Well, this is a bit of an unusual post, but I thought it might be a fun exercise to let readers in on the actual production process of the book. Right now we’re working on the CARTOON MODERN cover design. In books, sometimes the cover choice is obvious and presents itself early on in the design process; other times it takes a lot of searching and experimenting before you find the right idea. This book is definitely of the latter variety, which is somewhat ironic, because one would think that a book with so many visual riches would mean the cover would be an easy decision. In fact, I think it’s a testament to the diversity of design in 1950s animation that has made it such a challenge finding the best way to represent it.
The suggestions for the cover so far have ranged from having no image (”leave the cover an open possibility instead of favoring specific imagery”) to using multiple images that would represent the variety of designs in the book. There’s also the third option of trying to choose an iconic image that sums up the book as a whole. There is still a lot of discussion going on between Chronicle, the designers and myself, but with Chronicle’s permission, I thought it’d be cool to open up the debate to the book’s eventual readers and try to inject some fresh opinions into the process.
So here’s your chance to help us formulate a direction for the cover design. Below are seven of the rough concepts that designers at Chronicle and my own book designers have suggested. None of these are anywhere close to being final, but they represent the options that I mentioned above. I’d love to hear what everybody out there thinks. Please comment which of them stand out visually; whether you dislike any of them (or even if you dislike all of them); which direction you’d like to see us explore further (multiple images, no images, single image); whatever comes to mind. The most helpful responses will obviously be those that explain their reasons instead of simply voting yay or nay, but all thoughts are appreciated. If you feel strongly about any or none of these covers, speak now, or forever hold your peace.
#1
(click on image for larger version)
#2
(click on image for larger version)
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
Amid, I’ll make my comments for each concept based on their numbers:
Concept 1: It may be too similar to the Jim Flora book, but I really like this overall design. And I dig the spine! Nice.
Concept 2: I love the characters on this one, just too bad they’ll be hidden from view, unless you open the book. The book is all about art and design and characters, but there’s nothing to show for it on the cover. No need to hide the goods.
Concept 3: This is probably my least favorite of the entire set. I understand that there’s the initative to showcase the wide variety of styles from that time, but somehow it doesn’t work here. Plus, I do not like the basic helvetica type in the box with the wide borders.
Concept 4: I like this one, very strong and bold with the black background and cool characters — kinda goes along with concepts 1 and 2 — however, it may be too similar to the Jim Flora book that came out last year. That one had a black background as well. Still a nice look.
Concept 5: For the mulitple styles concept, this one works very well. I like all the samples shown, especially that wild shadow one on the far right. This might be a keeper for me.
Concept 6: To use a single image, this one takes the cake. I love anything from ROOTY TOOT TOOT, as practically every single frame of that film is brilliant in my opinion. As for the type at the top….hmmm, it’s a bit weak, but could be plussed somehow. Not sure how.
Concept 7: This one is okay, but I do love the background images. Nice pan cel. But having the title and type up at the top there is still kinda weak to me. Sorry.
Overall, you’ve got your work cut out for you, especially since the book is basically about DESIGN from an era. I can see why you’re having some issues on nailing a final design for the cover. There’s some great stuff here, but I feel that the strongest concepts for me would be 1, 5 and 6.
Hope this helps!
Comment by Ward — December 8, 2005 @ 8:10 pm
Ooops, I meant to say “white” borders for Concept 3. The one with all the images framed in white, Mondrian-like. Me no likeies.
Comment by Ward — December 8, 2005 @ 8:15 pm
I love them all but the last two really spoke to me the most.I cant decide which of the two is my favorite but i know my favorite design is one of the last two.
hope that helps and good luck guys!
Comment by TRobot — December 8, 2005 @ 8:40 pm
#4…it looks like an actual book from the fifties.
Comment by eddiemuerte — December 8, 2005 @ 9:31 pm
#5 is the best IMHO. This cover showcases a series of various styles from the period and really stands out amoung the others shown (which is a good thing if its going to be on the shelf with a bunch of other books).
I also like #2 & #4 for their simplicity but I keep going back to #5 as my favorite. Best of luck with choosing a cover!
Comment by Chris S — December 8, 2005 @ 10:13 pm
I tend to agree with Ward. I quite like #1 (and #4, which seems to be just a variation), suggesting a little of the general sensibility in regard to character design (not just minimalism, but an emphasis on shapes, lines, colors…), and it’s very appealing and the black makes it stand out. #3 is the most comprehensive in showcasing a range, but it reminds me a bit too much of convention souvenir books or DVD booklets, somehow (maybe it’s the font). I like the layout of #5 better, but assume the title will be more carefully centered, and somehow the vertical rows is, for me, somewhat headache inducing (especially with the farmyard layout next to Flebus). I like #6, as I too am a Rooty Toot Toot fan, but strangely the specific still, while a strong one, seems to be more about the animators’ posing then the overall design sense. Still, I’d be sure to buy a book with that cover, and I think, for the cover at least, focusing more on characters is a good thing. #7 is nice, but the background cityscape is less imeediately eycatching. So my main vote would be for #1, with 4, 6, and 5 following, in that order.
Comment by Andrew Leal — December 8, 2005 @ 10:13 pm
I really like numbers 4 and 7 for their simplicity. They seem more elegant because they’re not crammed with images.
Comment by Wes — December 8, 2005 @ 10:19 pm
All nice! to me it’s a toss up between 3 & 5, and if forced to choose. #5.
Nice work!
Comment by Fitzillo — December 8, 2005 @ 10:58 pm
I like #4 the best so far. The only thing about it that doesn’t feel settled is the type font and its placement, which I think can be improved upon (although your name in that font looks good as is). There’s a playfulness in the layout which is a great direction. The black background is also a good choice for keeping the art in a minimalist context. Simple angles and colors will always punch.
It feel contemporary without diminishing the 50’s style.
#6 is a great image, but I don’t think that it has to divide the title into a separate area. You could try to integrate the title and upgrade it to a more stylized text and format.
#7 isn’t bad. It goes in a more academic direction, which many animation books have done in the past. But something about it looks maybe a bit too much like a Christies Auction catalogue.
#3 & #5 are just too re-tread, too busy for my taste. #3, especially looks like a college textbook.
‘hope this helps.
Comment by Gerit Vandenberg — December 8, 2005 @ 11:21 pm
As an artist, I like 1 and 4 but may be too sparse for the general public. I believe 5 strikes the balance of appealing to artists and the average person alike.
Comment by Gerard de Souza — December 8, 2005 @ 11:30 pm
Hey Amid,
I’m a huge fan of this blog and Cartoon Brew, you and Jerry do a great job! I really can’t wait for your book and this is a really cool opportunity, so here’s my two cents:
Design #1:
My personal favorite. I love the simple image in the center, it really displays what the book is about in a straightforward way. The colors are outstanding as well, I can’t think of anything I would change on the overall design of this one.
