Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
In the tech bro spread, can you speak to the actual fashion changes​
- e.g. how the generalist differs visually from the scientist? Who​
decided how to dress those guys, which clothes were right for each​
evolution?
  

    
lots of discussion between brian and me --- and we were sad that​
there wasnt room for two of our models, one from the late 90s and​
one from the 2000s. but david told us that we had to cut, so...

we were mostly just riffing, with the most significant diff. of​
opinion with the HP guy. yes i was acquainted with the rugby shirt​
model --- but i advocated hard for a different model, the one with​
the sportcoat/button-down colored longsleeve shirt/the rapidograph​
mechanical pencil in the shirt pocket/khakis or black jeans/rockport​
shoes or maybe new balance sneaks.

we just were acquainted with these people/had spotted them around.​
early intel employees just looked like NASA scientists...


visual anthropologists. snark by walking around.
  

    
Congratulations on the new issue, Paulina and Brian! I am looking​
forward to getting mine.

This phase of the conversation almost reads like a primer on doing a​
'zine. Neat.
  

    
-collared-! not colored shirt. aargh autocorrect/autofill. 

definitely a magazine, not a zine. production values in all respects​
not at all DIY (although it was DIY in that all labor was
volunteer).
  

    
Good points. Rephrase: "...almost reads like a primer on DIY'ing a​
magazine."
  

    
perhaps, with the big precondition was david's (unconscious) ability​
to select for folks who are quickwitted and play well with others.​
all liking and respecting each other, as we all know, doesnt​
necessarily happen that much in group efforts.
  

    

hi everyone! though most of us in this conversation are long-time members
of The Well, i'd like to suggest that for non-Well readers, we perhaps give
a little context as to what has formed our own opinions and questions. our
host Jon Lebkowsky, for example, has also been part of the whole Internet
thingy-thang since nearly forever, and was a co-founder of Fringe Ware. so
anyway, i'll add a bit about myself below.

In Formation is a gloriously high quality affair with excellent design and
very superhigh production values. (as an editor of Plazm magazine, i know a
bit about such things.) one thing that strikes me, as it did Ari in a
previous question: who is the intended audience? 

i ask because, well, it's something i ask clients in the branding and
content realms. more importantly, i would be delighted to see this kind of
information, the implications it has on our society, to be absorbed by a
wide swath of hypnotized humans sucked into the Enshittified Internet (tm
Cory Doctorow, another Well member). it seems to me that In
Formation is aimed more at other longtime insiders, who are more likely to
get the jokes and references. but will any of this translate into action?
and was that a consideration anyway?

[Tiffany Lee Brown, aka T. Lee Brown and magdalen and a few more pen names
-- writer, independent print & online magazine editor, artist, etc.]
  

    

Do you think of In Formation's new issue as part of the print​
magazine comeback? 
  

    
wrt #32 i partially answered this in response #17

"audience is anyone who appreciates good design/in partic has a​
sense of humor/cares about what tech is doing to us. so, lots of​
people. and people who work in tech (or tech-adjacent) seem very​
interested. i think 150 copies were left in the breakroom of​
google's AI hq in london..."

analog in lots of ways -is- back.

yes much of this is insidery --- but not all. different people can​
enjoy different pieces in different ways (the retro covers are a​
fine example).

BUT we were always clear, even though the editorial POV is the​
opposite of -gee whiz-, we are not foreign affairs nor MIT Review​
nor mother jones.  there is plenty to learn but we weren't on an​
educational mission. more art-making than policy-making but of​
course art with a message.

the missing iphone photo essay says a -lot-.
  

    
and we are happy to report, that mag culture, a london enterprise​
solely devoted to magazines, sold out of its 1st consignment of five​
copies and ordered another ten.

i also think ppl are starved for good parody and good humor. and a​
tech-critical glossy mag makes more sense now than ever because tech​
is so pervasive even in the lives of civilians.

what is more puzzling to us is lack of any mainstream media​
coverage. the closest we've come is that the bbc north america​
technology correspondent devote a graf or two to the mag in her​
weekly newsletter.
  

    
we also have consignment copies at politics and prose bookstore in​
DC and a few places in NYC and many in sf. and barnes + noble​
basically took all we had left in the warehouse and if we had more,​
the southern chain books-a-million would have taken 750 (which we​
didnt have to spare).

david and i gave a talk at berkeley in late june (mag was just​
coming off the press, so we didnt have it to share) --- and the​
audience was a mix of all kinds of people --- who seemed​
happy/interested in what we had to say.

it's early days to know where it might end up or who all might be​
interested.

so i remain a bit puzzled by these questions of who is it for? i​
cant use their names, but some super wellknown mainstream people​
love the mag; these are ppl with varying degrees of techy-ness.

if you are super-techy, you will get certain aspects of it. if you​
are not, you will enjoy other aspects (such as the fake film poster​
and the illustration for the siri-as-therapist piece).

who was 'spy' magazine for? who was 'esquire' for? these were some​
of the precursors we had in our heads...
  

    
Do you think magazines are going away at some point? We've heard​
that books are done, but I still see books and bookstores​
everywhere. Perhaps there's something about print-on-paper that we​
continue to want/need in our lives?
  

    
i think david says, by the numbers, magazines are not going away. i​
have never been any good about making predictions. probably the​
point at which magazines go away would be the same point a lot of​
other  (unknowable) things will have gone away as well.
  

    
What visual language (type, grid, color, imagery rules) defines this​
issue, and how did design decisions support readability vs.​
aesthetic risk?
  

    
now there you are asking questions i am totally unqualified to​
answer; i really didnt interact with the art crew.

my fave person in the world, my artist cousin who lives in paris​
(print and photography are his main media), was just looking at his​
copy and remarked 'too much ink and too many fonts'.

i see why he said that BUT i really do compare the magazine to the​
'whole earth catalogue' --- this is a compendium, in some senses NOT​
a unitary whole. and different designers/artists worked at different​
times on different pieces on a print product that took a year to​
finish. and as with the texts, the illustrators/designers had a lot​
of freedom.

what -i- perceive is a lot of larking about/tonal differences/parody​
+ pastiche and widely varying everything. frinstance, my 'silicon​
valley truth and reconciliation' program was laid out as if created​
by an overworked admin working in an office with no resources and​
using a cheap printer and crummy paper. look and feel as if a simple​
printout from a MSWord file.  david took the printout and at my​
direction took it outside and -stepped on it-, as to look like it​
had been dumped on a sidewalk and ignored.

this has nothing to do with the look/feel of the gorgeous full-color​
fake film poster for 'the thread'. 

visually, they had nothing to do with each other.
  

    
(i pinged brian to drop on by if he has time because he knows a lot​
more about the art stuff than i do --- and did a lot of it himself)
  

    
I loved the look and feel of the magazine. There is no reason I can​
think of to have limited the font palette given all that is going
on.
  

    
yeah that's my feeling as well. but i thot my cousin's opinion was​
worth sharing, even if to articulate that we have a diff. take on
it.