Why did you agree to guest edit this issue?
I was proud to be able to. But it was a really new thing for me. I've never
edited a magazine before. It was all about figuring out the storytelling, the narrative of the issue. It was also about asking, how is it for someone like me, who grew in digital and understands it
really well -- how is it to switch the medium, to flip sides? Because usually we are the ones teaching people from print how to evolve digitally, but for me, it was interesting to be on the other side
and figure out all the nuances of actually doing a large print project. I have to say it's a completely different way of thinking. It really added to my experience, and I'm positive it will change
the way I approach content.
You studied print in school, but have specialized in digital. How would you compare the experience of designing for a magazine to designing for online?
What's fascinating with print is that it's so precise -- and so final. There's an end to it. The thing with Web work is it never ends. You can update endlessly. One thing I enjoyed
about working with this issue is the level of control you have. Unlike the Web, when you finish something it just carts and opens up: community and dialogue begins. It's a very different feel between
the two mediums. But I have to say, it was extremely fun, being back in print.
What do you wish we or you had done different?
I would have liked to play more with
paper stock and things of that nature. Nothing gimmicky like foldouts or gateways. But print is a tactile thing, and not something that we [at Huge] get to play with often.
The
photos in the layout that Huge did on the New Hoarders on page 20, clearly raise concerns about the massive over-consumption we, as a culture, have long engaged in. In selecting those images for an
article in an issue about the future of media and not addressing or glossing over those concerns are you tacitly endorsing that behavior?
What's funny about that is it's a little bit
of a warning sign. We just took them as an example of really beautifully shot photography, but if you took any of us and put all our shit in front of a camera, all of us would be surprised at how much
material wealth is displayed. It was kind of a shock that in a simple picture you can see how much these kids have. Sometimes it's actually very, very disturbing.
And it absolutely wasn't about saying, "Do this." It was just about exposing the world that new generations will live in and the amount of consumption. And also it talks about not necessarily material consumption, but consumption in general, like content and text messages, and anything they touch will be ten times more than all of us are doing.
You have every reason and right to think a great
deal of your shop, but were you concerned by proposing we run an illustrated map with a headline that declares "Where the talent is," over three cities with Huge offices in them you were being
outright self promotional?
We didn't feel like that putting it together, of course. But I can see your point of view and don't disagree with not running it.
Why
focus on consumers?
I really think change comes from consumers, and that's something that I strongly believe. Technology is enabling change; consumers are the ones demanding it. I
imagined this issue to be a guide for change in the future of media. Because media itself does not change; it reacts to what they are wanting. From my point of view, no big brands understand this
whole next generation of consumers. They may understand how to market to them, but they don't understand what they are doing online and how they are actually changing everything they touch.