Skip to main content

Where have all the magazines gone?

Confession time: my first love was writing. I was assigned "make a newsletter" in high school and absolutely fell head-over-heels in love with designing, writing, drawing, and printing the single-fold sci-fi 'zine (this in the days before 'zines were a thing). My friends wrote for it, too, and there was a book review and a hand-drawn title and everything important I could think to include.

There are times I miss that format of communication. Short magazines can be not only incredibly gratifying to make but also extremely helpful to a particular audience. Like, say, tourists who are in town for one weekend and want to know what the cultural heartbeat is. My family and I recently visited the metro-Asheville area and picked up an abundance of monthly/bi-monthly/yearly printed magazines. Actual hard-copy, some glossy, some newsprint arts-and-culture magazines.* I pored through them, cover-to-cover, to find calendar listings, articles about restaurants, ads that looked cool, and information about local theaters. And, guess what!, we actually visited a few of the places we could (our limited schedule + business hours didn't always mesh).**

I understand the move away from print: it's expensive, it usually requires more than one person to make (writers don't often make good designers and vice versa), there may be advertising that has to be sold, planning, etc etc, ad nauseum. Building a website may be more labor-intensive up front, but is simply plug-n-play later on, and can be maintained by one person. But the downside to a website is this: audiences still have to find it. You can't put it under their nose at the local theater and the cool dive restaurant and at the Convention and Visitors Bureau and at the hip downtown store and at the local brewery with a tasting room and and and. You get my point: helping folks, whether tourists or locals, find out about cultural offerings requires repetition. A community which relies on a website is probably not going to get the kind of buzz they're hoping for. And a community which doesn't even offer one for the general public, but instead has a handful of independent bloggers covering the multiple scenes, will find itself again and again wondering why folks are still ONLY going to the S/O/B or Broadway touring shows instead of homegrown programming available.

It needn't be elaborate. It needn't be that expensive. It doesn't necessarily even need to be well-written (is there such a job as "copy editor" any more?). What a local culture rag does need is to be omnipresent.


*Full disclosure: there were some beer-related ones in there, too.
**And I happen to be one of those crazy people who tells the business where I found out about them. After all, I want to know my ROI. Wouldn't they?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

High Art vs Low Art

“The masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator.” - -The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin, 1936 Is there any more contentious question in the art world than the concept of “high” versus “low” I like venn diagrams. And shouldn't art really be in the middle?  art? Who gets to judge? What are the parameters in which to judge? There is no standard definition for either concept and personal explanations range from simple to incredibly complex. One common theory about how to explain the difference is high art is “popular” and low art is “unpopular”, that is, appealing (or not) to many people. This also links to another version of the difference: that high art fosters the widest connection between people while a smaller subsection enjoys low art. This is in direct contradiction, though, to the idea of low art being part of mass culture (raising yet another question of “is art culture” or merely a com

Death & The Theater

I was listening to a recent episode of the Tim Ferris podcast and the guest, happiness scholar Arthur C. Brooks, was discussing death meditations. And the little lightbulb in my brain turned on with the thought, "We need to talk more about death in theaters." I know, I know, that seems like an illogical statement because it feels like we're always talking about the death of theater. This whole summer has been filled with articles and op-eds from across the country about how large regional theaters are dying in major cities. But that's not the kind of death Brooks was talking about, and in reality, it isn't death these articles are complaining about, either: they are trying to stay alive in a “E’s just resting” fashion, to find some kind of life-support for the theaters, to keep them going, receive new money from new audiences or donors, new shows, new gimmicks to draw more or different people in the door. Anything to keep from dying. We don't talk about death

Pass the Collection Plate, Please.

Various sizes of buildings, with some sort of seating arranged in rows, facing a slightly raised platform. may have curtains around the platform. people --primarily men-- take the platform to orate to the audience seated before them. A plea for donations is made at some point, either before or after the show, which may have music and will definitely have directives masked as stories on how to be a human in this day-and-age. children will be seen, maybe, but definitely not heard. the men in charge will believe they have been given a special gift for leading this particular group of people. and the people, for whatever reason, will also believe this. and this group of people will believe that their building and person and each other are completely different and somehow better than all the other exact same groups around their town/city/county/state/nation. If theater wants to be treated as church and church as theater, then both are getting exactly what they have been setting up for the p