The anatomy of the September 11 New Yorker cover
John Mavroudis offers up this wonderful treat. He came up with the idea for the current cover of the New Yorker, marking the anniversary of September 11, of a tightrope walker able to perform his feat with or without the twin towers. On his site he takes us through the creation of the cover, from his numerous sketches, ideas, and revisions, all the way to the final image, which was eventually executed by Owen Smith.
John’s idea looks much better in some of his sketches. I think the final cover is not as strong (even though they added a second white cover and all).
maybe it’s because the angle is too forced ? I don’t know.
I love it when artists are kind enough to share their process with the rest of us. You can learn so much when looking at someone else’s process and then adapting it to your own.
In this case, John’s experience is like a cautionary tale. I feel kind of bad for him, because he had the IDEA first, did all the LEGWORK and as happens to us a lot, he couldn’t quite get the image to work in the time that he had. (Over many a project, I have banged my head against the wall, thinking “Argh! It’s a great idea, why can’t I get it to work?”)
So, then the project is given to another artist with fresh eyes and hands like mercury and he or she seems to bang out a winner instantly when in truth the artist was lucky enough to come into the process when other ideas had been ruled out.
No disrespect to Owen Smith or Francoise Mouly here. He did a fabulous job and she made the right choice. Time was ticking away and she had to get a backup person to finish the job. By taking John’s last idea and altering the overhead view to include the context of downtown Manhattan with the empty footprints of the towers, the idea finally clicks into place. It’s just too bad that one artist had to be the lucky recipient of someone’s else exasperation, that’s all. I always empathize with artists who had the original concept but were not able to score the final illustration because they couldn’t work it out in time. It may very well be a more common occurrence than I realize. (Let’s hope John got a halfway decent kill fee!)
Anyway, I look forward to holding the final copy in hands in the near future. (My dad subscribes to the New Yorker.)
Out here it looks like a surfer, and therefore obscene.
It is totally whimp city, as is the mag.
Easy to see why Spiegelman split a long time ago.
I don’t care if his wife was involved,
it’s an insult to his original work.
An artist is sometimes not the same thing
as the artwork that chooses to speak through her or him.
Bob Callahan
Berkeley, Callahan
First of all… I LOVE this site… it’s such a great forum to see new stuff…
Second… I appreciate everyone’s comments… I certainly don’t agree with Bob’s comment, but to each his own.
I wanted to add that working on this was an honor… and yes, Tricia, I was disappointed that my illustration couldn’t make the final cut (I’ve had experience with this before, and I’ll keep trying.), but Françoise Mouly was great to work with. Although I didn’t know Owen Smith, I thought his rendition captured the spirit the New Yorker was looking for. My final submission (and this is a bit tough to admit) was too somber… I think on the fifth anniversary, they were looking for something a bit more uplifting. I think Owen’s art did that. (also…after exchanging e-mails with him, he seems like a total class act…. which makes my personal disappointment so much easier to take.)
I’m very proud of this issue… and if nothing else, I think it fairly portrays the tremendous courage and spirit that New Yorkers have shown time and again.
Cheers,
-John
this is brilliant. i am obsessed with anything that goes behind the scenes at the new yorker.
Hey John -
After reading your post, I can see that not only are you are a great talent, but you have a great attitude. That, my friend, is why you are getting work and you will keep getting work. I’m sure that’s why Françoise enjoys working with you. Someday, not only will she buy your idea, but the finished illustration. Don’t give up – you have a lot going for you.
Tricia Powers
Rochester, New York
powers915@yahoo.com
The last of John Mavroudis’ images is terrific. If it had shown the footprint of both towers I bet it would have made the cut.
The cover the NYer finally used didn’t please me–you had to open it up to see that it was about 9/11, and after that, what was the front cover for? It was like a trick.
Matt… I’m like you… I, too, always wanna know what goes on “behind the curtain.” (more below)
Thanks again Tricia… I appreciate the kind words.
…and David… I think the reason they used the white cover over the main illustration was to “bookend” the 9/11 covers… it plays off the original (and completely brilliant) Spiegelman/Mouly black cover.
I know there was also some talk of doing a die-cut process, but that had to be abandoned. I know I’m biased, but I think it works…
Cheers!