Design #2:
I don’t know how good of an idea it is to not have the entire title on the front cover, it seems like it would be kind if a pain to open up the entire book to read it. However, I do like the idea of seeing the character from the front and back, that’s a cool idea. I guess all I would really change would be to put the whole title on the front, although that’s not the most creative solution.
Design #3:
This is one of my least favorites. As mentioned before it’s cool to see the wide variety of images, but it looks like a college art history textbook to me. It looks like someone took a Mondrian painting and just put cartoon images in the squares.
Design #4:
I really like this one also. The only reason I like #1 better is because the whole image is shown and makes it more iconic in a way.
Design #5:
This one also reminds me of a textbook. Too cluttered for my taste.
Design #6:
Not a bad image, but I can’t help but think that all the book will be about is UPA with this cover since that style is so identifiable. I think using imagery that people can tell is from the fifties but not sure from what particularly is more effective, like in #’s 1, 2, and 4.
Desing #7:
Just plain static and boring to me. Looks like a European tourist guidebook or something. Really nice painting but the design is very weak.
Now, I’m no art or design expert, these are just my opinions as a future buyer of this book. I just tried to picture which designs would look best sitting in a Barnes and Noble and would make me pick up the book if I didn’t know anything about it. I hope this helps and good luck, I’m really looking forward to this book!
Comment by David DeGrand — December 8, 2005 @ 11:44 pm
After much deliberation, and pouring over the beautiful art #4 is definately my preferred choice.
Other people have mentioned the type feeling out of place on some of the other covers, and, not on #4, but on others I have to agree that the choice of sans serif for the secondary title is a little lacklustre. I understand the reasoning behind making it sans, but it feels like an inappropriate choice. A different sans serif font could work, I’d be hard pressed to choose one though too. This one just feels very plain though. (speaking in regards to the sans type on #’s 5, 6, and 7.) I love the choice, again, on #4 for the subhead.
Comment by Mike Myhre — December 8, 2005 @ 11:46 pm
#3 and #4 are my faves…I also like #6 as a singles image but it doesn’t really say “fifties animation” to me…the only thing I’d change in #3 is the font (”CARTOON MODERN”) and use the font of #4…
Comment by Thorsten Hasenkamm — December 8, 2005 @ 11:56 pm
Hey Amid, Thanks for letting me (and others) pipe in with our collective “wisdom”.
Number “2″ is my number one favorite! I think it takes alot of artistic “chutzpah” to break up your title in that way with such a minimal cover treatment… yet I think that sense is EXACTLY what the 50’s pioneers were doing in THEIR way. The end-flaps are superb… and give the reader a great “easter egg” when they open the book!
Easily my LEAST favorites are the “omnibus approach” of covers 3 & 5. They reference too many other “best of” animation books of the past decade which were no more than picture still catalogues of questionable material. Your book proports to be so far above these “poseurs” that I would stay FAR away from their “more is more” approach.
If I HAD to choose a 2nd choice, I’d vote for “6″. I like the bold single image approach, yet I agree with (Ward?) that the type treatment is a bit weak in some way. Perhaps it needs to break the plane of the top of the still. And about that Hubley cover shot… Yes, it’s “Hub”, and yes, the short is exceptional. But for a cover image, I think there’s too much open space on the left & right sides… the back rail alludes to a BG yet there isn’t one. Works in film.. but isn’t working as an important cover shot. If you MUST go with this minimal approach, how about the mighty “Fleebus” (the scene with him on the couch at the Psychiatrist’s office??) ? Another “ballsy’ approach would be to use a single, BLACK & WHITE image (grayscale, actually) for the cover with the VERY colorful logo treament of #1 somewhere ontop.
If you do go with a black cover, consider a thick gloss instead of a matte varnish. Gloss speaks of 50’s.. and that matte finish ALWAYS gets scuffs and “hickeys” all over it in the shipping process.
Whew! That was more than I planned to write.. but then again, you’re writing the book that I have been waiting for, for 20 years!
Congrats, again..
Lippy
Comment by Lippy — December 9, 2005 @ 12:02 am
Although I’m only in my second year of studying design, I thought I’d give my two cents as to which cover I liked the most. Although all of them are good, I prefer number 1 and 2 for the novelty of the wraparound design, and number 3 for the excellent alignment of elements on the cover. However, the only one I can say I honestly don’t like would be number 4, simply because I don’t think vertically-stacked text ever works for roman characters (which are designed to be read left-to-right). I also think that the last two, while elegant in their design, may lack the visual “punch” that would draw in fans of this particular era of animation.
Comment by Tyler Sticka — December 9, 2005 @ 12:33 am
Hi Amid,
Excellent blog. I look forward to the book no matter the cover. But since you asked - my personal favourites, those that appeal to me specifically and not necessarily to a larger clientele, are ( in order ) #4, #1, #2 and #7. A simple and clean design works for me every time. Now - should you choose to move #2’s running boy from the front inside flap to the cover I might change the order to #2, #4, #1 and #7.
I don’t think the Flora comparisons on #4 are a concern but, if you do then the black could easily be changed as well.
Good luck!
Comment by Glen Mullaly — December 9, 2005 @ 12:53 am
I really love design #1. The colors are so appealing. I love how the black makes the center image pop! I can picture this on my coffe table right now. I really can’t wait for this book to come out. Good luck!
Casey
Comment by Casey — December 9, 2005 @ 12:56 am
Thanks for sharing these with us Amid. The immensely talented people at Chronicle and your talented folks have really given us some really great designs to consider. Ward, Thorsten, and others have covered a lot of the opinions but I’ll try and add my own comments.
I’m sure you’ve printed out samples and taken them to a bookstore to see how they look on the actual shelves already. If not, I suggest doing so. Try to see what stands out from a distance, what the spine looks like beside others, or what it looks like under certain light conditions. Try and see how memorable the cover image is to somebody that would describe the book to a friend, as if they wanted it for a gift.
These might seem trivial, but each though will help guide potential buyers to your book and hopefully encourage sales.
As for the designs:
1. Bold images and color, with elegant simplicity. A strong contender, but perhaps a bit too busy on the spine and possibly like other design books.
2. This has charm and I agree it takes some guts to break up the title. Designwise, it’s beautiful but makes it hard for some people to see what the title is if they’re glancing at a shelf. It does encourage buyers or readers to pick it up and flip it around and that’s a certainly a good thing.
3. I don’t dislike this one as much as others, but I do think it’s too busy. The Mondrian-like quality definitely suggests 50’s design. However, I would choose 3 (maybe 4) of your strongest images and leave the other boxes blank. Maybe one person image, one environment image, and one object image. Also like some of the others, a more 50’s style font needs to be incorporated.
