Christina Hendricks graces the cover of the New Yorker

If you haven't figured it out by now, I will admit that I have "une faiblesse" for magazine covers featuring artistic photos of beautiful women and surrounded by beautiful fonts and graphic design (basically a medley of nature's art and designer's art, displayed on glossy paper; you can't go wrong with that recipe).

Today I just learned about Christina Hendricks being named sexiest women by Esquire magazine. I had never heard of her before, almost didn't know anything about her show before (Mad Men), nor seen her before.

Here are some pictures from Esquire's coverage of Christina Hendricks, and I must say that it is a really great photo-shoot:







But then I discovered the cover of Esquire featuring that photo-shoot and I was very very disappointed; it's a horrible cover:



It is boring, the background is ugly and the photo is nothing special. Now compare that to the New Yorkers' cover featuring Christina Hendricks:



Now thats a real cover.

How is it, that the aging traditional and upper-class New York bourgeoisie magazine that the New Yorker is, has a better cover than the supposedly modern and hot Esquire? I guess the artists at the New Yorker are true artists, not like the people at Esquire.

Conclusion is: it's not the age that matters but the quality of the work. You can re-invent or re-invigorate yourself at any age.