Magazines Kill Young People: The last days of funky type are approaching rapidly

In approximately 9 days, I will say goodbye to funky type forever (I hope!). That's right folks, I have a secret: I hate funky type. If you have ever looked at a consumer magazine, you know what I mean. I hate the undulating display type that decorates and adds "concepts" to editorial design. I hate making it and I hate looking at it.



There are different ways of thinking about design, and the emphasis on conceptual type treatments at the magazine I work at can seriously drive me out of my mind. I am not interested in "scale shifts" "big words" "big letters" "connecting things" and other visual tricks that make someone think the article they are about to be reading will be more interesting than it is. I am not interested in designing in a way that feels forced and not my own. I do not like having people telling me - in this way that expresses that the gravity of my design decisions will somehow rock the design world forever - to make a word I set at a rational size bigger to "add interest" (for whom? I don't know—I read the internet now, not magazines, and frankly that big word isn't fooling anyone).

A while ago, I posted about going for an interview for a job at a magazine, "ny". Instead, I went to an interview with the person who I would be replacing at "ny" who was leaving for "gaydar," and upon further reflection I canceled the original interview at "ny" (indecipherable code, right?). My reasoning is rock-solid: I just cannot design old-fashioned funky type for a living. There are lots of things I am good at, but funky type is not one of them. I have not enjoyed spending the past two days moving things blindly around on the screen, waiting for some kind of magic to happen that will never be magical to me. Perhaps funky type is one of the reasons we say magazines kill young people.