4. I like this one too. But the vertical text isn’t something I particularly like, I think. I’m sort of indifferent to it. I would make sure the colors are printed boldly as possible too. I would try to use the colors from the design and incorporate them into the title, author name, and book sub-title.
5. I’m not a fan of this one. It reminds me of Chip Kidd’s designs, which I actually enjoy, but here it doesn’t seem to work. Too busy.
6. A contender for the best cover. Would easily stand out on a bookshelf in the stores. I think a single strong image makes the biggest (and most memorable) impact.
7. The design is clean, but I think the panoramic image is a bit too busy.
Also keep in mind that white tends to show scuff marks, scratches, and other blemishes more than some of the other colors, and as trivial as it may seem, any thing you can do to keep your product looking fresh in the stores is a good thing.
Really looking forward to seeing this.
Comment by Chad Kerychuk — December 9, 2005 @ 1:01 am
It seems the difficulty with the designs you have so far, is the right balance between a book about animation and a particularly stylish point in it’s history, which sort makes it a design book too. So far I say the 2nd one is the most successfull as a layout out cover but loses it when the book is folded as a book would be. I think the Mondrian would might possibly work if you play with the lay out ad image choice’s beign very concious of color and find a jazzy rythm of the shapes as they relate to each and to the group, almost like its a still from an animated piece, right now it seems dull but with poetential. The others look abit cheap and amateurish like the sort you get with cheaply produced art books or design books in the discount bins. 7 and 6 look dated circa late 70’s and boring (the rooty toot toot pic is great though). 5 looks like many of those other “animation” books at Borders that showcase animation or 3d graphis and the like. 1 and 2 are the same thing, the vine in both is the only interesting thing to look at and the spine is typical Chronicle Books. It looks as though you should try to possibly decide if this is a fun book or a serious book. And maybe work from there. Best of luck and i look forward to the book coming out,
Comment by F — December 9, 2005 @ 1:08 am
as someone who is definitely the target audience for this - I’m a collector of such books - I would say that the bright, light-feeling designs are much more appealing. a book like this could run the risk of feeling too “old” or “in the past” to appeal to a new audience, and the fresher, more colorful approach makes the subject and book feel new, even if the content is historical.
I really like 1, 2 and 7, with 2 being my first choice. well done!
Comment by mave gibson — December 9, 2005 @ 1:08 am
I will not explain long because my english is really bad, but I find the fourth cover the simplest and nicest design. I like how typography integrates with the illustration and the result is like a 50’s jazz record.
Anyway, the book will be fantastic.
Congrats for the site.
Comment by karramarro — December 9, 2005 @ 1:22 am
#5 and #7 are my favorites.
Comment by Florian Satzinger — December 9, 2005 @ 1:25 am
It’s between #1,2 and 4 for me. With #2 having the edge.
The typeface on #2 says ’50s animation’ the most.
Definitely NOT 3 or 5, too cluttered, which not something you could ever say about 50s design.
Comment by Will Kane — December 9, 2005 @ 1:30 am
Both number 3 and 4 are favorite of mine !
Can’t wait to have the book in my hands !
Comment by Andrea — December 9, 2005 @ 1:54 am
I live in San Francisco, and we’ve got the Chronicle bookstore in the Sony Metreon Center and I’m always going in there to check out what new books are coming out. My eye is usually drawn the the books with fewer and bolder colors and shapes on their covers.
That being said, my personal favorite of the bunch is #3. It just smacks of 1950s simplicity of design. For second place, I’d choose #1. And if I had to choose a third place from this lot, I’d go for #6 as it’s such a great image (bold, simple).
#2- I like the typeface and the colors, but I don’t really like how it’d look folded around a book (reading “=ARTOC N”).
#3- Looks like a lot of other Chronicle Books.
#5- I like the imagery, but not the title treatment.
#7- While I love the image, to me it immediately reads more like a brochure for a hospital.
Comment by Sean Dicken — December 9, 2005 @ 2:29 am
My favorite is #3.
Comment by Fred — December 9, 2005 @ 2:55 am
I absolutely dislike the first five. 1, 2 and 4 are to “designy” for my taste, like something done by a talented but overzealous graphic design student. The black is too heavy, overwhelming and… well… dark! Numbers 3 and 5 are too busy and lack focus. Simplicity of design is more indicative of this era, I believe.
I like number 7’s lightness, and the picture is excellent, though a little impersonal for the cover.
Number 6 is my favorite. A single strong image with lighthearted humorous appeal has the biggest impact, and this is a great choice for that, even though I’m unfamiliar with its origin. I agree with some of the other comments that the type is weak. It would be better if it was incorperated with the image in some way, and there’s plenty of space where that could work.
I think it would be a mistake for the cover to specifically target those of us “in the know” - artists and animators who are eagerly anticipating this book’s publication, like a Chris Ware designed Fantagraphics art book. This subject matter has a broader appeal and the simple human moment of number 6 works best in that way.
Having said all that, seeing this is all very exciting to me. I’m grateful to have a chance to express my views at this stage of the process for a book I so eagerly anticipate. Thanks for giving us the forum to do so.
Eric
Comment by Eric Sturdevant — December 9, 2005 @ 3:13 am
I agree with the less is more approaches of #’s 1, 2 and 4 but think the nice blue you have for the cartoon modern blog would do much nicer than the flat blacks. Thanks…
Comment by eastaltus — December 9, 2005 @ 3:51 am
The only designs I don’t really like much are #1, #3 and #5. My favorites are #2 and #7.
Comment by Aaron — December 9, 2005 @ 4:42 am
3 & 5 look too much like textbooks. I like 1 & 7.
Comment by klahd222 — December 9, 2005 @ 4:47 am
I think #2 is brilliant. Try to see it not as it appears here, but wrapped around a book and standing face-out in a book store display. Even not seeing all the letters in the title, you immediately know it’s about cartoons, and its use of space lets you know its all about design. Also, I’ll have to say that the font choices here are impeccable in my book. They’re understated and they look “1950s” without looking antique. I’m also very happy with #6, but might suggest trying to move the title into the image, reversing it oout of that red/orange background.
You and the designers are brave indeed presenting these for critique. I know from experience that a committee can quickly kill off all that’s creative, so my advice is: don’t listen to us! We’re all bozos!
Comment by Dewey McGuire — December 9, 2005 @ 6:10 am
Happier with the brighter concepts over the ones mostly black. The image marked 3 I like the best, but would stick with the serif fonts used elsewhere. The image marked 5 I liked a close second, but didn’t have the “pop” for me that A did.
Looking forward to it!
Comment by Chris Taylor — December 9, 2005 @ 8:07 am
I like number 5.
