#24MAG is a collaborative, creative, and transparent endurance publishing event.
Our most recent issue took place on May 10th, 2013, in the East Village, with 25 contributors. Our theme was data. We hope you enjoy exploring it as much as we enjoyed making it! Read it below, or online at issuu.
#24MAG is read online by 5000+ people, and we think that’s amazing. But if you, like us, think that print is where it’s at, order your copy here:
Every week leading up to production we’ll be releasing a data-themed piece from one of our contributors.
5/01 – our fourth and final piece of art is from returning contributor Aida Manduley, and her words begin now:
I think that, often when people hear the word “data,” they think of difficult number-crunching, science/math, and Very Serious Pursuits (or “that thing that my boss tells me I need for this grant proposal”). It’s rare that folks think of “data” and “numbers” associated with fun, “feminine” things like nail polish. Similarly, when individuals think of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), they usually have a very particular image in their minds. This image (more often than not) is gendered, and has men at the helm of all things Data.
Women are underrepresented in the STEM fields, and research is increasingly showing that it’s not because “girls just aren’t interested” or “girls aren’t as good at math.” In fact, a lot of it can be attributed to social factors, like assumptions about what career paths are “suitable” for women and a lack of encouragement toward these fields during the K-12 years. Heap workplace harassment, lack of acceptance from colleagues, a potentially hostile working environment, and more things of the sort on top of these social factors when women actually get INTO the field and, well, is anyone surprised we have few women in STEM?
So…as a nail polish enthusiast and data-lover, I wanted to contribute something for the lead-up to #24mag Issue 5 that involved numbers, spreadsheets (tasty, tasty spreadsheets), and visuals, but also an element of whimsy–all informed by my brand of feminism. And here we are.
I looked at the impressive set of data from this spreadsheet, which lists The PolishAholic’s nail polish inventory as of 4/1/13. With the help of my handy calculator, I counted that she has a total of 2171 polishes. I pulled information about all the colors and finishes for the entire collection and made separate word clouds with each one using Wordle (which gives greater size to words that are mentioned more often).
For colors, the top 5 were:
Blue – 243
Pink – 200
Green – 192
Purple – 189
Red – 106
It is interesting to note, though, that not all nail polish colors were lumped into the initial “Crayola 8.” It would be interesting to try to re-categorize them all into “basic” colors and see how the final numbers look (and which colors top the list). This variation in naming colors reminded me of the Color Survey on the xkcd’s comic blog (which has some fascinating gendered components too), so check that out if you geek out over such things.
For finishes, the top 5 (or 6!) were:
Glitter – 565
Shimmer – 548
Crème – 336
Creme – 155
Holographic – 153
Duochrome – 63
HOWEVER, not accounted in the above numbers are misspelled or differently-capitalized variations on some of the above results:
holo = 13
glitter = 3
gliter = 3
gitter = 2
holographic = 1
Holographc = 1
crème = 1
Accounting for those, and lumping crème + creme together, the numbers would change to this (which gives us different numbers, but all in the same order of popularity):
Glitter – 573
Shimmer – 548
Crème/Creme – 492
Holographic – 168
Duochrome – 63
4/24 – Our third piece of art is from Editor-In-Chief Sara Eileen Hames:
As to Holmes, I observed that he sat frequently for half an hour on end, with knitted brows and an abstracted air, but he swept the matter away with a wave of his hand when I mentioned it. “Data! data! data!” he cried impatiently. “I can’t make bricks without clay.”
4/17 – Our second piece of art is a user-editable Excel spreadsheet made by David Dyte, which you can download and play over here: dropbox.
The spreadsheet comes with three pages: the parameters page, which you can edit; the calculations page, which does the math; and the result page, which draws complex designs based on your parameters.
To illustrate what’s going on here, imagine a spirograph. Most spirographs are a stationary circle with another circle spun around the inside. This spreadsheet computes for a spirograph with two ellipses (hence the two sets of radii on the parameters page), with the smaller spun on the outside. You can change the height and width of each ellipse to change the design, as well as the increment and the distance from the “pen hole” to the center of the cog. These can be set to sizes that would be impossible, physically, and can construct some far more bizarre designs. You can even set the smaller wheel’s radii (the lowercase r1 and r2) to negative values to spin the cog on the inside of the stationary spirograph, though be sure that if r1 is negative, r2 is as well.
Near as we can tell, no one’s ever done this before. David had to do all the math from scratch. Truly he has a dizzying intellect.
4/10 – Check out the sweet video Ian Danskin made to kick us off!