There’s still a big question mark out there about who’s going to be taking over AD. And I know I’m heading into murky waters by bringing this up, but since you all commented so much on the first go-round (or is this the third?), I started to think about what, besides just a new spirit for the magazine, I want to see in the magazine from a designer’s point of view.
From talking with a lot of people about this, there is a feeling that one wants to see spaces that relate to who we are and what are we all going through now – and how interiors are reflecting that. So I guess, spaces that have a more present day point of view.
Fresher, cleaner, less contrived photography with photos that have a more natural and relatable quality to them.
While I love seeing beautiful traditional spaces like old manor houses or wonderfully designed environments by great classic and traditional designers, I think it needs a stronger infusion of the young echelon designer. This is obviously not a push for myself to be published, but there are so many wonderful designers out there aside from the regulars who have been appearing over the last ten years.
Design dialogue, talking about the concerns and needs of people in their interiors. Whether it is as simplistic as beautiful linens or how to set wonderful, elegant tables, gardens – again, topics that relate to how people are living.
There are some great designers out there that never get published in AD because of the exclusivity requirement / rule that the magazine has had. For the past decade or so, they have not been very willing about publishing work by designers who are appearing in other magazines, which means that there are some really great contemporary, very successful designers that have never appeared in the magazine. As one of the designers that was ostracized from the magazine because my work was appearing in other publications – I think they’ll have to change that mindset. Different publications have different styles. The work that appear in Elle Decor is very different from the work that would appear in Traditional Home. And so, speaking for myself, that’s a rule I hope they banish.
On the positive side, I hope they retain an incredible layout, the wonderful quality paper, their extraordinary writers and a luxurious way of showing designers’ work, related to a brand that is globally known and respected.
What do you want to see in AD going forward?
#1 by EM on August 2, 2010 - 12:50 pm
Several years ago, AD had a brief feature showing makeovers under $5,000. They were mostly first-time renters in NYC or newlyweds, but the before and afters were amazing, and provided a terrific benchmark on what could be done for 5 grand.
#2 by EM on August 2, 2010 - 1:50 pm
Also, a question for you designers:
I always had the impression that AT placed a high emphasis on interior architecture. They always have before and afters, and the reader can really see the difference in the rearrangement of the hard space–everything from the doorways, walls, windows, etc. I always thought the other shelter magazines placed a greater emphasis on furnishings over the interior architecture…what do you think?
#3 by EM on August 2, 2010 - 2:02 pm
…that should be AD, for Architectural Digest, obviously.
#4 by Gary Nelling on August 2, 2010 - 2:07 pm
AD once showcased cutting edge designers who appeared in other publications. I’m unhappy to learn that they changed to a policy of exclusive publication rights. That’s too much power and totally inconsistent with supporting the designers who make their magazine possible. It helps explain their creative decline. Good for you for bucking the system! Forward thinking designers, architects and artists should be presented, regardless of age. And AD would do well to tap some young talent instead of continually going back to their regular stable.
I have never had any interest in the homes of the rich and famous per se, unless the homes exhibited creative designs. A home full of expensive stuff is not inherently interesting. I’ll stick by my advocacy for natural, realistic photography. There is less to be learned from photographs that make a space look more perfect than it is. In tough economic times people previously took comfort in Hollywood glamour, and that has been part of ADs on-going public allure. The curtain has been drawn back on the bankers and movie stars, but there are still many readers who relish those fantasies, so that may be some hard bait for them to cut loose.
The publication quality is undeniable and the nod to architecture is appreciated! – Gary
#5 by EM on August 2, 2010 - 2:12 pm
Gary, can you show me an example of an interior that is photographs both naturally and more perfect? You and Mr. Wolf had this discussion before, and I’m afraid I didn’t understand it; photography is not my forte. I’d love to see how different an image can look depending upon the manner in which it is shot.
#6 by Dennis on August 2, 2010 - 3:03 pm
Vicente, you and others here have nailed most of the major issues with our once-loved AD. Especially the way in which their rooms are photographed with every bit of humanity airbrushed or blown out with too much lighting. And I very much agree with others who would love to see them return to their roots by letting architecture become a bigger part of their design “voice”. But more than anything they’ve got to take design out of that suffocating, hermetically-sealed box of perfection and let it breathe! To admire beautiful rooms that most of us will never live in is fine but not to the exclusion of the dynamic design world that’s exploding all around us. It’s an exciting challenge for whomever is lucky enough to re-invent the old gal. Keep the quality and loosen up the attitude, I say!
#7 by Gary Nelling on August 2, 2010 - 3:11 pm
EM – Good morning! I’m up early and full of juice since I’m traveling to NYC tomorrow to get my daughter set up in her first apartment, in the Village!
I would suggest comparing the photography in a couple recent copies of AD to that in Veranda. The latter uses more daylight exposures where AD often floodlights the interiors to balance the bright light outdoors so you can see the detail in both, which makes the photos look like a movie set. There no right or wrong, I just prefer photos that show what your eyes would see. I would also recommend Vincente’s two books, “Learning to See” and “Crossing Boundaries”, “Style by Saladino” John Saladino, “Style” Kelly Hoppen and “Perfect Neutrals” Stephanie Hoppen. All these have natural or gently lit exposures with light, shade and shadow areas instead of uniformly brightly lit. The books are not inexpensive, but will save you a ton of bookshelf space over magazines and give you great exposure to the best and brightest in contemporary through traditional design, and begin to answer part of your design questions.