Comment by WIL BRANCA — December 9, 2005 @ 8:47 am
Being a huge fan of Gene Deitch and his Sydney cartoons, I have to vote for cover #1! But I will also add that I think the artwork of the cityscape on #7 is gorgeous, so that would make an excellent cover too.
I’m really looking forward to the book - no matter what the cover looks like. It’s the juicy, informativey innards I’m anticipating the most.
Comment by Darin — December 9, 2005 @ 9:07 am
#1, #2 and #4 Have the best feel to them, simple and contemporary. The other ones seem a little too cold and textbook-like and not as whimsical as those two.
Comment by Johnny Yanok — December 9, 2005 @ 9:07 am
I love the spine on number 1 - I think you should use that regardless. Also like number 2 - but overall number 1 looks best to these eyes.
Comment by matt — December 9, 2005 @ 9:09 am
If you wanna grab the eyes of the unindoctrinated from the store shelves, then the picture-barfs of #3 and #5 will do. But I think the cleaner, simpler designs work better. Of these, #1 is my top pick, especially considering how it looks cropped down to just the front cover. It’s a great, clean layout that to me says “Style and Design in Fifties Animation” without using the words.
Comment by greg — December 9, 2005 @ 9:14 am
i really really dislike #5. too disjointed and the box with the title, etc, seems slapped on.
#1 and #3 look a alot like other books that are out there.
#6 is nice, but kinda misleading because the image may stand out more as a “romance” book or something.
i really like #2 and #4 and #7… they keep it nice, sleek, and bold.
#2 is my favorite.
Comment by tomN! — December 9, 2005 @ 9:16 am
Let’s keep this simple,
Let’s pick #6,
Remove all informations, just keep the picture on the front.
Put the informations on the side. (I don’t know what’s on the back though)
Anyone who is interested in that kind of picture, will automatically pick the book and open it.
Boom.
Comment by Maxime Lefrançois — December 9, 2005 @ 9:57 am
i really really really do NOT like #5!
my favorite is #2.
Comment by tomN! — December 9, 2005 @ 10:08 am
I rather like the pastiche looks of #3 and #5. As for earlier comments about them being too much like textbooks, well, I don’t feel it. The Mondrian blocks of #3 neatly suggest a storyboard in abstract. #5 does kind of the same thing. I particularly like the mix of monochrome and color images in the two layouts — they provide a nice visual contrast. I’d replace the Helvetica in #3 with the banknote-style serif face of #5, or replace it with Futura Medium for a more 50s sans serif face.
Comment by cipheroid — December 9, 2005 @ 10:12 am
1, 2 and 4 are CLEARLY the strongest.
Comment by G.E. — December 9, 2005 @ 10:13 am
#1 - can’t discount the pull an attractive spine would have on a shelf, whether in a bookstore or library (3 & 4 would work as well if they had a similar spine). Overall, I think all except 7 work very nice with the subject matter (#2 is my personal favorite) but if you’re looking for a point-of-purchase presence, then #1 is the way to go.
Comment by Michelangelo C — December 9, 2005 @ 10:22 am
A,
right now i like 4 and 6. also, i think it would be cool to see the cover done in some old 50s’ AD. with paper clippings and the old “cut and paste” magazine look, mixed in with some modern shapes and colors contrast. its looking good though.
>oVi
Comment by ovi — December 9, 2005 @ 10:32 am
My picks for you cover are either #1, #3 or #4. I’d be happy with any of those.
These three “read”. I don’t know if you are concerned with “book sales” (vs. creating a piece of “art”), but these three clearly tell a potential buyer, browsing in a book store, what this book is about. And they are attractive too.
I agree with Thorsten that #3 does reflect an authentic 50s style. The other two (#1 & #4) are just “cool” anyway you slice it. I like #5, too - but the others are better.
Comment by Jerry Beck — December 9, 2005 @ 10:46 am
I like #1 and #2.
Simple and minimalist, yet stylized and great character designs. I think they’d do the book justice, and look really classy.
Those are my picks.
Comment by Oliver — December 9, 2005 @ 10:49 am
#4 captures that midcentury flavor best for me - looks like an actual book from the period. Second choice #6.
Comment by merlinjones — December 9, 2005 @ 10:51 am
Hi Amid,
I like the direction that Number 5 is going in. I would favor all film strips, however. After all, the book is about animation design, so replace the static images with more film strips and you’ve got it! Best regards, Mark
Comment by Mark Kausler — December 9, 2005 @ 11:23 am
They’re all nice designs in their way, but some that I like as design(#4, for instance, might be my gut-reaction favorite), I wouldn’t vote as a book cover. Black disappears, swallows, the concept up rather than attracts…same thing applies to 1 & 2. I’d step back 20 ft and look and ponder: “would this attract me?” because honestly, aside from the surefire, hardcore people with good taste who will buy this regardless, I’d want this title to appeal to art lovers and designers and just plain folks who might otherwise pass it by. I’m in no way suggesting to dumb it down at all, mind you–but for my money, I’d go for the Rooty cover. Funny thing: I have a rare french paperback book from the early 70s with another image from “RTT” on the cover–fantastic book(”Les Dessin Anime de Walt Disney”[sic], totally obscure…but very appealing cover, too. Anything from that film is cherce. But whatever you decide, great work!
Comment by Jenny — December 9, 2005 @ 11:28 am
I would 2. I like the idea of the cover making its own strong graphic statement in the vein of the art of the era. If the cover were being designed in the 50’s, the approach would be more as its own piece of art rather than as a vehicle of selling books. Sometimes, the book cover doesn’t need to have much to do with the book at all. Maybe you should explore type and shapes and then see if art fits with your statement.
Comment by sholmes — December 9, 2005 @ 11:29 am
I like number 2 alot because of the simplicity. But the variety is real nice on 3 and 5. It would be nice to see a Tom Oreb drawing on the cover. I always feel sad thinking about how good he was and how jacked his life was, would be nice to see him redeemed a bit. Can’t wait to see whats on the inside of this book. Thanks for putting something like this together.
Just my two cents,
-Craig
Comment by Craig Harris — December 9, 2005 @ 11:29 am
Hey Amid, for all it’s worth, #4 is my favorite. Can’t wait to see this book!
Comment by Michel Gagne — December 9, 2005 @ 11:43 am
I think #6 would be the one that grabbed my attention on a cluttered bookshelf. I like that it shows some character emotion as opposed to the more textbook look of the other images. #4 reminds me too much of a computer wireframe model more than 50’s design. I like the simplicity of #7 but the tops of buildings can’t compete with human emotion to grap attention and interest.
Comment by Ben Balistreri — December 9, 2005 @ 11:44 am
My favourites are #1, 2 and 6. At a glance on the blog I find #2 most appealing, but I agree with some others that when folded it won’t have the same impact or even legibility. (Not a problem except for the small matter of sales.) Would it be too outrageous to suggest shuffling those elements (on #2) so that the front cover has the same impact as the full wraparound?
