Forgot your username or password?
In their current July-August issues, two design magazines, Print and Step, explore the topic of Sex, their approach as different as that of two inexperienced lovers probing each other’s libido. While Step’s “Designing Desire” section emphasizes the aesthetic aspect of current sexual imagery, Print’s special “Pornutopia” issue examines some of the more offending graphic content presently available in our culture.
It is not a subject matter either magazine is comfortable with.
Design and Sex make strange bedfellows, particularly in the professional
context of a trade publication. Is it appropriate for the editors of Step and Print
to force their readers to deal with sexual imagery they might find
offensive? What’s the idea here—what has pornography got to do with
design? you wonder as you flip past countless pictures of
dildos—glow-in-the-dark, leopard-print, shaped like dolphins, made of
heavy crystal, candy-colored, or as thick and shiny as chrome-plated
“Does anything shock us anymore?” asks Emily Potts in Step’s
editorial letter. She deplores TV ads about Viagra, yet she doesn’t see
anything wrong with the photograph published on page 52 of her
magazine, a handsome color shot parading a dozen ominous “butt plugs.”
Is it a case of Form-Follows-Function gone awry?
But enough kvetching. We are all adults. Reporting on what’s happening in our industry is the official intent here.
The ways the magazines tackle the topic reflect two diametrically
opposite trends in the porn business—the feminization of the erotica on
one hand, and the mainstreaming of the hard-core ethos on the other. Step magazine’s clean layouts epitomize the former, while Print magazine’s slatternly page design pays tribute to the latter.
Two recent New York City venues, one cultural, the other commercial,
probably attracted the attention of the editors, prompting them to come
up with their coincidental issues. The first is the Museum of Sex
(MoSex), which opened in October 2002 on Lower Fifth Avenue; the other
is Toys in Babeland, a 1600-square-foot sex shop for women doing brisk
business in Manhattan’s Soho since September 2003. Both places are
reviewed in the magazines, giving their editorial content a welcomed
But while Print took a journalistic approach, showing the
colorful “penetralia” as it is displayed in stores and museums, in all
its smutty glory, Step photographed the vibrators as
sculptures, out of their tawdry packaging and without descriptive
captions—each phallic object d’art tastefully lighted against a neutral
For Claire Cavanah, co-founder of Toys in Babeland, “sex is a visual
thing.” Even though both magazines subscribe to this apparently
innocuous statement—each in their own way, admittedly—there are still
plenty of people on this planet who would disagree. According to Rick
Poynor, who was invited to write of opening essay for Print,
“Until recently, sexuality was understood to be a private matter—and for
most people, it still is,” he remarks. “Intrusive, omnipresent sexual
imagery erodes the private/public distinction and evaporates any sense
One indeed could argue that sex is not a visual thing. For those
among us who close their eyes or turn off the light while making love,
sex is experienced as an invisible geometry, a dance whose rapturous
patterns create giant kaleidoscopic abstractions. As soon as you open
your eyes, sex becomes a wholly different kind of visual experience—a
thrilling erotic adventure, but one whose relationship with love is a
little more tenuous.
So yes, sex can be visual—but it is not always the case. One wishes
that, rather than simply titillate their readers’ voyeuristic
tendencies, the magazines had taken this opportunity to draw the line
between sex and what is generally called pornography. If they had, both
would have had to use the word “porn” instead of the word “sex” on their
covers—and their discourse about online erotica or the glorification of
violence and vulgarity would have been more credible, less amateurish.
They chose instead the gentler word “sex,” further promoting what
Poynor calls “the rapid normalization of porn,” unwittingly conferring
legitimacy to a thriving $10-billion industry that exploits women—for
the most part.
In her review of the Museum of Sex for Step, Ina Saltz asks
whether or not an exhibition called Get Off! Exploring the Pleasure
Principle, sponsored in part by Pjur, makers of sexual lubricants,
belongs in a museum. “Fortunately, each of us has the right to decide
for ourselves,” she writes.
Fortunately, each of us still has the right to think of sex as something intimate and private.
Are there rules that govern the design of protest buttons? Heller sticks it to the current crop of anti-incumbent lapel missives.
Section: Inspiration -
Voice, advertising, election design
Click here to learn more and submit your nominations!
Combining the lovely photos of Julie Pierce with my design talents, we created a calendar to raise money for an animal charity.
Tap Into Your Creative Genius: 99U Conference Recap 5
Posted by Tanner Christensen
11 days ago from
Museum of Modern Art Identity
Boom Boom Pow
AIGA Atlanta Nominations Extended until May 29
May 15, 2015
AMA in the AM: You Are Only As Good As Your Data – Lessons From the Big Data Guys
May 01, 2015
Corcoran Glimpse Book