I don’t mean to be too hard on AD. It’s just that they were once great. It’s like an old friend that’s grown smug and lazy, You want to give them a gentle kick in the butt! Back to packing! – Gary
PS I sent this once right as the server went down. I hope you don’t get two copies!
#8 by todd haley on August 2, 2010 - 3:51 pm
i’d like to see your work in there again -
#9 by todd haley on August 2, 2010 - 3:54 pm
ad also used to show “humble” projects – a studio apt or a barn by joe d’urso – i’d like to see that genre of work again as opposed to “mcmansions” that the interiors look like a 3 star hotel
#10 by EM on August 2, 2010 - 4:07 pm
^^ Great architecture can be found in one room silos, and there is sometimes horrible architecture in new, large houses. They should focus on the good architecture bit!
I have no qualms about being hard on AD. I was a subscriber for 10 years. They’re not an old friend who got smug and lazy, they’re your avent garde cool friend who smoked and traveled the world, found a rich husband, dyed her hair blonde, and moved to the suburbs to make snide comments about all the other people who continued to travel, cook, laugh, and live in bright colors.
#11 by Gary Nelling on August 2, 2010 - 5:39 pm
Todd – I’m with you 100% on humble projects. I think it takes greater creativity to make a comfortable dwelling in a small space with a limited budget than to have unlimited area and resources. I remember that article! Joe D’Urso was the first designer whose work riveted my attention.
EM – Point well taken. I should divorce my subscription! – Gary
#12 by Joe Probus on August 2, 2010 - 8:44 pm
We get AD at work, it’s the only magazine we receive. I never send more than few minutes looking at it. Everything looks like a well appointed hotel, over scale and over blown. It’s 2010 not 1984. Put it to bed. Dwell magazine seem to be more relevant even if every issue looks the same.
Better yet design blogs, like this one- no paper no waste
#13 by Denise on August 3, 2010 - 12:27 am
I’d like to see fewer castles, manor houses, yachts and jets. I’d like to see fewer celebrity homes, unless they happen to be beautifully designed and decorated. I’d like to see work by both up-and-coming designers and established designers. I’d like to see more homes that are under 3,000 square feet. Mostly, I’d just like to see good, liveable, exciting design that has more to do with the homeowners’ interests and tastes than the size of their bank accounts.
#14 by mfaith on August 3, 2010 - 3:34 am
i will be thrilled to have things shaken up over at AD! my mother-in-law gifted me with a subscription for christmas and i rarely give it much more than a cursory breeze through.
#15 by EM on August 3, 2010 - 1:32 pm
And that image at the top of this post of Helen Mirren channeling her Bette Davis in Jezebel is just absurd for an architecture magazine.
#16 by Kris on August 3, 2010 - 4:43 pm
Give AD a decent burial and bring back House & Garden.
#17 by Nathaniel Shelburne on August 4, 2010 - 3:52 am
i completely agree
#18 by scone on August 4, 2010 - 12:24 pm
Put VW and Min Hogg on AD– that would stir things up.
#19 by colette on August 4, 2010 - 4:04 pm
Oh what a grumpy bunch we are! Is it the heat?? Now the fact is i share your frustration completely, and wrote my first blog comment (ever) after that last AD post so this is a hot topic indeed. As a designer who has read and been in the magazine, I have ranted along side you for some years now…more than i care to remember. I agree with the comments on celebrity interiors, which are too often hopeless affectations (witness the banal features in InStyle magazine). So lets agree to ‘can’ the celebrity angle. At the same time we cant entirely blame Paige Rense for society’s celebrity obsession…have you heard Brad Pitt is designing a hotel in Dubai? (argh!) I still really belive in AD as a niche magazine however, and I dont want to see my shelves filled only with shelter magazines that are geared to a wider audience. Conde Nast created Vogue on the back of WW2 when things were really bleak. What is wrong with aspirational inspiration?? I remain a disgruntled loyalist who is not only optimistic, but determined to see a new AD flourish and astonish. If what readers want is young designers and accessible level interiors then why on earth did Domino fail…and House and Garden which were both terrific examples of ‘current’ publications and, i thought, wonderful magazines. So confusing, and I wonder if in information age WE even know what we want!!! Please though, not the end of AD.
#20 by neil on August 8, 2010 - 8:47 pm
lets put it like this – the magazine in question is called american architectural digest NOT AD – AD is an incredible german and italian publication – i am a keen subscriber,
as for architectural digest america, i stopped buying the magazine 20 years ago , cause it became an ostentatious bible of bad taste and vulgar money
#21 by Rose on August 9, 2010 - 5:52 am
I am sick to death of the preaching about “green” building. It’s ok in small doses, but honestly, give it a rest. I don’t buy design magazines to be preached at, I want to be inspired.
And when the excuses that pass for “green” mean second hand/flea market finds, please, anyone of us can put on those airs, but worst of all is the pretend “trade-offs” – we used the cheaper local marble, in trade for the imported soapstone, so we could be oh so green, just quit it (design magazines in general) it’s laughable. Too often I find myself turning the pages in disgust and even putting the magazine down. I am into aspiring, not donning the politically correct hair-shirts.