Comment by Philip Street — December 9, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
As a Design Minor with a strong love of animation
I would have to say #4, #2, #7 in that order
#4 the boldest and most eyecatching, although after more study the vertical text is slightly bothering,also the font on Style and Design in 50’s animation should be bolder ane more resemble something from the era
#2 I think since the book is about design and style, the character should be moved to the front and back it woulld be much better, also as a coffe table book and on shelves I find wrap around font higly condusive to having one pick up the book, great font
#7 like the academic look although, it does make the book feel like it would me of a catalouge rather than a enlightning discussion, great image as I feel #6 is too identifiable as UPA
1. spine to busy, looks like aloth of other chronicle books
6. too idendifiable, agree on the pose over style comment
3.&5. too busy and too many colours, manipulating them to be in the same range and dropping it down to 3 images mixed with solid swatches of colour I think could be the fix
Comment by Scott Harpel — December 9, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
To my mind, none of these covers really works.
Visuals #1 to 4 do need a real work on type composition. Lack of equilibrium. Types are most of the time well chosen anyway. That’s the way they are used which is a problem. Either a matter of readability or a matter of compo (or originality ; I’ve already seen cover #1 a thousand times).
You need a much simpler concept. On most of those examples, color design isn’t really appealing, or simply chaotic (especially #5)(except the Rooty Toot-Toot one, even if it’s a little too dark-sad, to my subjectivity), and the whole design too complicated. Too many informations on those covers.
Design #2 would work if type compo was much simpler. The whole title on the front cover. A much simpler, modern and sexier color palette (remember Saul Bass). That same kind of minimalistic character would work (but this one isn’t very appealing, Flebus or some characters drawn in Ray Patin’s studio have far stronger design than this little boy ; among the tons of visuals you got for that book, Im pretty sure you’ll find the right one).
That wonderful project deserves a good cover.
Au travail, les amis !
Comment by Dabadie — December 9, 2005 @ 12:26 pm
My personal favorite is #6. It just speaks the loudest to me. I can’t really ‘xplain it better than that…It just feels right to me. Anyway…good luck.
Comment by geenpool — December 9, 2005 @ 12:37 pm
I think this is interesting, because I’ve had guests looking at my book shelf immediately gravitate towards my Krazy Kat collections based on Chris Ware’s cover designs, despite the fact that most of them hadn’t read a comic since they were children.
Comment by Tyler Sticka — December 9, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
i love number six, personally. i love that girl drawing. and i love number 2, but im not in favor of chopping off the words.
i think i have to agree with michel gagne, and say #4 is the one you should go with.
love the art on your site.
dany
Comment by dany boom — December 9, 2005 @ 1:01 pm
#4 is my pick - I like how it deals with design, abstraction and architecture all at once in a very simple way
Comment by dan — December 9, 2005 @ 1:36 pm
I absolutely love #4. It’s so beautiful, I would hang it on my wall! The rest are nice also, but number 4 is the one I just had to speak up about!
Comment by Rosemary Travale — December 9, 2005 @ 1:58 pm
yo amid,
i’m gonna have to throw in my 2 cents and a bit more change with my pick of #4. Simple, bold, and re-donk-ulously awesome.
you go boy!
rawk on,
-Jeaux Janovsky
Comment by Jeaux Janovsky — December 9, 2005 @ 2:23 pm
My favorties are numbers 1, 4, 6, and 7. On 1 it has a great cover image and the spine on it really pops, so it would stand out on a store bookshelf regardless of how it was shelved. I’m not sure I like the treatment of the slanted font though. Maybe take some elements of #4 and apply them to #1. Number 2 as a whole looks great, but I can imagine it being a little flat when the book is closed. I love the images in three, but as a whole a little too busy for my tastes. Number 4 looks great to me, although I’m not sure about the font in the lower left corner. I may not be able to see it very well in such a small image, though. Also a color that is dark but maybe not black could be an option. Number 5 has potential but ultimately does not look like a cohesive whole to me. I could see this somewhat modified with three vertical panels of sequential art and the sketches removed. The two words of the title could be layed out vertically between them in their own smaller vertical fields, to make a cover with 5 distinct vertical fields. That way if you moved the book up and down the pictures would come to life. It would be difficult to do this and not make it look too busy, though. Maybe a little too gimmicky as well, but then I like that sort of thing. 6 is a great image and would definitely get people’s attention that are already excited about this book. However, if you are trying to reach a wider audience (and maybe you are not), non-animators, non-illustrators etc. might not get as excited about this cover. Also, another reader mentioned moving the text into the image, which I would agree with. I have similar thoughts on #7 as I do on #6, although the background painting, while great, isn’t as strong an image for a book cover in my opinion. Of course it is all matter of opinion which makes these things so tricky. If I had to choose one of these as is, personally I would pick 6. However, from a marketing (ugh!) and design perspective #1 would be the best choice in my mind. Good luck and I look forward to this book.
Comment by Richard Ian — December 9, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
I like #3 and #5 for their variety. The others might get only a first glance by people in a bookstore. I prefer #3 for it’s white-framed blockiness as it gives a good retro feel while #5 does not.
Comment by Joseph — December 9, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
#6! Simple, eyecatching, and I love Rooty Toot Toot!
Comment by lili — December 9, 2005 @ 2:55 pm
Hey Amid, Awesome blog… I check it everyday! My fave is #1. It’s clear and to the point… and the white text going over the image seems to work incredibly well. Number 4 is similar, but I think it tends to lead your eye off the page.
I am going to cherish this book just like how I cherish every single Animation Blast that you’ve put out. This is going to be amazing!
Comment by Scott O — December 9, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
No. 3 is the best - clear, streamlined, modern graphics. This is what your book is all about. And I like the way Flebus, one of the icons of cartoon moderne, dominates the frame. Gene Schiller
Comment by gene schiller — December 9, 2005 @ 3:42 pm
I liked three and five. These both show the many different styles used for the period. Seven is also very close up there, since it shows the zoom in in a very fifties way. BTW is that concept art for the incredibles in the top left of #3? If not where did it come from?
Comment by Sean P — December 9, 2005 @ 4:08 pm
1,2,4 and maybe 7. the dark difference covers are the bees knees, the rest look give a boring text book feel.
Comment by gene fowler — December 9, 2005 @ 4:48 pm
i choose design 1..because in terms of design it’s nice and simple and if it’s represented in a bookshelf style at the bookstore the spine would clearly standout from the rest..1 would be my bet. 4 is clearly out of style if you take out the two characters there the book would look like an architecture textbook well that’s it for me.
Comment by lloyd — December 9, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
You should go with #3 because it has FLEBUS on it.
