Subscriber Content Preview | Request a free trialSearch  
  Go

The Deal Economy 2013

Home    |    Event    |    Blog    |    Awards
Print  |  Share  |  Discuss  |  Reprint

On magazines and arrows

by Robert Teitelman  |  Published April 15, 2011 at 11:29 AM
Arrows125x100.jpgIt's a spring Friday. Let us put aside our grim fixations over deficits and disasters for today, and engage in a very un-Deal Economy-like subject: arrows. As an old fashioned kind of guy, I still read magazines, or (for the most part) I paw through them like a man combing out a dog. This is not like surfing the Web; there's no mad clicking to be done or, for the iPad-maniacs out there, sending digital pages flying past with a dry fingertip and a flourish like a conductor at the end of a sprightly passage. In old-fashioned magazines, the ones with shiny paper, your eye does all the work. For many decades now, magazine devotees have been trained by generations of graphic artists to move efficiently from photo to headlines to decks to the gray wave of type itself. For many years, the height of the graphical art, magazine division, was to accomplish all this -- including directing your eye to those nice ads -- as efficiently as possible. Like a WASPy gentleman of old, magazines wanted to impress you with their classy, if understated, elegance: the English shoes, the ancient tie, the jacket that looks more beautiful the closer you get and the more you know about Hibernian tweed and elbow patches. In short, magazines sought to achieve their purposes without appearing to be trying. It was not unlike the dream of the Web folks to achieve their diabolical purposes without unnecessary click-throughs.  

Which brings us to arrows. Now I have nothing against arrows. Cupid had arrows. Fine by me. My brother-in-law shoots horned animals with arrows. There's an Olympic sport that involves arrows. But of late arrows -- short, bowed and anorexically thin -- have been proliferating in magazines that I flip through as I wolf down lunch. What is their purpose? They tell me that the caption floating out there on the edge of the page belongs to the giant photograph looming nearby; oh, that's Charlie Sheen. They tell me that various pieces of some graphic assembled by a talented madman with more small type than a tax return and tiny blurry heads belong together. It even tells me that the blocky headline goes with the story.
 
Now the truth is I don't really need those arrows. Then why do they exist, like some Ahab of the executive set loose on a white board? (I personally blame Michael Porter, the Harvard Business School professor, who is to arrows what Charles Darwin is to finch beaks: He popularized the arrow as a pedagogical and world-explanatory tool, albeit one that resembled the mystery rites of ancient Greeks. No wonder they call them chains.) I would offer two reasons. First, magazine people have grown insecure. They realize that an entire younger cohort has managed to skip traditional magazine training. They don't know how all this apparatus scattered across blinding white paper works; there's not a link to be seen. And I think it's fair to say that all attempts to pander to this crowd by dropping in Internet-like gewgaws and brackets -- attempting to make the analogue digital -- is about as obvious as an ancient dowager in thigh-high white boots. But this belief that things are getting away from hard-copy magazines has produced any number of graphical howlers, from bizarre methods of pagination requiring an advanced degree in number hunting (key text: "Where's Waldo?"), to find out where the hell you are, to (my very favorite) the yellow highlighting of key passages so you don't really have to read the whole, impossibly turgid and time-sucking article. Executive summary time!
 
Second, and probably more important, these are ironic arrows -- or perhaps I should say, "ironic" arrows. Somewhere behind the velvet curtain, editors or designers are saying to you in code: We know we don't need those arrows. And we know you know we don't these silly things. But that's our little joke, proof that reader and editor belong to the same exclusive and very tasteful club (psst, the best clubs have no signs on the door); it is evidence of our superiority to the unwashed (meaning: old) that believes arrows are for killing things or suggesting that the street is one-way only. The derivation of these arrows is both the seedbed and pinnacle (try to put those two together), never really threatened, of modern magazine irony: Spy. I cannot recall if Spy employed arrows (and my box of the now long-deceased mag is deep in an asbestos-riddled basement, and, yes, I know you can get them all online), but the underlying ironic concept did inform everything that magazine produced -- and several generations of editors have been merrily pilfering and inflicting aging readers with tiny print, blurry thumbnail photos and "funny" if incomprehensible tables and charts ever since.
 
So where were we? Well, rifling through our memories of Spy reminds us off one thing: Magazine graphics, like nearly everything else in this world short of death, taxes and deficits (the latter recently added to make a trinity), is prone to fad and fashion. Like the benighted highlight, which has had at least two bouts of life (proof that a lousy idea can always be resurrected), the superfluous or "ironic" arrow will eventually pass, though I do despair that I will ever again know what page I'm on. - Robert Teitelman  

Share:
Tags: arrows | Charles Darwin | Harvard Business School | highlights | Michael Porter | Spy
blog comments powered by Disqus

Meet the journalists

Robert Teitelman

Editor in chief

Bob Teitelman, editor in chief and a member of the company’s executive committee, is responsible for editorial operations of print and electronic products. Contact



Movers & Shakers

Launch Movers and shakers slideshow

Goldman, Sachs & Co. veteran Tracy Caliendo will join Bank of America Merrill Lynch in September as a managing director and head of Americas equity hedge fund services. For other updates launch today's Movers & shakers slideshow.

Video

Fewer deals despite discount debt

When will companies stop refinancing and jump back into M&A? More video

Sectors