Breakfast at The New Yorker with George Lois

Retrospectives
Cover Guy
by Nick Paumgarten April 21, 2008
George Lois
The Big Idea at breakfast last week with Mr. Big Idea, the advertising and graphic-design legend George Lois (“I Want My Maypo”; “I Want My MTV”; the world as we know it), was probably “Well, it’s about time.” This was, by his reckoning, and in his words, “the angle of the dangle,” the underlying sentiment, the thing you might put in a blurb. What’s been overdue is high-calibre recognition for his magazine work. Later this month, the Museum of Modern Art will present an exhibition of Lois’s Esquire covers from the sixties, which, though widely celebrated and frequently (if faintheartedly) imitated, have never had the full curatorial treatment. Sonny Liston glowering in a Santa hat, Andy Warhol drowning in a can of soup, Muhammad Ali with arrows, Roy Cohn with halo: these images helped Esquire define a decade that already had a lot of help in getting defined, and created a visual language that people in the media still feel they must learn to understand, if not speak well.
At breakfast, Lois, who is seventy-six, took his time getting around to this particular Big Idea. As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded. A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.
This was at his apartment, in the Village, spacious and filled with tribal art. Lois’s wife, Rosemary, to whom he’s been married for fifty-six years, served the first course, a dollop of sherbet atop a bowl of fresh berries, as he recounted an early art-school epiphany about how an image had better have an idea. “Thank you, girl,” he said, and Rosemary went back to the kitchen. “She’s a piece of work. All my life I’d leave the house at five-thirty to go to work. I needed three hours to myself in the morning, and I never needed much sleep. And she’s up making corn muffins, or whatever. Like, eight of them, so if anyone else was at work early he could have something to eat. She’s the last of the Mohicans.”
So, anyway, where was he? The Army, Korea, CBS, Madison Avenue, and the early days of the “creative revolution,” when art directors like Lois began taking over the ad game from the copywriters. By the time Lois, in this biographical account, got to a 1962 lunch at the Four Seasons (“I was doing their advertising, I saved their ass, too”) with Harold Hayes, the editor of Esquire, Rosemary had appeared with another course: a thin omelette, prosciutto, homemade Greek bread, and a scoop of caviar. (How about a retrospective devoted to the Lois breakfast?)

Hayes was looking for help with his covers. Lois asked Hayes how they did theirs, and Hayes explained a collaborative process involving the magazine’s staff. Lois went on, “And I’m thinking, Holy shit, a group fucking grope. I said, ‘You gotta get one guy, a guy who’s news literate, who reads, who understands the history of art and politics and culture and the movies.’ And I’m trying to think of a name.” Hayes had one in mind already, and so about a week later Lois delivered his first cover, a staged photograph of a Floyd Patterson look-alike flat on his back in a boxing ring, in an empty arena. The image was pegged to a championship bout between Patterson and Liston, which wouldn’t be contested until a week after the magazine came out. “Called the fight,” Lois said. “It took big balls. By the way, those weren’t my big balls. They were Harold Hayes’s.” Liston won, Esquire’s newsstand sales took off, and a ten-year collaboration—a prolonged provocation, really—ensued.
Magazine editors regularly call Lois to tell him that they have produced Lois covers of their own—worthy homages, at least—and his response tends to be “I don’t think so.” In general, he disdains the wan, cluttered magazine covers of today. “They go out and test: Do you like this person? Do you like this blurb? Do you like this blurb better than this blurb? It’s unbelievable. I’d do a cover that would knock your eyeballs out. Whether you liked it or hated it, you knew there was a magazine that was pumping blood.” He went on, “Now everyone’s sweating bullets. They all sit there with their cover, their this and their that, their testing, who’s the guy gonna be, who’s the woman gonna be. Do we do tits and ass. They’re all going wacko on their covers. And the covers get worse and worse.”
Time for lunch? ♦
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/04/21/080421ta_talk_paumgarten

Responding to this piece I believe that this has no defined thesis. Besides, while reading I can only find a conversation with the recognized Georges Lois during breakfast. With this piece of literature I discovered a biography type of article which puts in writing only what this person said. I was not in persuit of a written conversation but I found this one particularily interesting. I also believe that this piece is another way of commercially selling this character. Even though it is interesting to read what Lois said, the quotations are overused. The sentences are in a run-on-context, cutting the fluency as well as reader’s attention. This piece shows only one point of view which basically demonstrates adoration towards Lois. For example, “As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded.” It is the only sentence found with an interesting description, which uses quotations in a graceful manner.
The writer has a liberal mind and uses slang word choice, for instance “A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.” It is interesting how in just one sentence a person can be described in such a stylish way.
After all not even the cartoon applies to the text. Getting the old fish out contradicts completely the idea of idolatrizing the “old fish” or Lois. To support this idea, Lois is already seventy-six years old, a considerable age. The irony is expressed with the figurative action of taking the old fish out. But, there is no new fish to be seen in the contextual picture, nor in the cartoon.
There is not even the author’s point of view, nor the narration of their breakfast. The only clue that brings the reader back to a time lapse is the following quote, “Time for lunch?”. This quote left my mind floating in space. I kept thinking that they will keep talking during an invitation to have lunch. I believe that having breakfast, and talking the whole morning without any complete sentence would be extremely indecent. Although there is another point of view towards this phrase, like a good-bye, time is over.
In any case the tone of the piece can be described as curious and admiring. The structure can be differed from other pieces by the guidance of time in representation of the evolution of a conversation.

