title: The Colorful Apocalypse

The Colorful Apocalypse

Pretty rudimentary, but you really can’t argue with it.

— , 2007-05-09 18:01:00 -0400

The illustration is fitting and interesting, however the solution is a bit dull typographically. Too bad it’s all boxed in.

— , 2007-05-09 18:55:00 -0400

I agree. The choice of repeating ribbons to house the type is odd. A rather generic type treatment given subject matter.

— beauGeste , 2007-05-09 23:12:00 -0400

The yellow panels are pretty necessary to keep the type from getting lost in such a busy illustration, and at least the banners-panels have more flair than simple box-panels (although three seems a bit much). Also the straightforward type seems necessary to balance/contrast the illustration, although C-Dog will be absolutely right when he (coming soon) rails against the multitude of typestyles. Overall an interesting cover.

— , 2007-05-10 00:16:00 -0400

I can’t help wondering what’s been covered up, especially behind the title banner. Perhaps the title and subtitle should occupy one banner, with the author name and banner much smaller at the bottom, and in the title font? Or is this getting design-obssessive?

Another cover that’s carried by striking art.

— , 2007-05-10 01:41:00 -0400

Oh, thats really similar to that illustration I was telling you about the other night, just… this one is with color, and not symmetrical like the other.

— , 2007-05-10 03:01:00 -0400

I’m not loving the banners themselves, and taken together I don’t think that they—~~or the overall type treatment~~—resolves the need for some structure / contrast / respite. This solution tries to out-shout the noise of the artwork with the noise of the type/banner elements. If you’re gonna try and go louder than THIS piece of artwork, the typography would need to go much further in scope and/or scale.

But personally I think the better approach would have been to go quieter with the type/banner treatment. If, for instance, the type (as is) had more breathing room within their containment shapes—-smaller type, with larger banners maybe. A bit of negative space somewhere in this design would greatly improve it overall. Also, some more contrast would help to showcase the frenetic nature of the imagery. ...Gotta shine a light to see the darkness, etc.

With all of that said, It still carries a lot more punch than the average cover you see on shelves… I’d love to see a proof on uncoated stock.

— , 2007-05-10 03:36:00 -0400

... maybe it was designed by an Outsider Designer.

— , 2007-05-10 04:21:00 -0400

...Nice. Judging by the sole Amazon review, it was also written by an Outsider Author.

— , 2007-05-10 04:29:00 -0400

I dig this cover. The image is strong and the title placement and use of the banner element gives it all a needed order and boldness for shelf presence. There are nuances of it all that bother me like the subtitle not being visually centered and that text peaking out form under the banner—could have removed that… I’s also have put the author banner lower a bit. That’s the problem with using a ready art piece like this: You have to sacrifice placement of overlaying titles and design elements in consideration of the art under it all. I agree with Tom about the author’s name being smaller and lower as well as the title and sub being in one banner or banner-like element. It’s flawed but punchy.

— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2007-05-10 05:30:00 -0400

From the designer:

I thought you might like some information on the painting. It’s called “Idolatry: The Drugging of the Nations” and is a
collaboration between William Thomas Thompson and Norbert Kox. Check this out.

The Art Directors Club awards recently used a painting by Norbert Kox.

— Ben Pieratt , 2007-05-10 06:27:00 -0400

Wierd how you can have an initial reaction to a cover before daybreak (and coffee) and then later in the day (after beer) you can revisit it and see it in a whole new way (thanks in part to the supplemental link). The multiple banner thing is definitely working for me now, absolutely. It works well with the complexity of the painting. I still think there are way too many typestyles employed. Nevertheless, a very solid cover.

— , 2007-05-10 07:30:00 -0400

Damn, that Norbert Kox piece for the ADC is sweet. That would have been a fun piece to play around with for a cover. All in all I think conceptually something really dynamic could have been explored with this cover. It has a strong title and a lot can be done with it. But given that (I assume) it’s a book about “outsider art”—using art from the book works well for saleability.

— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2007-05-10 08:09:00 -0400

...Any way the wind blows, ey Gutman? Vote for Kerry much?

Yeesh. ...Sorry, Gutman. I like the cover more and more too as I look at it, (John Kerry also, in case his people are reading.) I’m just stranded out of the office today and boredom’s starting to take it’s toll.

That link to the painting was great. I’m so happy this thing’s wall-sized and not painted with an eyelash onto a miniature, laquered box.

— , 2007-05-10 08:19:00 -0400

Designer’s uneasy task has been to create a visual description of the ‘outsider art’ (= low quality, trashy art). And maybe he even succeeds in that task. But does it matter? Trash is trash – in morning, in evening.

