Monday, June 16, 2008

Ain't Creative




Featured in tonight's TV Patrol (ABS-CBN Broadcasting Network's flagship news program) is Rogue Magazine's latest issue, featuring on its cover model Joey Mead in her birthday suit, albeit painted on with the Philippine flag.

Oh, this is indeed a rant against the magazine's cover. Not only against Joey Mead's beauty itself (and I find her rather fugly, given her insane past), but also for the magazine's defense of what they find creative.

Lemme give you an idea where I come from. I now find myself working for a company that outsources graphic design services to overseas clients. Every day, every night, we're called upon to be creative. Immersed in such an environment, I am confident about what creative means.

I digress. Let us go back to what I'm trying to point out.

Rogue Magazine's cover featuring an old naked model with the Philippine tricolor painted on her is simply fugly. I find their Cherie Gil cover better, placing the audience in the shoes of the soon-to-be-wet Sharon Cuneta.

The cover is not creative. It is not creative at all. Pandering, that's what it is. They just sought to pander to the erotic interest of the male audience. Honestly, when I found their latest issue on the magazine racks at MegaMall, I was surprised to find Joey Mead still at it. Or maybe the editors had "something" to do with ancient Ms. Mead.

And according to the TV news report (so forgive me for basing my logic on the faulty boob tube), the pictorial was part of Lawyer Argee Guevara's take on the mire our society is finding itself boiling in.

Whatever political point the article was trying to say, it had drowned in the depiction of a naked ancient model with the Philippine flag painted on her. How tasteless.

The last thing on anyone's mind who is interested enough to find this society educated and enlightened is the image of a naked woman, the painting only serving as a loophole to label it creative. Oh, let me clarify that last statement: they wanted it labeled "creative." It ain't creative.

At least with the reaction they're getting about their latest cover, they got to live up to their magazine title. Maybe even a boost to their circulation.


3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure which I find more offensive: you, claiming to be an authority on creativity because you're a corporate logo designer (the "designer" title being a stretch even), or the fact that you can't see past your own issues that you had to defame Joey Mead and the creative team behind the magazine.

Heck, I don't think even Picasso would be "confident about what creative means". There is no authority on creativity.

I think that your problem with the cover is not its creativity or lack thereof, according to you. But that you feel that it somehow violates your morals and that you find it tasteless. And you have all the right to feel that way.

Many have died to give you that right. But they also died to give the team behind Rogue the right to have that cover that you so dislike. So, bear with it.

By the way, you know what I find more tasteless? A plundering politician wearing a Philippine flag pin on his barong.

As a Filipino, you are entitled to to your own opinion. But stick with that topic. Stick with what you know. Don't pretend to know what creative is and what is not.

The topic of creativity is way out of your league, my friend.

Picasso must be rolling over in his grave.

glitch said...

Ahehe, nagreact agad ang kampo ng taga rouge media. Well...

ronald said...

"By the way, you know what I find more tasteless? A plundering politician wearing a Philippine flag pin on his barong."
This is CREATIVE. Right to the point. That would have been more of service to the nation-building, instead of an ancient naked model with the Philippine flag painted on her.
And don't lecture me about who died for what freedom. I have enough blood in me to boil against elitist perverts. Do farmers and workers understand what Rogue Magazine did? Heck, no.
I'll leave the creativity question to you, ANONYMOUS (who doesn't have enough ego to identify him/herself), anyway. I sense that it'll seem like huge, fat me debating about the histrionics of the Old Testament against a Catholic theologian.