Pessimism against Candide

Martin, the new character is introduced by an ironic event. Candide after being robed in the most disgraceful way decides to choose somebody to talk with. In the contest of looking for the best candidate the reader will never see what Candide saw in Martin to be able to trust him. Maybe the amount of misfortunes that happened to Martin molded his character to be so pessimist and careless about life. With the basis of this character it will be of no use robbing Candide. There will be even less temptation to rob when he is going to be supported by Candide´s fortune. In any case, it is Martin´s point of view amplifying the voice of Voltaire´s opinion. His point of view is narrated in his trip with Candide to Bordeaux. Besides, throughout the whole novel he supports his pessimism, for instance not ever finding one sole happy soul. The main point rests upon the idea that men are evil. In which I don´t agree, I believe that men become evil. Humans become evil for various reasons, money, love and the thousand feelings that are attributed to our specie. But at the end men are born evil because are born with feelings and the free will to decide. As Voltaire constantly remarks the idea of free will, it is also mocked, because Candide never receives the right of deciding for himself. It is interesting the idea of free will which appears as well as in Slaughterhouse-Five. Basically it explains that only on this planet there has ever been the creation of this way of thinking. In conclusion there will never be a completely happy person on earth except in Eldorado.

El Dorado

The novel Candide, written by Voltaire was destined to attack every aspect of the human being, from its own absurdity to its darkest side.
As always this novel is full of satiric humor and peculiar events. For instance being saved by the death of another, which in fact is the brother of your beloved, reinstates the irony of the novel. Voltaire also uses absurdity. Using the Oreillons as a group of natives who celebrate the feast among the Jesuit meat, which unfortunately is Candide himself. By the way oreillon is a contagious virus in French. Even though Candide is not Jesuit (he is optimist) he is in the wrong place at the wrong time after committing various mistakes. Mistakes which he never thought that were going to be the wrong decision to make, for instance killing the monkeys. Who in the world would think that the girls had sympathy for these creatures? Ironically Candide had a great aim, but aimed at the wrong target. As well as the obsession for gold Voltaire describes a utopia were precious stones are the soil of this strange world. With scarcely any value, gold is the main topic of El Dorado. Symbolizing that what society in his time period desired most is the dirt of this perfect world. It is his point of view where the government is useful, where everybody is happy and craves for nothing. Like in Trafalmadore instead of gold it is forgetting that Vonnegut desires most. Representing his ideas in a three dimensional world where nothing matters. Anyhow it is different because Voltaire is intending to attack society in his time. At the same time Voltaire attacks ambition by sending Cacambo and Candide with the idea to rule the world but making them loose almost all their possessions.

Candide, Voltaire's Satiric Masterpiece

The satiristic essence of the novel Candide by Voltarie makes the reader have fun while reading. It has the power to keep the reader’s attention even in the most distressing moments. Fortunately it is a short novel. In any case it is a novel defined as an exaggeration of the ridicule out of different targets narrated throughout the story. The author uses an exceptional simple and direct ironic tone of voice during the novel. Enrolled as the adventures of Candide, Voltaire uses the events to directly attack the Catholic Church. For instance, on page 49 “I am the daughter of Pope Urban X and the Princess of Palestrina.*” where Abigail started to recall her origins. It is ridiculous the fact of being the daughter of a pope and a princess. Mainly because in the Catholic Church it is completely illegal to have any kind of relationship with anything else that is not God. By the way princesses must marry before having children. Amongst this quote the most satirical example can be the authors’ foot note. For the fact of denying the real existence of the clerical ruler it is absurd to emphasize this attack with a footnote. In such a peculiar way as talking in third person in order to acclaim his discretion.
Another specific attack on the Catholic dogmas was the following, “And it was part of the scheme of things that my dear Anabaptist (the best of men!) should be drowned in sight of land? Besides this also results to be ridiculous, and part of black humor. Referring to Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five when somebody is killed for taking a teapot after Dresden’s bombing.
To analize the satiric sense of Candide absurdity results to be the easiest to find. For instance the Metophysico-theologo-cosmolo-nigology lesson Pangloss dictates. Another example can be the Thunder-ten-tronckh family’s last name. Another peculiar name is given to the governor of Buenos Ayres, “Don Fernando d’Ibarra y Figueora y Mascarenes y Lampourdos y Souza, a nobleman with a degree of pride appropriate to one who bore so many name.”(page 58)
Even love is absurd, to touch the Lady Cunnegund’s lips and keep thinking of her, even fainting for her death after so much time without seeing her. As well as the way women think. Even the old experienced lady recommends Lady Cunnegund to accept the Governors offer for ridiculous reasons, ignoring who they are talking about and the real feelings, if there are any. “Madam, you have seventy-two quarterings to your coat of arms but not a farthing to your name;you have only yourself to blame if you do not become the wife of the greatest nobleman in South America with the most handsome of moustaches.”(page 59)
Hyperbole is of outmost importance in the art of satire. It is described throughout the whole novel; although it has not been only used in Candide, referring to Dantes Inferno, the punishments and poetic justice are an example of hyperbole. In Candide, the lineage of the pox infection describes an exaggerated account of its origins.
While reading the novel I didn’t catch every example of satirical mockery. I even doubted if inverting Candide’s robes used in the auto-da-fe, while Pangloss’ where upright meant anything in particular. I read this in page 36.