Sign of the times: Epilogue

My recent Sign of the times post turned out to be the most controversial I have experienced since this blog started in 2008. Over a 7-day period some 8,000 people visited to check out the post. Many added well-considered and thought provoking comments. What they highlighted was a deeply held passion and clear views about the current state of British editorial design.
 
Grazing through the comments has hardened my view even more.
 
The heyday of brilliant British editorial design ran from the 1960s to the late 1980s. There was a real spirit of adventure and courage, couple with a healthy rivalry and mutual respects between the art directors working at the various magazines during that period; Tom Wolsey, Dennis Bailey, Michael Rand, Max Maxwell, Barry Trengrove, Roy Carruthers, Geoffrey Axbey, Tony Mullins, Romek Marber, Harri Peccinotti, David Hillman, David Driver Pearce Marchbank and David King. A stellar roll call of exceptional talent, all responsible for some stunningly original work.  Yes, it is true to say, and as pointed out in the comments, that they were less demanding times with far fewer distractions – The digital world had yet to arrive.  But when it did, things changed forever.
 
The web gave us an alternative portal through which to view the world, out of that came DIY programming, the explosion of YouTube and a myriad of alternatives to open up new ways of delivering entertainment, information or just plain stimulation.  Meanwhile the newspapers and magazines came under increasing pressure to hold onto their readers. The cult of ‘celebrity’ reared its head, I’m not talking about real stars here, they were always newsworthy, I mean the B and D listers who have become famous for well, being famous and contributing very little. Like an insidious cancer they permeated the pages of many of our newspapers and magazines at an alarming rate.

The depressing visual template for 21st century magazines
 
The advent of publications like Hello, OK, Garcia, Nuts, Closer and Heat etc started to influence their near neighbours and over a relatively short period all covers at the popular end of the market became identical. The inside pages filled with Twitter sized articles about shallow people.

The young and impressionable latched on to them. And these days it is not unusual for kids to say that their ambition is to become ‘famous’, but with little to offer. No talent. No passion.  This ambition now plays a major part in our media, especially television. We see cheaply produced reality shows, hyped up karaoke styled talent contests, or the combative scenarios, where constants are exposed to cruel ridicule for the voyeuristic public to lap up, a formula dished up every which way. It is this unpleasant menu that has taken up a large part of airtime.
 
What has saddened me most about some of the responses to Sign of the times is the acceptance and defence of mediocrity. ‘It’s the way it is’, I hear them say, ‘It can’t be changed’. The old adage, ‘Don’t give people what they want, give them what they didn’t know they wanted’ seems a surreal concept from another time, another place.

 Spot the difference.

Comments

[Norman]

...and Mike, whatever you do, don't start on the decline of British comics.... http://lewstringer.blogspot.com/2011/08/bad-circulation.html

[mike]

Now that's a thought.

[Robert Newman]

Well put about the desire for fame. In his famous speech at the 1984 Democratic convention Jesse Jackson wisely said that young people today confuse being famous with being great. It's easy to be famous, he said, it doesn't take any skill or talent. Being great is a lot more work, and takes a lot more character ("my grandmother is great!" is how he phrased it).

[IPetulant]

Very good article Mike. Though depressing in its content it does show – in regards to our impressionable youth – that it may only get worse before it gets better.

Having hundreds of TV channels which 90% of the time show 'I'm Alan Partridge' ideas – Money Tennis, Arm Wrestling with Chas and Dave etc – only fuels the fire.

Can a new great magazine design break the circle of stupidity? I really hope so.

[graham peake]

" ‘Don’t give people what they want, give them what they didn’t know they wanted’ seems a surreal concept from another time, another place..."

Yet this is what Steve Jobs and Apple have been doing for a very successful decade or more.

Perhaps those with their hands on the purse strings, as well as those creatives in positions of power, need to take a closer look at the clear business case Apple makes for innovation.

Excellent blog, as always.

[Sharron Morrison]

I totally agree with you. It is really sad that young people are growing up with this ambition of getting and not seeing the importance of leaving their malr on the world. Their main purpose in life is to be seen and they feel that to achieve this, they need to be famous. I am a youth worker and I want more for my young people than just being on the front of some cover because they were on X-Factor. Young people have more to give than this sort of television, they have the passion and courage to change the world. They just need to be given the resources and fuel to do so, not to be shut away and entertained. Give them a voice, give them responsibility and you might be surprised.

[Kellie Strøm]

But even if we can't get back to the glory days of drawing in the Radio Times, perhaps we can have more radio drawing like this:

http://benhasapencil.blogspot.com/2011/09/life-and-fate-for-bbc-radio-4.html

[Freddie B.]

I read both these blog posts and found myself in violent agreement with you. All those responses of the 'wake up and smell the coffee' variety were too defensive and failed to answer the principal charge of ugliness you level at commercial magazine culture today.

That said, I am not convinced I entirely agree with your analysis. Yes, celebrity culture has its part to play here, but to my mind it's part of one or two bigger, complementary cultural trends.

The first of these is the irreversible shift towards bite-sized journalism. In today's superfast, web-driven communication culture, the majority of 'stories' can be transmitted with a single image and a line or two of copy. I'm not just talking about the Sun or facebook - this rule applies to the homepage of most major news organisations.

The second is the prevalence of visual stimulation over verbal communication. The invention of plasma and LED screens is surrounding us in visual stimuli, making the act of reading a much slower, more considered act. Once magazines have surrendered to the vice of trying to compete with that world and deliver maximum visual stimulation, they no longer support a particularly satisfying reading experience. And the sheer density of advertising in the most popular titles simply heightens this effect.

Celebrites exist at the interface of these trends. They're great to look at, and what they have to say at any one point in time can generally be reduced to a simple line of gossip or self-promotion.

Frankly the kind of magazine which can withstand these cultural pressures is never going to be one aimed at a mass readership. Special interest mags like Creative Review, Icon and the Believer deliver terrific design that supports a good reading experience, but they are all niche publications with discerning audiences. Can anyone name me a mass market title that bucks this trend?