Second Thoughts: Let’s begin again. Rereading my above rant on The New Yorker’s “new look,” I’m struck (and embarrassed) by its petulance. I’ll not delete it just yet; let it stand as evidence of my first reaction to the magazine’s attempt at stylistic refreshment. But now that I’ve had a few days to think about it, I want to post a cooler appraisal. I applaud the expansion of two of my favorite “Goings On About Town” columns: “Tables For Two” and “Art.” I’m a fan of Andrea K. Scott’s writing, and I welcome her increased presence in the magazine. I’m only lukewarm about the print reduction of “Art” and “Movies” capsule reviews. I find the tiny, pinched typeface off-putting. It reminds me of the small print of The New York Review of Books’ “Galleries and Museums,” which, I think, repels reading. Design shouldn’t get between the reader and the magazine. This leads me to my main complaint: the erosion of The New Yorker’s classic, elegant, easily readable serif typeface. I’m not talking about the Rea Irvin-designed font. I like it, too. I’m referring to the wonderful serif letterform that the entire magazine (with the exception of illustration and photo credits) was heretofore printed in. Maybe sanserif is considered more legible on the computer screen. But on paper, whether in magazines or books, serif strikes me as more textured, more readable, more beautiful than sanserif, and I much prefer it. I detect in The New Yorker’s new look a move away from serif typeface. This is regrettable. I realize that stylistic changes are part of The New Yorker’s vibrant history. But certain changes strike at the heart of the magazine’s identity. The shift from serif to sans is one of them.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
September 23, 2013 Issue
The New Yorker’s
new look, unveiled this week, consists of, among other stylistic changes, a
revamped Table of Contents (the writers’ names are now in bold, black, sanserif
script; the titles of their pieces are in a thinner, bold, black sanserif; and
the departmental names, e.g., Profiles, The Wayward Press, The World of
Fashion, are omitted), a new “Goings On About Town” title page (gone are the
notes about upcoming events; the all-most full-page photo dominates; at the foot
of the page there’s a tiny sanserif-printed note related to the event that’s
illustrated by the photo; and in the lower left and right corners there are
clasping, jaw-like heavy bars of black ink in the shape of right-angles), “Night
Life”’s “Critic’s Notebook” now receives full page treatment (with “Night Life”
events printed on the next page in tiny, black serif script that lacks the
grace of the old “Night Life” typeface), capsule reviews of movies are now
crammed into three columns per page instead of two (and are printed in the same
ugly script as the “Night Life” notes), Richard Brody’s “Critic’s Notebook” is
reduced to a lower-left corner blurb printed in a thin, anemic-looking sanserif font, “Dance” also has one of those pointless Art-Deco-ish black
right-angle decorations (like a piece of swastika) and is printed minutely in a
dumbed-down version of The New Yorker’s
classic serif typeface, “Tables For Two” is now allotted almost a full page
(and there’s a new column called “Food & Drink, printed in tiny, thin sanserif),
Andrea K. Scott’s “Critic’s Notebook” is expanded to a full page (including
illustration), the art gallery notes are, like the movie notes, squished three
abreast down the page (titled in soulless, bolded sanserif), ditto re the
“Theatre” notes, Alex Ross’s “Critic’s Notebook” on classical musical is expanded
to a full page (plus illustration), and “Above and Beyond” receives, in place
of an illustration, one of those hideous, useless black corner brackets. The
overall effect of these changes is that the magazine looks a little less like
its old self and a bit more like Vanity
Fair.
Fortunately the content is as rich and stimulating as ever,
and continues to be printed in The New
Yorker’s elegant, textured serif font. Pick of the Issue this week is Janet
Malcolm’s terrific “Nobody’s Looking At You,” a profile of clothing designer,
Eileen Fisher. I particularly enjoyed Malcolm’s parenthetical observation about
women wearing scarves: “Eileen knows how to wear scarves the way women in Paris
know how to wear them and American women almost touchingly don’t.” That “almost
touchingly” is pure Malcolm.
Second Thoughts: Let’s begin again. Rereading my above rant on The New Yorker’s “new look,” I’m struck (and embarrassed) by its petulance. I’ll not delete it just yet; let it stand as evidence of my first reaction to the magazine’s attempt at stylistic refreshment. But now that I’ve had a few days to think about it, I want to post a cooler appraisal. I applaud the expansion of two of my favorite “Goings On About Town” columns: “Tables For Two” and “Art.” I’m a fan of Andrea K. Scott’s writing, and I welcome her increased presence in the magazine. I’m only lukewarm about the print reduction of “Art” and “Movies” capsule reviews. I find the tiny, pinched typeface off-putting. It reminds me of the small print of The New York Review of Books’ “Galleries and Museums,” which, I think, repels reading. Design shouldn’t get between the reader and the magazine. This leads me to my main complaint: the erosion of The New Yorker’s classic, elegant, easily readable serif typeface. I’m not talking about the Rea Irvin-designed font. I like it, too. I’m referring to the wonderful serif letterform that the entire magazine (with the exception of illustration and photo credits) was heretofore printed in. Maybe sanserif is considered more legible on the computer screen. But on paper, whether in magazines or books, serif strikes me as more textured, more readable, more beautiful than sanserif, and I much prefer it. I detect in The New Yorker’s new look a move away from serif typeface. This is regrettable. I realize that stylistic changes are part of The New Yorker’s vibrant history. But certain changes strike at the heart of the magazine’s identity. The shift from serif to sans is one of them.
Second Thoughts: Let’s begin again. Rereading my above rant on The New Yorker’s “new look,” I’m struck (and embarrassed) by its petulance. I’ll not delete it just yet; let it stand as evidence of my first reaction to the magazine’s attempt at stylistic refreshment. But now that I’ve had a few days to think about it, I want to post a cooler appraisal. I applaud the expansion of two of my favorite “Goings On About Town” columns: “Tables For Two” and “Art.” I’m a fan of Andrea K. Scott’s writing, and I welcome her increased presence in the magazine. I’m only lukewarm about the print reduction of “Art” and “Movies” capsule reviews. I find the tiny, pinched typeface off-putting. It reminds me of the small print of The New York Review of Books’ “Galleries and Museums,” which, I think, repels reading. Design shouldn’t get between the reader and the magazine. This leads me to my main complaint: the erosion of The New Yorker’s classic, elegant, easily readable serif typeface. I’m not talking about the Rea Irvin-designed font. I like it, too. I’m referring to the wonderful serif letterform that the entire magazine (with the exception of illustration and photo credits) was heretofore printed in. Maybe sanserif is considered more legible on the computer screen. But on paper, whether in magazines or books, serif strikes me as more textured, more readable, more beautiful than sanserif, and I much prefer it. I detect in The New Yorker’s new look a move away from serif typeface. This is regrettable. I realize that stylistic changes are part of The New Yorker’s vibrant history. But certain changes strike at the heart of the magazine’s identity. The shift from serif to sans is one of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment