I write to express extreme disappointment at your choice of cover images for the July 2006 issue of Live Design. You said that it was “the best blend of artist and technology available in one image.” You have got to be joking. The issue is FULL of other, MUCH better displays of both — including some of the images used in the article the cover referenced.
Though I've had concerns in the past about what you've chosen to print on your covers, this one causes additional concern on two different levels:
It is personally offensive. It blatantly mocks the focus of my personal spiritual beliefs — beliefs of which I am not the sole holder. Publicly, (outside of my office/home), this is not something I want to be flashing around project sites, airplanes, or doctor's offices (typical places I take magazines).
This is an affront to a large group of your readers/my clients: houses of worship. Knowing that a good number of your readers are houses of worship, I am surprised at your gross insensitivity. Do you really want to lose them as readers?
My current issue has several pieces of black gaffers' tape on the cover.
C. Andrew Dunning
As you so rightly pointed out, I am certain that I will not be the only person to write to you in regard to the July 2006 cover featuring Madonna in a crucifixion pose. While there are very compelling arguments as to the VERY serious nature of the affront to my personal spiritual beliefs as well as those of many other readers, perhaps this is not the venue is which to air those concerns. Instead, let me simply say this: As a father of three children and the husband of a very loving wife, I am completely embarrassed and angered when a cover such as this or the Gwen Stefani cover appear in my mailbox. That source of embarrassment is enough to cause me to seriously consider the cancellation of my subscription to your otherwise fine and very relevant publication. I do not allow my children to watch movies, television, or listen to music of which I do not approve. Apparently, now I cannot even allow them to get the mail from the mailbox due to the inconceivable lack of concern of a particular editor.
Also, I believe your readership is made up largely of lighting professionals, video designers and technicians, and scenographers. While there may be some wardrobe designers as well as hair and makeup artists, I cannot believe that this is a particularly large portion of your market share. If I am correct, then a close-up of an artist is not necessarily the most informative of images for those reading your magazine, even regarding your inane comment of “the best blend of artist and technology.” There was much more to be learned from the photos in the Rascal Flatts article than in the terribly offensive cover you allowed.
I am sorry that you have chosen to utilize shock value as a means towards “exciting” your readership. I thought this was a professional trade magazine. Perhaps I was wrong.
Go Live Productions, LLC