Blast and several of the other journal editions that I've read have made me realize just how different the magazines of today are in comparison to those written in the past. Media and commercialization have basically taken over the business and we no longer see stories about the problems with the government and actual literature. Also, the pictures in Blast are completely different from any of the magazines we look at today other than perhaps one specifically about art. The art in Blast also does not seem to pertain to the magazine at all. For example, in the middle of The Sad Story, there are six seemingly random pictures of heads and other things which I believe do not relate to the story being told in any way. Also, in modern magazines, normally any pictures shown have a description beneath them or at least some sort of caption, but in Blast many of the images are simply label "Drawing" with no indication whatsoever of what the artist was actually trying to illustrate. The few that can be recognized or are photographs and have captions that make sense are in a completely different art form than the rest of the magazine.
There also seems to be an excessive amount of white space between the images and each piece of literature. At the beginning and ends of the journal there was a lot of blank pages too and not many advertisements. I'm wondering if this is how the magazine actually was or if the advertisements have simply been cut for some reason or another. Overall the organization of the paper seems to be a complete wreak.
No comments:
Post a Comment