On the other hand, art book (or catalogue) cover is where great art often comes extremely visible, IIMHO. For example: Ellsworth Kelly –

http://www.amazon.com/Ellsworth-Kelly-Dallas-Museum-Publications/dp/0300106076

or less known Susan Laufer & Jo Ann Wood:

http://www.albright.edu/images/freedman/publications/scans/Recent-Abstract-Painting.jpg

— priit , 2007-05-10 09:17:00 -0400

Hey, as long as all the typefaces work together—use as many as you want. The problem is they usually don’t and in this case I think they work fine—taking into account the disjointed nature of the art and various bits of text in the background.

A very busy background. Heavy Christian overtones with a Mexican flair. I’m sure the book has some great work in it… I love it when religious art looks like it came from the pits of hell or something you would dream after a night of heavy drugs—makes you wonder what padres been smokin’...

more here:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/218945.ctl

Not sure what you’re getting at Priit. Are you suggesting the covers you gave links to are in some way better then this cover? One mans’ trash is another man’s treasure. I would never say trash is trash or that outsider art is in anyway trashy. Not in the mainstream? Not hanging at the MOMA—true. But that should never be criteria for art. What was once considered trash now fills reputable museums and books as shining examples of monumental strides in contemporary art.

— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2007-05-10 09:43:00 -0400

slap me for saying this, but Ian might have hit it this time: the mixed-up (undisciplined) type may very well work with the mixed-up illustration. and only a complete numbskull would equate outsider art with trash.

— gutman , 2007-05-10 10:15:00 -0400

I love your book covers they are so great they look so good!!!!!!!!!!not just playing this looks like sh!t you ugly @ss hole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

— , 2007-05-11 03:15:00 -0400

Ummm. Mediator please?

— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2007-05-11 04:35:00 -0400

Finally. The author weighs in. ...And a poet to boot.

— , 2007-05-11 04:39:00 -0400

Still stranded form the office Sergio? Not sure if you saw the rest of Isaac Tobin’s work—not bad—definitely a boredom killer:

http://www.isaactobin.com

I especially like “The Fallacy of Campaign Finance”.

There is a style there that you can pick up across a few of the pieces, but overall pretty diverse fun stuff. In my opinion lot of it would work better for silkscreen posters…

— Ian B. Shimkoviak , 2007-05-11 04:54:00 -0400

I think his “Bourdieu’s Secret Admirer” won an AIGA 50/50 award, didn’t it…? Or something. Yah. Some solid stuff in there. Thanks Ian. Looks like Mr. Tobin and I share an alma mater with overlapping years too. Small world.

— , 2007-05-11 05:33:00 -0400

As usual, not an f’ing clue what Priit is talking about.

— mike , 2007-05-11 06:32:00 -0400

“John” returns as “mike”. Where you been bud?

— , 2007-05-11 12:01:00 -0400

On page 181 of Greg Bottoms’ 182 page documentary book ” The Colorful Apocalypse ”, Mr. Bottoms reveals that “a narrative is not life, and a moment in text is not a moment, only a made thing that presents the illusion of a moment. I did my best, though, to make these illusions look and feel like life, at least as I experienced it; and then, perhaps like a documentary filmmaker, I tried to string together and juxtapose some of what seemed to me to be the most meaningful moments in a way that made sense and told the story as I saw it.”

How I wish Bottoms had inserted that incredibly revealing statement on page one or even page two! Having read this admission of Bottoms belief in a new style of documentary writing or filmmaking, I clearly could have read the rest of the book with a better understanding of the intent of the writer, that to create a documentary somewhat like “a documentary filmmaker”. You see, for the most part, the book purports to detail the life and times of three powerful visionary artists each on his own mission…Howard Finster, William Thomas Thompson and Norbert Kox. And naturally, in the telling of any true story, most authors are granted an amount of leeway for imagination and trivial inventiveness. But Bottoms attempt at being a documentarian fails, falling far into the pit of his own tragic life and its colorful distortion of what lay before him but remained hidden by his laziness and his rush to satisfy grant requirements.

As I did not know Mr. Finster, my understanding of the “illusions” presented in Bottoms’ book comes from my familiarity with the art and life of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Kox. And as I do not know Mr. Bottoms save through his writings on the tragedy of his personal life and how it has colored his views towards us all, I can only deal with what he reveals about the pain and hurt and amateur psychology that most obviously will control the rest of his life and possibly that of his offspring.

