I just read a blog post by Gilbert Cranberg,
former editorial page editor of the Des Moines Register, snipping at
"the excessive use of art" on the New York Times OpEd page, and
newspapers in general. Mr Cranberg predicted he'd be attacked as an
"aesthetic know-nothing," and actually was called that when he
fired off a similar salvo
back in 2006. Now, I don't want to get personal, but his complaint
reminds me of the gray old days of newspapers,
thirty years ago, when the value of expressive,
interpretive, and conceptual illustration was challenged by so-called
"word-people" as insignificant - illustration, they said, was
superfluous and wasteful. Indeed as every art director knows, the word drives the
newspapers of today and tomorrow. Yet the image is equally as
important, especially today, if not tomorrow.
Now, Mr
Cranberg does not object to pictures that provide information -
graphics or photos - but not all imagery can or should provide the
facts, and nothing but the facts. The role of illustration is to
enhance and illuminate, not always to echo a story,
particularly a "think piece," like those published on OpEd pages.
There are aesthetic pleasures provided by good, well drawn and
conceived illustration. They are
often hooks that help the reader enter a story, or when superb, stand
alone as integral commentaries. They
don't just eat up valuable editorial space, but optimize the space at
hand by giving allure to a story that a headline, blurb, or even
info-graphic may not be able to do on its own.
It is true, as Mr Cranberg argues, that editorial space is more
precious than ever before, but conceptual illustration - satiric,
metaphoric, symbolic - is not an indulgence, it is an integral part of
the modern newspaper experience, and one that adds dimension beyond the
literal, which is just as important in this journalistic environment as
all the other visual and textual components.
|