Let’s just agree that everything sucks now. I for one am a piss poor version of my former near-perfect self.
I’m impressed that Seventeen Magazine’s logo has stayed the same for 40 years. And also, they’re being a bit disingenuous by claiming that GQ is focusing more on sexy women on the cover. I did a google image search for “gq magazine 2015 cover” and this is what came up:
Mostly “white guys in suits”.
The GQ comparison is definitely disingenuous. Now if they’d taken the comedy issue from the same era it would have had Lenny Bruce with Kruschev’s finger in his mouth.
Magazine covers have to get louder - they have to compete with the internet, and it’s not going well. Back in the 1960s, magazines were the internet.
There’s still brilliant work being done for magazine covers. Look at the work that’s been done for Bloomberg over the last few years.
Interesting article, though as WearySky sort-of said, I suspect there’s a degree of cherry-picking to illustrate the points the authors wanted to make.
I certainly wouldn’t like to say ‘then’ or ‘now’ is ‘better’.
When I was a kid, I thought Cosmo was a porn mag based on the covers. But I was a kid in the '70’s, so…
Yeah, comparing an iconic president with an iconic comedian is kinda lame. They’re both shown at the top of their game.
I’ve always thought that someone who didn’t speak English or understand Western culture would have to assume that Playboy and Cosmopolitan were basically the same thing if they only saw the covers.
To be fair, Kennedy looked like shit in a bra,.
Which is a shame, because only one of them has any content worth a shit.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