Throughout the book sections dealing with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Kox, Bottoms consistently attempts to shoehorn the artists’ fervent and steadfast belief in the vision that drives the creation of their art into the same stagnant swamp that produced Bottoms’ violent and drug-handicapped brother. Bottoms seems to say repeatedly that his brother’s uncontrolled and unleashed mental disorder shares a relative with the “Christian Poor South”, a class Bottoms proudly and often reminds us that he has become “one generation removed from”. Would that he could run from his brother as easily in telling the lives of these two men but he can’t. His brother’s madness apparently stamped its image and direction on his soul and in the tips of his hands where skin meets pen. Bottoms too frequently and emphatically compares the unbending will of the visionary artist to the black insanity emanating from within his family. Initially, I believed Bottoms had practiced typical lazy writing, an affliction common to those facing a deadline or lacking any insight into their subject. But as I read and reread the book, more seemed to be at work, especially in Bottoms retelling of the seminal moment in Mr. Thompson’s life.

I have listened to Mr. Thompson many times…in person, in letters (email) and by phone…on his epiphany, the vision he experienced that has changed his life forever. That telling, the clear vision, has never changed. Never. No matter how many times I listened, the same events, the same times, the same results would reveal themselves. It is this reliably repetitive telling that has allowed me to know the truth behind the words he relates and the legitimacy of Mr. Thompson’s art as influenced by his vision. Bottoms asserts that he listened to the same man I have tell the events I have heard over and over but writes an account that clearly is “only a made thing”. However, Bottoms claims it as documentary-level truth while relaying that his new version of Mr. Thompson’s life-changing vision now has the stamp of authenticity and replaces the original. Bottoms also claims that this type of thing happens to those types of people, those people of his brother and of that “Christian Poor South” that he has proudly become “one generation removed from”. The entire section of Colorful Apocalypse dealing with Mr. Thompson’s important and driving event has been fabricated by Bottoms in the telling. Probably just Bottoms trying to “string together and juxtapose some of what seemed to me to be the most meaningful moments in a way that made sense and told the story as I saw it.” I don’t think it can be that simple.

Simple it would be to pick out little things, cast-away remarks….locked in a tower, lips painted red, a deaf mother, a Mr. T brother yelling confusing lies…Bottoms claims as truth. And simple it would be to claim these burdensome, burgeoning lies as the subjective rant of “an amateur”, of this “Camus instead of Joyce.” Oh how simple to claim the book could have been four or five hundred pages instead of the most important, the most relevant 182 pages. And as a publisher, how really simple life is when you disavow responsibility for an unrelenting page-after-page of seemingly fabricated dreams by claiming the subjective nature of the author and his quest to be free of the bonds that tie all good men trumping any right to factual reporting of “whole reels” of recordings that ended up in the trash. What simple author, one just feeling the breeze, trying to relate to the subject at hand in his own manner records hours of conversation, writes books of notes? Simple…none. No one, no writer wanting to catch the dissipating mist of an idea, the fleet-footed wing of a mood takes mounds of notes, records reels of tape. In art terms, Monet took no photographs in his attempt to show that which made him feel, a feat Bottoms and his publisher claim as the true sojourn of this wounded but courageous young master. Yet Bottoms claims to have done just that. And most incredibly, Bottoms asserts that he forever consulted those hard-copy proofs of his trek across his beloved Poor South. Bottoms claims that it was “the help of tapes and transcripts” that jogged his soaked memory, that cleared-up the hazy remembrance of his quest to show “a sliver of a sliver” of the outsider art world in a “willfully subjective presentation”. In those three words…willfully subjective presentation…Bottoms again empties his bowels of the honest and humble notion of showing that which is before you. Bottoms reveals to all his readers, unfortunately on the last page of his book, that he will stubbornly press his daggered life and times into that which he sees and hears from the two men I know in his book. Bottoms defines for the reader that he will stubbornly present that which belongs to Bottoms as the visionary force behind Thompson and Kox rather than the vision held by these two men and their presentation of that vision in their art. In doing so, Bottoms and his publisher place excessive, misleading and damaging emphasis on Bottoms’ own moods and tragedy-filled life while expressing almost total disregard for the truths of his subjects’ experience. Simple it would be to pick out the simple lies and fabrications. Simple, too, to dispute those picks, as an author or publisher, with claims of subjectivity and eye-of-the-beholder speak. But running from that stated truth eventually becomes complicated.

