Session: 1234567891011121314151617         Page 414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485 of 824

another time was in the early 60s. Now, assuming that this always happened, is it logical to think that this happened because LIFE always had, was always under financial pressure, and therefore it would always be a manager's response to say: “Gee, let's look at this thing and see what the problem is?”

No, no--

In other words, if LIFE hadn't been “an economic problem”, would there have been this constant effort to redefine?

Well, all magazines are problems. LIFE happened to--because it was so big, it was the biggest. But Fortune was an economic problem. All magazines are constantly redefined. They have to change. They have to change with the time. So you're always in the business of redefining. My point here is, it is easier to put together words that will redefine a text magazine--as to what its purpose and function is--than to redefine a picture magazine which was created in a way by the camera more than it was by word definition. And that's why all the subsequent definitions were no better than the very first one that Luce wrote which was a panegyric, if you want--it was a poem about LIFE. And when you tried to become more concrete, more formal in defining LIFE you found yourself getting into deeper trouble, not less trouble.

O.K. That's very, very good. I'm going to jog your memory on--just tell me if you have any comments to make now on this, for