I found this cover design to be similar, but definitely different. The obvious similarity is the use of cut outs. What I think is the main difference is the size each photo is played on the page. Clearly, the historical example of this montage of past covers uses a variety of sizes for the objects in the design. In "Entertainment Weekly's" review cover, there is very little variation in the size of the people.
I think these have different effects due to the basic way that we view pictures, but I also think those effects are intentional. Each issue has itsown purpose and its own desired outcome. The historical cover comes across as more of a personal reflection of stories covered that year while EW's cover is more of a collection of people the magazine has featured in some way or an
other.
I chose this example (also from EW) that highlighted "typographic expressions" with an illustration. They are pretty similar (and yes, the spread about Hunger Games is backwards). Some difference can be seen in type treatment - "Hunger Games" is set apart from the rest of the title in color and bleeds to the edge of the spread. Also, the body text has a more traditional layout on this spreadthan in the historical example. All in all, it is a little less abstract than Herb Lubalin's (the designer for the "Pleasure Painter") and more structured to fit the EW style.
In this last comparison, the way that text is displayed in this historical design is quite interesting. (It actually reminds me of the "Daily Prophet" from Harry Potter. If it was moving...) Like the blocked type that provides structure and segments the spread, this more recent spread from "Good" uses thinner lines along with varied text sizes and fonts to organize the information. Even though all of the text in this spread is horizontal, the contrast between black and white is still very clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment