky Publishing Corp.
>
> Part of my job was to order up custom artwork from outside illustrators. Having
> a position in a magazine's art department means working with just about
> everybody else involved in that publication -- from the editor-in-chief to the
> people who run the presses. I am very familiar with the typical "life-process"
> of an issue's development: start to finish (and even beyond the finish
> sometimes).
>
> A magazine's content, in this case artwork, would be seen at least a few times
> by different people as it cycled through editorial approval, layout,
> proofreading, editing, art placement, and proof checking. The pages may loop
> through these people a number of times. At any point, if a red flag went up for
> someone, they would note it or check it out.
>
> At every magazine I worked for, computer screens were notoriously problematic.
> If there was a great level of detail elsewhere in the image and the screen was
> going to be readable, what should be on it? In photography, sometimes multiple
> images were combined digitally to get a picture that looked "real." But if the
> screen was not relevant to the story, it would preferably be as "unobvious" as
> possible, so as not to distract. (People automatically seem to notice a screen
> and want to read what's on it.) In some cases a computer would be asked not to
> be there at all. (this happening at sketch stage)
>
> In cases where a computer's presence was desired, but screen content was
> unimportant, here's what's been my experience:
>
> As an artist, I often drew the computer from the back or the side or above, or
> I'd put a user or an office plant in the way of screen, or have the computer
> turned off, or make a bunch of fuzzy overlapping boxes with only horizontal
> lines where text would be.
>
> As an art director, I had to be sure that such a Hot spot was going to be "ok."
> It was not a place for the publishing company to plug their own website or
> software (considered cheezy) and I needed to be sure as possible that there
> would be nothing potentially offensive there. The less the screen had to say,
> the better.
>
> After looking closely at the Mania Magazine illustration, I'm baffled. The
> screen image looks oddly sloppy. Someone could have altered the artist's work
> (tsk,tsk). It even looks like they signed the screen.
>
> Assuming for a moment that this was a lower-level (artist's) decision (for
> whatever reason), I think it's very possible that the editors, etc had no clue
> that there was any special meaning to the logo. They may not have even seen it
> as a logo, rather as some ambiguous LEGO blob with fakey stuff around it. This
> would allow the page to pass through all hands unquestioned. I can imagine a
> confused proofreader asking what that word was (LUGNET) but that's about it.
>
> IF this were what happened, then what you percieve as a nod from LEGO would be a
> winkie from an individual (possibly fan), not a company-wide bow or high five. I
> personally suspect the company to be largely ignorant of the LUGNET logo -- even
> if it were held up in front of them at poster-size. We'll have to work on that.
> :-)
>
> So, no matter how it happened, I believe any magazine deserves a slap for a slip
> like this, not being more careful. What they did was wrong. It makes no
> difference who was responsible or what their motive was.
>
> As a side comment, slightly related, I noticed that the Mania Magazine depicts
> an iMac as the choice of computer. Being a long time Apple fan and iMac owner, I
> saw the computer itself as a strong choice. I say this because in my
> illustrations, I loved to draw vaguely Mac-like computers. If it were
> inappropriate, the staff would let me know and I'd finish the drawing with a PC.
>
> LEGO Media International, LEGO TECHNIC, and LEGO Mindstorms having not released
> any Mac-compatible software, I thought it was funny. Most artists seem to like
> their Macs very much. Anyway, nice Apple plug (they're way more hip looking
> anyhow)
> ;-)
>
> -Suz.
Thanks for the insight Suzanne!
Perhaps we should look at it this way. Lower level LEGO employees are more hip
about the LEGO community than mid-level management. Perhaps this is a wink to us
from the LEGO rank and file that got past the editors.
Then again, as you well know, the legal issues here are more serious, and it could
cause problems for the LUGNET trademark.
Gary Istok
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