Comment by TOM — December 9, 2005 @ 6:13 pm
#2 is the best one.
Comment by Lane Smith — December 9, 2005 @ 6:55 pm
First of all, GREAT blog!
You will definitely be on my list to visit every chance I get.
As for the covers # 2 is the one.
I especially love the way the Title overlaps the cartoon character.
I also think your choice of font and colors are perfect.
Really captures the feel of that era.
Comment by JerryG — December 9, 2005 @ 8:26 pm
It is a toss between 1 and 6, favouring 6 (Clean and readable from afar in a bookshop window)
But it is possible that you may need to explore some more avenues..You may not have yet the cover that says what the book is all about…Do you remember “Christopher Crumpett” by Cannon..Opens and closes with a “Cool” artist sitting at the drawing board talking to a dog and drawing a cartoon.
Comment by Oscar Grillo — December 10, 2005 @ 12:27 am
I think cover seven looks the most sophisticated. I also like cover six, but I don’t think you should zone in on a particular character, but a broad landscape. It just looks nice.
Comment by Joseph Pantaleo — December 10, 2005 @ 2:12 am
I like numbers 4 & 5. But what do I know? My last name’s McSonogram.
Comment by Osgood McSonogram — December 10, 2005 @ 2:59 am
Hi Amid, number 4 probably says it all about 50’s design in animation & the TEXT works best on this one too.
Number 5 has such great images but the text is too ’straight’ for me - how about some ‘jazzy’, Saul Bass style lettering for the title?
Can’t wait for this book to come out man, good luck!
Comment by Matt Jones — December 10, 2005 @ 4:34 am
4 and 7 are my favourites. 4 would be the total winner if the typeface went further in that Didot direction. How about Modern no. 20?
Comment by Woodrow Phoenix — December 10, 2005 @ 6:41 am
My vote is for Number 6.
Comment by David — December 10, 2005 @ 9:31 am
Hey Amid, I think #2 is the greatest! The unconventional wrap-around title is really awesome. And the ‘N’ from ‘modern’ makes the front cover say ‘cartoon’ which is really clever! I really dislike #3 & 5. They’re too busy & too boring.
Comment by Rex H — December 10, 2005 @ 9:33 am
It took a while to decide, but the more i look, the more i like #2. I love the wraparound design, it’s simple and appealing, and has that 50’s feel. I’m also a fan of #6. It’s a great image from a great film, and it shows that 50’s design wasn’t only about design as an end, but also about character, story, and feeling. As has been mentioned before, I’m not so sure about the white border on 6. Can’t wait to get this book!
Comment by ryan d — December 10, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
#1 and #6 are cool. #1 reminds me a bit of Rand’s “A Designer’s Art” (which is a good thing)…especially the spine. #6 is simple and clean. It might suffer from being too ambiguous for non-afficianados of the genre. You also might want to avoid the “let’s show everything” approach in that this comes off as more of an attempt to satisfy too many demands. Overall, I like most of the covers…and gravitate towards the simple, more directly modernist approaches.
Can’t wait for this baby to come out. Keep up the good work.
Comment by shug — December 10, 2005 @ 1:14 pm
I like #4 and #6 the best. But I don’t like the title design on #6, if that was impoved it would be the clear winner.
Comment by ethan — December 10, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
#6. Classy and elegant.
Comment by guyburwell — December 10, 2005 @ 2:48 pm
Though I love the rest too, #6 and #7 for me are the most eye-catching and elegant.
Intriguing for the potential buyer, satisfying for the designer, I think they have everything.
Comment by Joan M. Mas — December 10, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
#2 is brilliant
with a little work i think this approach would work best. i cropped the image and took a look at just the front cover (as it would appear on a shelf), and it’s just a little too confusing. the wrap around is awesome but is perhaps a little too stretched right now. but yeah, work with #2 and you’ll have it
Comment by brando — December 10, 2005 @ 3:01 pm
#1 or #7. Hate #4.
Comment by Martin — December 10, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
I LOVE this!
I keep coming back to read the latest critiques, and (to my mind) there doesn’t seem to be ANY clear “winner”. Lots of people like lots of the different treatments.
Amid, are you keeping a running tally? What’s the break down so far?
Comment by Lippy — December 10, 2005 @ 3:50 pm
4, 6, and 7 are the best ones. the rest all scream “overly pretentious art history book” to me. however, 4’s vertical stacked serif text screams “NO NO NO WRONG WRONG!!!” to me. 6’s text is entirely lost against the red, nobody will even think of it as having a title beyond “the red book with the kiss on the cover.” i hate how it’s just floating up there, completely uninvolved with the image. and 7 doesnt have any *characters* on it, and while i agree that the background work of the 50s had a distinct character all its own (ripped straight from the noir of a decade before, plus splashes of color) people arent going to warm to it nearly as much as endearing drawings of people.
Comment by Sarah — December 10, 2005 @ 4:30 pm
I love #1 the best. The black background and simple color line drawing are wonderful. I love the multi color spine design. I would pick it up just because the spine is great.
Comment by Jessica A. — December 10, 2005 @ 5:04 pm
i love 6 and 7.no more to say
Comment by carlo guillot — December 10, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
Definitely number 2. Well, maybe #3. No. #2.
Comment by ryan — December 10, 2005 @ 5:38 pm
I’m totally digging #2 and #7. They’re polar opposites, but they both rule. Y’know…come to think of it, I’d go with #2 and use the excellent painting from #7 as endpapers. Yup.
Not to be a jerk, but are you truly tied to the designers of this project? Because, personally I think the guys of Aesthetic Apparatus would kick a ton of ass on this project. Check ‘em out.
Comment by Al aka El Negro Magnifico — December 10, 2005 @ 7:04 pm
here’s my input.
I’d go for a completely different look and go with nice paper instead of a nice image. Most of these suggestions are overcharged, not pleasant to the eye, and all of these compositions need better typography work.
If you ask me, numbers 1 through 3 are just ugly.
Number 4 could be fine, but the titles definitely need to be reworked.
Number 5 looks like a book from the 80s, you know, those boring art books that don’t haven’t gotten picked up at the library since 1986
6 and 7 are definitely my favourite ones. The relevance of the image in number 6 is somewhat blurry. And this one also looks old, but not in a good way. As for number 7, it’s fine, but quite bland.
And the cover doesn’t need to be made in CMYK… just 2 or 3 pantones on a really nice recycled-looking paper could do the job.
Comment by frncs — December 10, 2005 @ 9:46 pm
Thinking of what would attract my attention in a bookstore, I would lean toward the simpler approach of #6 and #7. However only 6 implies the humanity of the animation style you’re presenting. The background cover could just as easily be about 50’s illustration. Good luck with the book
Comment by John Halfpenny — December 10, 2005 @ 10:02 pm
I like #1 the best.