-John Mav…
It’s cool when artists take the time to show others their process. Very cool concept and well executed.
No offense, but I do not understand what a tightrope walker has to do with 9/11. I wondered if some guy had once tightroped walked between the two towers, but it sounded more like an urban legend to me. The perspective and the size of the Rope Walker didn’t work on any of the drawings and the ones with the black specter looming over the NYC skyline were curious. I’m a big fan of New Yorker covers too, but the entire concept for these covers just made me go “huh?”
It was no urban legend, Knick. In 1974, tightrope walker Phillip Petitdid indeed walk across the WTC towers. The feat has been immortalized in a children’s book called The Man Who Walked Between the Towers, by Mordicai Gerstein. (The book won the prestigious Caldecott Award.) And now, the book has been made into an award-winning animated short film directed by Michael Sporn. You can see more about the film HERE.
The idea for the cover makes complete sense to me because it focuses on a spetacular feat that will never be repeated again. Sad, but inspiring all the same.
Ward took care of all the details perfectly…
I just wanted to second his mention of Michael Sporn’s site… a lot of really cool stuff.
Yup, I knew about the Philippe Petit connection. Michael Sporn’s site is awesome! I knew about the book, but I never knew the story had been adapted for animation. Hope I’ll get to see the short in its entirety someday. Thanks to all for the references.
Just wanted to add my fascination with this story and the inner workings of NYer. I really wondered about that cover when I saw it – I like the inside cover but I really don’t understand why the best part was covered up with white on the outside.
The top 2 of John Mavroudis’ concept sketches with the transparent towers may be my favorites though.
An interesting insight into the process behind the cover. I’ve never really understood how cover artists are chosen or pitch for covers on the mag.
I don’t really understand Bob Callahan’s spleen about the New Yorker (and the whole city of New York). I don’t really see any similarity between this and AS’s iconic cover. Btw, what’s a whimp?
Good blog!! I’m a comic drawer from spain, if you can visit me and write me your opinion.
I have to agree with Knick. John seems like a nice guy and a talented drawer, but the whole idea is strikes me as forced and weird. A tightrope walker simply has nothing to do with 9/11.
Another thing: is it just me, or was anybody else confused as to which cover was the final one? The pic that is alternating between a white and non-white cover (very irritating, btw, can never get a good look at either of them) doesn’t have any explanation attached to it. Why is it alternating? Were there two final cover? Why doesn’t the John explain this?
I love when artists let people in on their process, so kudos for that, but otherwise this whole thing just made me a bit miffed.
Mmmm…I think one needs to get into a poetic frame of mind to appreciate the message represented by the tightrope walker. On one level, it represents the idea that in a time of peace and security, one can walk on the edge in their lives in some semblance of safety, however self-imposed. But on another plane of thought, I can see how within American society in general we have all been “walking on a tightrope” or “walking on eggshells” in a perilous fashion since September 11, 2001. Just as Philippe Petit’s daring act can never again be repeated, we will never quite feel as secure and safe as a nation for decades to come.
For what it’s worth, I would have preferred that the cover just be Owen Smith’s illustration with the New Yorker nameplate superimposed. Perhaps the white overlay cover would have worked if it mimiced the black Spiegelman cover with its embossed look, using John’s original idea of the silhouetted towers and the tightrope walker. But truthfully, I think it would have been best just to have Smith’s illustration and kill the white cover idea. Spiegelman’s cover, I think, was meant to stand alone for the ages.
Still can’t “get with it.” I meant the cover
was wimp city, the cover, not the city itself,
which is maddening to me, a forever dysfunctional
love affair for those making under 150 K a year.
The work was skilled, no insult to the craft.
I just think we are all still groping around in
the poisons spread through the air by that
attack. Some may see tight robe walking, and
smell a summer circus passing out in the country.
I see dead minds and dead children, and the
who empty ferris wheel going round and round
and round again. It’s hard to make art out of a
fragging.
bob callahan
ps: much good writing in the new yorker.
too much yppm*, however
*yuppie pacification program materials
Still can’t “get with it.” I meant the cover
was wimp city, the cover, not the city itself,
which is maddening to me, a forever dysfunctional
love affair for those making under 150 K a year.
