Artwork in Gourmet, Not looking good enough to eat

[Char]

Have you seen the contest on the website called "cook the cover"?  This is a chance for people from eGullet to show just what they can do...  There is a link to the recipe for the dish on the cover, and you cook it, make whatever improvements you deem appropriate, and then photograph it and send in your photo.  Winners get a trip to New York.

Link to the contest

←

You are the best! Thanks for posting that. Now, we can put our money where our mouth is. Is anyone entering? I'm no food stylist but I'm sure I could do better than that cover.

I wonder where they got the idea for that contest. Hmm...

[Megan Blocker]

I wonder where they got the idea for that contest. Hmm...

←

Perhaps they are lurking on this very thread...one never knows!

[lesfen]

Have you seen the contest on the website called "cook the cover"?  This is a chance for people from eGullet to show just what they can do...  There is a link to the recipe for the dish on the cover, and you cook it, make whatever improvements you deem appropriate, and then photograph it and send in your photo.  Winners get a trip to New York.

Link to the contest

←

You are the best! Thanks for posting that. Now, we can put our money where our mouth is. Is anyone entering? I'm no food stylist but I'm sure I could do better than that cover.

I wonder where they got the idea for that contest. Hmm...

←

I think I'm in. Maybe Wednesday night.

[Megan Blocker]

Bump!

Was perusing the nominations for the Ellie's (American Society of Magazine Editors - ASME - awards for excellence), and I saw that Gourmet was the only food magazine to receive a nomination for food photography.

Click here for the ASME press release.

PHOTOGRAPHY: This category recognizes excellence in magazine photography. The award honors the effectiveness of photography, photojournalism and photo illustration in enhancing a magazine’s unique mission and personality.

Gourmet: Ruth Reichl, editor-in-chief; Richard Ferretti, creative director; Erika Oliveira, art director; Amy Koblenzer, photo editor, for May, July, September issues.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Megan Blocker (log)

[TAPrice]

I've been looking closer at the Gourmet covers since this thread started. It's hard to argue that many covers are just bizarre.

What about that slice of cake a few issues back with the macro focus. It looked like we were zooming in on one small portion of the slice. Very strange.

And then I saw the same issue on the news stand. There was faint text superimposed over the image. The photo that looked odd on the subscribers copy jumped out from behind the text.

I've come to the conclusion that Gourmet's covers really are great. It's just that they look odd when not covered or surround by text. The rather brutal use of high contrast and sometimes odd focus stands out on the news stand. What I don't understand is why they insist on shipping subscriber copies that look so odd.

[Toliver]

To go slightly off topic, I became a big fan of Pornchai Mittongtare's fabulous food photos when I used to do the Bon Appétit Magazine digests for eGullet. His work is incredible.

You can see more of his portfolio on his web site (warning - it's Flash-heavy):

Mittongtare Studio

[MarketStEl]

I've been looking closer at the Gourmet covers since this thread started. It's hard to argue that many covers are just bizarre.

What about that slice of cake a few issues back with the macro focus. It looked like we were zooming in on one small portion of the slice. Very strange.

And then I saw the same issue on the news stand. There was faint text superimposed over the image. The photo that looked odd on the subscribers copy jumped out from behind the text.

I've come to the conclusion that Gourmet's covers really are great. It's just that they look odd when not covered or surround by text. The rather brutal use of high contrast and sometimes odd focus stands out on the news stand. What I don't understand is why they insist on shipping subscriber copies that look so odd.

←

You raise a very interesting point.

It sounds like Gourmet has taken a slightly different approach to the newsstand-vs.-subscription cover conundrum than magazines like The Atlantic Monthly and The New Yorker have.

(The two titles I just cited have card stock outer pages that partly obscure their regular covers; teasers for articles inside appear on the card stock page, which can be removed to reveal the cover art as it was meant to be seen.)

If Gourmet is choosing its cover photos mainly for how they will look with text superimposed over them, then shipping copies to subscribers without all that text, the subscriber copy covers will look a little strange.

But going back to the beginning of this thread, it seems to me that wasn't what had people all upset.

[Gifted Gourmet]

from Slate Online

The photographs themselves, taken mostly by longtime Gourmet photographer Romulo Yanes, are moody and attractive, but as cover art they mystified me. A cover needs to entice or provoke, as well as stand out next to its competitors on the newsstand. Gourmet clearly aims to separate itself from flashier competitors like Everyday Food, or newcomer Every Day With Rachael Ray, with a clean look and a hushed color palate; but its barren, chilly covers were a step too far. ...July's cover also recalls Gourmet's iconographic history: Its prop details hark back to the lush tablescapes of the '80s when, in the thrall of both nouvelle cuisine and an Aaron-Spelling-like consumer exhibitionism, presentation mattered.