Comment by wam — December 10, 2005 @ 10:18 pm
LA VALSE-HÉSITATION DE CARTOON MODERN
Amid Amidi est un auteur américain, spécialisé dans l’histoire du dessin animé. (Voir ici sa biographie.)
Il vient de rédiger un livre intitulé Cartoon Modern : Style and Design in Fifties Animation, qui sera publié par Chronicle Books en a…
Trackback by LA BOÎTE À IMAGES — December 11, 2005 @ 1:55 am
#4. Without a doubt.
The whole design shows movement, which is essential in animation.
It’s always dangerous to assign one image to a subject. By shifting the image off the printed area, you made the image less important and give by doing this a panning and zooming effect that suggests animation. CARTOON MODERN clearly reads as one title. CARTOON standing outside the image stands out as the most important and starting word. By giving MODERN a different, vertical, alignment it gives special detail to its own meaning, and giving it a bigger size gives it special meaning and a zooming effect, creates depth and by layering it by 2/3 over the image, you give the title and the image a connection.
By putting your name on different heights around the character’s head you give meaning to the importance of character in animation and by placing the subtitle in the lower left corner it almost feels like a commentary voice in an animation who tells us what really is happening here.
To me the whole design breaths a combination of depth/profundity and superficiality which I find most likeable in animation.
Comment by Lex vd Oudeweetering — December 11, 2005 @ 5:44 am
It’s something related to feeling… I loooove the first one, it’s fresh, retro, and its color sheme is very attractive.
Thanks for allow us to help u. I like ur work a lot.
Comment by Pati @-;-- — December 11, 2005 @ 6:08 am
I like number 4 the most because it is simple, iconic and simplifies the design of the era into one image.
Comment by Adam Oliver — December 11, 2005 @ 6:34 am
BTW: I agree with Craig, I’d also like to see an Oreb- or Benedict-drawing on the cover…
Comment by Thorsten Hasenkamm — December 11, 2005 @ 6:57 am
My gut reaction is that I’m turned off by #3 and #7. The former is too busy (and the font is too stolid and text-bookish), and the latter has colours that make me think the content would be rather dull (in the eyes of someone who’s not already a fan of the aesthetic).
My favourite in terms of image and font is #2. The character and font have a jauntiness that promises more visual fun inside the book. However, before looking closely, I assumed that the character would be seen on the cover. If you formatted the jacket so that the current flap edges delineate what is actually seen on the front/back covers, then it would draw me in. Having just text on the covers doesn’t make sense for a book about visual imagery.
#5 scores points for giving a clue as to the the variety of animation styles, and the type of content inside. Yes, it’s kind of busy, but in a controlled way. Not so sure I like the text boxed title.
I love the spine on #1. Colourful, lots of verve.
Will you please post on Drawn! what your final decision is? I’d love to know.
Comment by Alison — December 11, 2005 @ 9:08 am
Weird…I must be in the minority but #3 is really the most apealing to me.
Jeez people sure do have some strong opinions - many I don’t really agree with myself…
Yep #3 for me!
Looking forward to it!!
Comment by Tennessee — December 11, 2005 @ 9:13 am
I was having a tough time deciding which cover I liked best as a design, so I tried to imagine which ‘book’ I would most likely buy if I was trolling the shelves. Viewed in that light, #5 really popped out (I guess I like boring art books from the ’80s). Straight design-wise, I also really like #4 and #7, with #6 being my least favourite.
Looking at the difference of opinion, though, you might want to print all 7 covers…
Comment by sandy — December 11, 2005 @ 10:48 am
Wow, it’s so exciting that the book is almost finished! My least favorite is #4, it turns me off not sure why. I also don’t like #6. My favorite is #2, except that I don’t like that most of the title is not located on the front cover. I also like #7. #3 and #5 are ok.
Comment by Cedric Hohnstadt — December 11, 2005 @ 2:10 pm
i like # 4. but i would move the type around, both the title and the author, so it is not distracting to the image on there. i think out of all the choices that this is the cleanest and eye catching yet very sophisticated.
the others all look like something you would find in the art textbook section of a community college.
Comment by cris paulos — December 11, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
Like comment #103, I feel weird about it since so many disagree, but #3 is my CLEAR favorite every time I scroll by. I like its balance, color, scope of styles, and album cover feel from the heyday of spinning the platters. Far after it, I like
4 then 7. Something really bothers me about the composition of 5- maybe just the hangdog verticality and general air of distress.
Comment by HenwayTwingo — December 11, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
I think #3 has it all…good “clear & bold” design, good use of grid that reminds that era (of 50’s). Maybe not a design to stand out but a design that works with its content and that’s the point!!
Comment by yiannis — December 11, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
I like #2. Simple and classy.
Comment by Anne — December 11, 2005 @ 4:07 pm
#4
#6
#7
In that order (4 being best).
Comment by D — December 11, 2005 @ 4:53 pm
What would catch my eye?
#6 jumped out right away (but the text is problematic, too small and not integrated).
Perhaps larger, and reversed out over the brick red, in white and blue
I like the multicolored text and the font on #2, the figure should be actually on the book (not the flap). I’ld nix the wrap around, to the person scanning the shelf, it looks like “ARTO N”, with indication of what the book is about
Don’t like the text on 3, and really don’t like 4.
7 is beautiful, but not eye catching enough
I do like the spine on 1
Comment by claire b cotts — December 11, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
The simpler, the better. That is why #6 grabs me. I would see it from a distance and be motivated to open, even buy, it.
Go with something like #6.
Mike Minney, BFA
Comment by Mike Minney — December 11, 2005 @ 10:50 pm
#2 for me, it seems infinitely nicer than any of the others…
Comment by Jenny D — December 11, 2005 @ 11:58 pm
no. 2 is my favourite, I wouldn’t be able to resist picking it up if I saw it on a bookstore shelf.
Comment by Leonie — December 12, 2005 @ 3:18 am
#6 is the strongest. clean and compelling. will also grab you from across the room.
Comment by jmorrison — December 12, 2005 @ 7:12 am
#2 is my favorite, but as others have said it’s a shame to hide the characters under the flap. #4 is a close second (great feel for the era), and I think #6 is OK but red’s not a big “buy me” color.
I would rework #6’s idea of one big main graphic, but use one with cooler tones, and something a bit more fun, like a Gerald McBoing Boing frame (with Gerald being teeny to not only emphasize his physical size but to punch up all the lovely UPA design around him), and the type larger in a style that would look at home in the title of said cartoon.
Yeah, the purists might want to get away from Gerald since he’s been overused a bit, but I say no way. He’s cute, recognizeable (do kids watching him in Flash on Cartoon Network even know where he came from?), and captures the style in a great little package.
