A few weeks back I posted a few roughs I did for a cover assignment. The cover is now published and no surprise that if I like it then there's a good chance that Soojin assigned it. As usual she sends over an e mail asking if I would like to do a job for her and the description of what she needs is refreshingly brief and to the point. This time it was myth, mythology, or mythological creatures.
I did a talk yesterday at the University of the Arts for a big class of seniors. An incredible faculty there, won't name them here but you all know who you are. Anyway, in my class talks I inevitably get to the subject of art directors who allow editors to run the show, and the idea that if you have a story of say the 50 best mutual funds for 2011 you do not need an illustration to accompany that which will simply reitterate visually what's in the article, or to put it bluntly, if the story is boring and info heavy why would you want the illustration to be equally as boring, unimaginative and uninspiring. Not to say that all articles in trades and business pubs are boring it's just to say that I think, and I believe Soojin would agree, that the illustration is supposed to counter the article. Sure it has to be connected in some way, but as demonstrated by Soojin's direction-that thread of connectivity can be very thin-and to me that is way more thought provoking for the reader than a literal interpretation of dry material. And makes the magazine look a hell of a lot better as well. Other art directors, and dare I say editors-take note!