Anyone else see this "clean look and hushed color palate"?

[Luckylies]

I thought it looked really weathered and 70's, kinda of Connecticut nobility wasp cold blue yacht. ya know?

[BigboyDan]

Sara Dickerman is out of her mind: how can any cover picture of a plate of BBQ ribs be, "barren, chilly"???

[Megan Blocker]

Eh, I like the covers. They're restrained and actually pretty, rather than just eye-catching. Of course, I subscribe, so what it looks like on the newsstand means nothing to me.

[Toliver]

Sara Dickerman is out of her mind: how can any cover picture of a plate of BBQ ribs be, "barren, chilly"???

←

[Gifted Gourmet]

I thought it looked really weathered and 70's, kinda of Connecticut nobility wasp cold blue yacht. ya know? 

←

Wasn't that Ralph Lauren's objective in some of his earlier clothing designing?

The covers probably use the concept as well to convey the elusive "class" idea as well ...

[bleachboy]

I love Gourmet's cover art. Heck, I subscribe mostly so I can get the copies without all the blurb text. My wife scored a bunch of old backissues that the public library was going to throw away, and it's nice to see that really the cover art hasn't changed much over the years -- just beautiful, close-up photographs of gorgeous food.

I think Ms. Dickerman is a victim of the iPod-style "make everything white, safety orange, and lime green" design style that's currently in vogue. I like that style, too, but everything doesn't have to be "light and bright" to be attractive.

[Corinna Dunne]

I must admit… I too was a bit mystified by the chocolate mousse shot on the February cover, and thought: that will never hop off the stand (I gave a friend a present of a subscription, so we both dip in). But it grew on me, and it certainly “provoked” a reaction, which was probably the objective. I think the July shot is great, and yes, it has a real RL classy feel, and there is a sense that it is drawing on the heritage of the title.

I’m just back from a holiday in Maine, and picked up a number of the food magazines on sale in the US (as well as a load of back issues from a charity book store), and I was wondering about the positioning of the various titles, in particular:

Gourmet

Food & Wine

Saveur

Bon Appetit.

Which would you say is pitched at the highest level, what differentiates them, and who are the different titles aimed at? In the Slate article, Gourmet is compared with Everyday Food and Rachel Ray, (titles I’m not familiar with), which struck me immediately as a different market segment completely (based on Rachel Ray’s TV programmes). Am I right on this?

[Corinna Dunne]

Thanks for the link Varmint. It was interesting to read the circulation figures:

Bon Appetit in the lead with1.3m

Gourmet and Food & Wine more or less level pegging at just under a million copies

Saveur, quite a bit behind at just under 400k.

I'd be interested to hear a bit more about what people think differentiates the titles.

[marty mccabe]

I've been subscribing to Saveur for three years now, and for me, a chunk of the appeal rests both in the depth of the articles, the variety of subjects covered within each and every issue, and the slight edge of, "we know this might not appeal to everyone, but we're going to go really in-depth anyway." So many magazines are hung up on making sure each and every article is universally appealing.

As for Gourmet, I decided against renewing my subscription, as there seem to only be about 2-3 issues a year that I want, usually coordinating with an article by Bourdain.

I'm trying Bon Appetit for a year, with a little more variety of articles, and not-so California-centric wine writing / suggestions.

On a related note, I absolutely despise this trend of "no text" subscription covers. When you've got a bookshelf full of cooking magazines, and you're looking for that certain article, blank covers suck...

just my 2 cents...

[alicehat]

I guess I'm one of those people who has nothing better to do than study food magazine covers and form strong opinions about them.

A few months ago, I was browsing through my monthly stack of food porn, and there was no doubt that Gourmet's cover and feature layouts seemed to be filtered through a cool, blue lens. "Barren" and "chilly" seem perfectly good words to describe the look. In contrast to the warm, bright and downright juicy photos in Bon Appetit, Gourmet's seems too sophisticated - almost standoffish, despite the very obvious attempt to style the shots to look casually rustic and natural.

I do enjoy Gourmet very much all the same. I'm finding the recipes themselves really doable and appealing. The April issue, in particular, offered up some recipes that turned out to be my favorites of the year: White Bean and Asparagus Salad, Shrimp Scampi Pasta, Lemon Olive Oil Cake.

As for the lack of verbiage on subscriber's copies, I love that. I can't stand looking at newsstand covers that scream out "574 Ways to Toss Salads!".

What annoys me to no end is how my copy of Gourmet arrives in my mailbox weeks after appearing on the newstand.