Comment by Joe Cabrera — December 12, 2005 @ 8:50 am
My gut reaction is to go in the direction of #2 and #6. The simplicity of design seems to reflect the films that inspired the book. The mullti-image covers cheapen the quality of the art. Reminds me of an ugly textbook.
Comment by mike Owens — December 12, 2005 @ 8:52 am
Definitely #2!
Comment by joanna — December 12, 2005 @ 8:56 am
Love number one. Makes me want to buy the book.
Comment by Lauren — December 12, 2005 @ 9:54 am
I really like #3. I think a lot of the comments are from people who already know what would be in a book like this. I think to widen the appeal and to draw in people who don’t already know about 50’s animation you would be well-served by putting images such as #3. It gives an idea of what the book contains and it really draws the eye.
Comment by AuxMem — December 12, 2005 @ 11:44 am
My favorites are (in order) #1 and #2. Both definitely have that Chronicle Books “house style” of snappy typography and bold, appealing colors. If I saw either of those designs in a book store, I would instantly snap them up.
I like the simplicity of #6.
Comment by Matt — December 12, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
I like the boldness of #2 but I think what helps is the b/w drawing next to it. If that worked it’s way onto the front, it would be stronger. #1 is good with the same color palette but gets too small. The rest seem either too busy or too simple - almost like pretty spreads but nothing more.
Comment by Jonathan — December 12, 2005 @ 1:06 pm
Definitely #3 It’s the best combination of ecclectic (demonstrating the variety between the covers) and inviting/fun.
Comment by Daniel Read — December 12, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
I really like number 2, but I feel you need to add another hint of what’s inside on the front cover (considering you’re already guessing, since you can’t read the whole title). The character peeking out of the “o” on the back is a nice touch, perhaps he could move to the front?
Another option would be adding a blind emboss (if that’s even an option) on the front cover of a character (from cover 1 perhaps?). That would stand out nicely on the black background.
Comment by Todd — December 12, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
I like a lot of them. I combined two of them and will send it to you.
William Wray —
My Paintings:
http://williamwray.com/
http://williamwray.blogspot.com/
Comment by William Wray — December 12, 2005 @ 2:10 pm
My two favorites are #3 and #5 with five being more of a favorite. I feel that these two designs especialy # 5 are more to showing a pertential reader what cartoon modern art work is all about. I would try to push the design of #5 more by having graphes or some fifties style type with the title on the spine. the inside flapes couls showcase a individual peice of animation. The front cover should keep the striping effect of the different styles. That my two cents worth! P.S. can’t wait till it’s done to get my copy, from what I’ve read about it on your blog it should be a valueble addition to anyones history of animation library.
Comment by Kevin McLeod — December 12, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
All very good designs. My favorite is #5. It shows various styles of that time. I like the layout of it and the choices that are used to represent the era. My next favorites would be #4, #7, and #1 in this order. All good ideas. #3 strikes me, as said above, as a DVD cover or pamphlet. #2 I find too dark and #6 is to sparse but could work graphicly. I’m not sure on it.
All good choices though. Tough call.
Comment by Joel Smith — December 12, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
I like number 7:)
Comment by Luke — December 12, 2005 @ 3:31 pm
#2 has the strongest text and appeal in my opinion. It’d be great to see the character on the front as well though. Up with 2!
Comment by Joel Trussell — December 13, 2005 @ 7:25 am
Personally, I think any of these would stand out on the shelf. However, I couldn’t help myself and threw threw together a comp of what I believe to be the best combination of the better elements:
http://pieratt.com/odds/cartoon_modern.gif
Comment by Ben — December 13, 2005 @ 8:32 am
Definately #7 Nice simple and elegant.
Comment by Rusty Mills — December 13, 2005 @ 11:01 am
I gotta vote for #4 simple and 50’s! I do like the others, but I guess if I had to pick a second choice it would have to be #5 because of all the different styles!
Comment by Gabe Swarr — December 13, 2005 @ 11:53 am
Enough comments, Amid, Get on with it!!!!
Comment by Oscar Grillo — December 13, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
My favourite is number 6, I like the directness of a single image and thats a beauty. Tho for people unfamiliar with the book something with various different images and bolder lettering might be better…it might be nice to see some hand lettering.
Comment by drazen — December 13, 2005 @ 1:46 pm
these are some great covers. i really like them all. but i find the rooty toot toot one to be the weakest, even though i adore that cartoon. my favourites would be 1, 2, 4, and 7. but i think i’ll go with 1 because i can’t help but be drawn to it. i think it’s the colours.
Comment by Hallis B — December 13, 2005 @ 4:30 pm
Hey-Amid,Guess # 3 is the only one that looks interesting but…. instead of using ‘rectangles’ ,which are more on the stiff- masculine side,and mechanical-not flowing; I see the use of Floating ‘bubbles’,which are shiny-liquidish- roundish-distorted,with movements,blown by ..YOU!!>>> down at the corner-right hand (just a cropped photo-bit of your recognizable, profile holding the bubble hoop)side,blowing more bubbles up and around with each desired image inside the bubbles,slightly distorted…floating,but then some smaller ones are in the process of ‘popping’,thus giving it a ‘timely’ feeling……..
The use of ‘movement’ plays an important part
in getting the buyer to ‘follow the bubbles’on into the inside cover!
You also could feature many more characters+images in these bubbles if you chose to feature them on both front and back,and both inside covers of the book.
The idea is like ads-purchased,which command the most-highest value…that being the front+back cover+insides too.It’s standard publishing ‘rate’ stuff.
I really think YOU deserve to be there on the page,but in a casual (cartoon caricature?)cropped ‘bubble blower’ process, since everything (done-here)is really comming from (your) ‘head’ anyhow!And what a ‘genius’ of a head you posses!HA! Good luck,and if my idea is chosen then you can at least blame it on me.
Cheerz-DAWK
Comment by DAWK — December 14, 2005 @ 6:35 pm
Number One is my fav. The Binding is great!
Comment by Rachel — December 15, 2005 @ 8:13 pm
Although I enjoy the concept of #2, I believe it is way too much work for the casual book buyer. Also the front cover alone would not attract me.
#1 and 6 grabbed me. #1 for the spine and back cover and #6 for the image. I do not care too much for the type on #6, but the image is very strong.
The most successful cover to me is #6
Comment by Vicki — December 15, 2005 @ 8:54 pm
Number #6 absolutely.
You can spot this cover as a glowing Icon in a see of books.
All the rest are nice, but will not stand out.
Thank you! Great work!
Comment by Alessandro — December 16, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
I like #1 the best… it has the right combination of a modernist approach with current design and appeal. I would notice it immediately in a store and grab it.
Comment by Maree — December 16, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
I like the last two the best, probably the very last one the most.
Comment by David — December 18, 2005 @ 3:18 pm