« What you can do so that others might eat | Main | Andrew Sullivan, explainer of change »

10/14/2013

Comments

Jessica

I like your take on this very much. So disappointing. Part of my frustration was exactly what you identify here. I found the shopping information shockingly incomplete, and there was no depth to any of the features, no explanations. There was no information for me to use, just incredibly brief (and partial) descriptions of what the photos were already showing. The photos didn't work well together. I felt as though I wasn't seeing much of the spaces they photographed, and the images worked against each other, creating a confusing impression of each place. The styling changes in each shot were glaringly obvious and contributed to the confusion ("Wait, which way am I looking? [flip flip, flip flip] Oh—they must have taken that occasional table out and replaced it with that chair from—I can't tell where the chair is from.") I hated that everything referred me to their site. I read magazine credits closely and use them as an education, expanding my knowledge of a field. Where do I look for more products like this? Who are the lead players in this industry? The new Domino, on the other hand, is a closed loop with hardly any data inside. This issue was even more self-referential than magazines usually are, with all the featured property owners' products making up the vast, vast majority of the featured wares. That read to me as the editor's youth and inexperience showing: "Here are my five friends, their houses, their stores, and the spaces they've decorated. I don't have any other resources." And the only exceptions: Coco Chanel's apartment and an India Hicks property? Really? So played out and uncreative, I was literally groaning out loud and rolling my eyes. These boring, overdone subjects could have been saved with actual editorial input, know-how, and creativity (the "being" focus you describe), but they were absent from these stories just the way they were from the rest of the issue. Bonus demerit: Chanel Graphite is *not* a bright silver glitter nail polish, although they adjusted the color so as to include it in a (boring) "silver" feature. That was a big hit to their credibility early on.

Jessica

Two more thoughts: (1) This new issue used the "the end" graphic inconsistently, I felt. I missed it at the beginning of the book, wondering if I was at the end of a story, but not seeing the trademark "the end," so figuring there must be more . . . only to turn the page and discover I had been on the last page. "The end" started appearing in the second half of the issue. (2) I found the cover model and the explanation of the use of the model to be odd. I expected no photos of the cover home's owner after reading the note that they'd used a model for the cover, but then there were plenty of photos of the home owner in the story itself. I think it would have been a better choice to feature a different space on the cover and avoid the awkward explanation.

Bingoonline titanpoker casino ladbrokes

gsvantdinfjtfs, ladbrokes casino, QzoxJWa, [url=http://cvhcolor.com/]Ladrokes co uk[/url], enKBMmg, http://cvhcolor.com/ Ladrokes co uk, MNlhatk.

Xanax online online consultation canada

sqasutdinfjtfs, Xanax online no doctor canada, KwyRRYw, [url=http://www.redwoodatlostisland.com/activities.html]Order xanax online no prescription[/url], GKExWcv, http://www.redwoodatlostisland.com/activities.html Purchase online generic xanax, hwBmFFD.

The comments to this entry are closed.