The work was skilled, no insult to the craft.
I just think we are all still groping around in
the poisons spread through the air by that
attack. Some may see tight robe walking, and
smell a summer circus passing out in the country.
I see dead minds and dead children, and the
who empty ferris wheel going round and round
and round again. It’s hard to make art out of a
fragging.
bob callahan
ps: much good writing in the new yorker.
too much yppm*, however
*yuppie pacification program materials
Ok, Bob, I think I know what you are getting at…Not only are you concerned that not enough people are cognizant of the connection between Philippe Petit and the Twin Towers, but that even 5 years after this grievous act of mass murder, it’s too early to project a message of rebirth and survival.
Well, to that I say some of us are going to have to agree to disagree. As a nation, we should neither forget nor forgive this sickening act of cowardice, but if we are to survive as a human race, we have to fully embrace the gift of survival and reach out to our Islam brethren to achieve some semblance of peace in the future.
The al-Qaeda cowards who bombed the towers and the Pentagon, and those who planned this tragedy (Osama bin Laden included) are no better than members of the Ku Klux Klan. Just as the KKK have twisted and sullied the intent of Jesus Christ, so too have these Middle Eastern extremists crapped all over the message of Mohammad and the Koran.
If you know good Muslims like I do, you know that the true intent of Isalm is to promote and enrich a devotion to their Creator, Allah and a peacefull society. The al-Qaeda nuts will never listen…Good Christians who truly understand the message of Jesus need to reach out to good Muslims who understand the word that Mohammad preached. Only then will things start to change.
I agree. Fundamentalists tend to pervert the best of what these orginal texts have to offer by emphasizing their literal truth and discouraging rational exploration of spirtiual ideas. When you have someone in a position of great power basing decisions on their faith in fundamentalist doctrine, this kind of extremist behavior is inevitable.
Though I do agree that it’s cowardly for leaders to deploy troops, I mean terrorists to murder innocent civillians, the terrorists themselves are no more than a product of their indoctrination. They spent years believing and not questioning and being actively encouraged not to question to the point where they would do anything that their leaders dictated. Were Jim Jone’s follower’s cowards, or victims? Fanaticism may not be bravery, but I don’t think it’s cowardice either. It’s just fantaticism.
Now the thing about good Christians and good Muslims and their interpretation of these texts, is that that it will always be interpretation—there isn’t a Christian or Muslim that can 100% agree on what those words are supposed to mean, either literally or in spirit, so understanding those words (in some cases a third, or even fourth hand translation) or the intention of those words is extraordinarily subjective, as it should be. If we all decide that we understand what those words mean and how to interpret them, and all agree that there’s only one way to “understand” them, we’re no better than the fundamentalists. Unfortunately it’s also this subjectively that prevents the mutual understanding that you’re proposing.
Touché, Jed…some very nice and well thought out counterpoints. OK, then…what peaceful people should strive for is not mutual agreement across the pantheon of the human race but mutual respect. As in, “You and I don’t believe in the same things, but we believe in each other’s right to believe them.” That in a nutshell, is the legacy of 9/11: That if the human race is to continue to advance, we have to accept that some instances of human existence are neither black nor white, but a murky gray.
The white cover was inspired. I got the overt reference to the Twin Towers at once. All the white draws pointed attention to the absence that is, and always will be. So much white space on The New Yorker — known for its cover art and its way with words — is both tribute and acknowledgement: there are no pictures, and no words, up to the challenge of marking the anniversary of such an event. I took the inside cover to be a way of explaining the outside cover to those who couldn’t figure out from this striking cover and its date what the subject was without a hint. The blue translucent towers version of the concept quite is beautiful. But the arresting, stark, black and white simplicity of the true cover comes far closer to the truth of September 11, 2001.
[...] More info and sources: 1, 2, 3, 4 [...]
[...] Más: 1, 2, 3, 4 [...]
[...] silly faces project | PhotodotoGREY’S ANATOMY Redux: Let the Truth Sting » Give Me My Remote The anatomy of the September 11 New Yorker cover » Drawn! The Illustration and Cartooning Blog Tags catch a cheating sign of cheating spouse infidelity cheating affair adultery relationship [...]