Edited July 19, 2006 by alicehat (log)

[Pontormo]

I am bumping this up since the current version of this topic is devoted exclusively to covers.

I should mention that I only started to receive issues on a regular basis in April, thanks to a free subscription after an order at Jessica's Biscuit. I am a fan of most of the changes made after Ruth Reichl became editor, especially the kind and quality of literary content.

The diversity of subjects and intellectual substance strike me as welcome changes after all those years in which the connotations of the name of the magazine set my teeth on edge. I am all for certain kinds of elitism and can live with the ads for Lexus, Infiniti, Rolex and even the diamond industry and Ralph Lauren in what is, after all, a Conde Nast publication. However, Gourmet's classism has always been at odds with my own. Now there is more than the Sterns to acknowledge that food is food and not only a sign of pedigree.

I seem to represent the minority in enjoying what I view as an equivalent lack of pretension in current photography. I like the covers. The text now found on the spine is very handy; I used to scrawl in "Colwin's fake tandoori" or "Louisiana road trip" myself after the old annoying stapled format gave way to one that's flat and glued.

What DID bother me to pieces was the obnoxious issue this month where the fold-out ad on the cover (always a grrr moment anyway) reversed direction so that the cover image was on one half of the BACK SIDE of a double-spread layout of something you were supposed to want to buy and you couldn't just tear off the ad, keep the cover shot and be done with it.

Clever little market editor! Would love to trip at a cocktail party and spill red wine on her vintage Chanel.

Second, as much as I love the photographs inside the magazine, I often find the slick graphics annoying even though I can admire their artfulness. A: because they are so fashionable and of the moment, it is hard to distinguish them from the actual advertizements; the talent behind both was refined at the same schools. Reminds me of television.

B, my main point: the bold and busy layout distracts from text in articles that tend to be shorter than they used to be, or appear to be shorter on average. Visual grazing for the ADD Postmodern world that perhaps is based on the assumption readers don't want to sit down for a while and concentrate on a sustained argument or essay. Self-fulfilling prophecy? The New Yorker breaks up its notoriously long articles with cartoons, ads, and itty-bitty drawings, but I think it's more than familiarity that makes my experience of reading this publication different.

[Toliver]

What annoys me to no end is how my copy of Gourmet arrives in my mailbox weeks after appearing on the newstand.

←

This has long been the burr under my saddle, so to speak, as well. Afterall, we're subscribers and we want the magazine...then why don't we get the magazine before the rest of the public? Grrrrrr.

[cocoagirl]

What annoys me to no end is how my copy of Gourmet arrives in my mailbox weeks after appearing on the newstand.

←

This has long been the burr under my saddle, so to speak, as well. Afterall, we're subscribers and we want the magazine...then why don't we get the magazine before the rest of the public? Grrrrrr.

←

I agree and it is the case with most of the magazines I subscribe to- it used to be as a subscriber you got the magazine first. For some reason this is no more.

[Chanterelle]

Coming in late to this discussion I just want to chime in with my disappointment over Gourmet's photography. I've subscribed on and off since the 70s, but I almost never even buy single copies anymore. Why must the dominant color be gray? What is so appetizing about half-eaten food surrounded by crumbs? What's with the blurry shots? Admitting my own lack of sophistication and familiarity with food styling trends, I want to see pictures that make my mouth water. I bought the August issue because I'd heard about the content, but the cover wouldn't have tempted me at all. I can see that it's well designed for newsstand copy but it doesn't speak to me, and I can imagine just tossing aside that dreary piece had it arrived in my mailbox. Food porn, not Helmut Newton!

Susan

[maryeats]

Did anyone catch Sara Dickerman's article on slate.com concerning the covers of Gormet?

http://www.slate.com/id/2145883/

[gus_tatory]

...

What DID bother me to pieces was the obnoxious issue this month where the fold-out ad on the cover (always a grrr moment anyway) reversed direction so that the cover image was on one half of the BACK SIDE of a double-spread layout of something you were supposed to want to buy and you couldn't just tear off the ad, keep the cover shot and be done with it. 

Clever little market editor!  Would love to trip at a cocktail party and spill red wine on her vintage Chanel...

←

oh, meow~! now this is why i read eGullet~!

another thing that same Marketing Editor in the vintage Chanel was probably responsible for is the 80-lb.-cardboard insert halfway through for Fancy Feast Elegant Medleys [tm] "gourmet cat food". eck.

[Toliver]

Did anyone catch Sara Dickerman's article on slate.com concerning the covers of Gormet?

http://www.slate.com/id/2145883/

←

There was a previous discussion about it but I can't find it. I suppose it was merged into this discussion by the moderators.