Bottoms has crafted a book that adheres to a tenet he claims to live by in his hobby as a “journalist….a kind of documentary filmmaker”. As he so eloquently quotes on page 122 (deep into his assault), Bottoms asserts that he will gain his story by approaching his victims with the purpose of “gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse”. Bottoms claims, in an unusual statement on how to live and, even worse, how to treat others, that this is the only way (in his role as a kind of documentary filmmaker) to make sense out of his travels amongst the people he has met. To act as a sort of confidence man, bankrupted of the quest for the true story, while wedging Bottoms’ own view of madness between himself and his subjects’ story. This is a complicated run at producing a book, at getting a story, such as the one he has created, published. Bottoms found, indeed is employed by, conspirators in his mission and others who embrace any version of a story as long as they don’t have to learn anything on their own.

I could go on and on but am becoming bored with Bottoms, his book and the lazy attempt he has created to distance himself not only from that “poor Christian South” that courses through his family’s veins but in an attempt to find in many others the madness that creeps slowly up on him from behind, in the dark corners of his eyes. I’ll close with a listing of Bottoms’ revelatory musings and will translate them so that you, his unfortunate reader, may somehow get through the book without the madness that may have afflicted Bottoms:

Talking about Finster, Bottoms claims to have seen a movie on him when he was a youngster but not watching it again, fourteen years later, before starting a book on the man because “In my imperfect recollection of the film( I haven’t watched it again so as not to destroy my memory with a lesser reality), Finster played …a banjer.” Translation: Bottoms views his unaided recollection as more valid than the actual recorded event so much so that he does not view the material again out of fear of getting it right. It appears that, in Bottoms’ mind, the recorded version has become the “lesser reality” and his attempt to “make sense out of what I saw” has replaced the true version. Very unusual and complicated.
*

Bottoms uses quotes by his subjects that deal with other matters in sentences wholly crafted by him to illustrate his own views. In one case, relating an AVAM meeting with a young fan of Mr. Thompson’s, Bottoms feels the fan has gotten the message of a painting wrong, that the fan is all bundled up in pimples and piercing, unable to grasp the vision he thinks Mr. Thompson meant to portray. Bottoms writes that he wonders why Mr. Thompson doesn’t “shoot fire out of his mouth” and tell the fan about “Jesus being a white guy”. Translation: Bottoms repeatedly (to quote them all would make me just as much a prisoner as to Bottoms’ upbringing as his brother has become) inserts attributions in wholly crafted views that seem to assert those attributions belong to his subjects when they are clearly created and owned in Bottoms own past and family life. In the process, because of the way Bottoms presents the text, his subjects are damaged through Bottoms own limited understanding.
*

Bottoms often and erroneously compares his subjects to what he believes are certified nutcases. In one particularly damning claim, Bottoms states that he has used his own sense of the issues to determine that Mr. Thompson is just like August Natterer. Translation: Unfortunately, the only clear link between Natterer (a hospitalized, suicidal schizophrenic who was unable to function in society and spent most of the last 26 years of his life locked away in institutions for the insane) and Mr. Thompson is that they both claimed to have had a vision. Doubly unfortunately for Mr. Thompson, Bottoms emphatically and forever has linked him with someone unable to get through life on his own, a man who claimed to read the future and predict great events, not a man who was spreading a vision not of his own making, as Mr. Thompson does in his art.
*

Bottoms refers to Mr. Thompson and his art repeatedly in marketing terms, variously referring to Thompson’s art as “currently hot”, claiming that “his eccentricity is in direct accordance to his value as an artist and he is highly valued at this time” and , in text, implying a contrivance by Thompson to engender a “hard sell” of his work and vision. Bottoms also links Thompson’s presence at American Visionary Art Museum (AVAM) with a type of cheap barkerism. Translation: Bottoms damages Thompson’s presentation of his vision through his art by repeatedly connecting Thompson’s attempts at creating on canvas that which drives him to an art world and process that Thompson cares little about and has never embraced. Bottoms claims that the most respected and presentable venue for Thompson’s work, the American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore, acts like a pimp to Thompson’s supposed whoring ways. Bottoms denigrates AVAM and Thompson and holds them both up to unanswered ridicule by describing scene after scene that seems at odds with Thompson’s stated mission to get the word out about his work. Bottoms even suggests that the presence of a snack shop and accoutrements in the museum somehow invalidates all else within, including Thompson’s art
*

In one particularly indecipherable passage, Bottoms links Mr. Thompson’s concentration on his vision and work with the life of Gerald Hawkes, “a poor heroin addict from the ghettos of Baltimore” and with the life of William Burroughs, “who shot his wife and shot up in Warhol’s factory”. Bottoms does this by claiming that Thompson ignores the differences in the two nutcases work, that somehow Thompson refusal to consider their art points to character flaws in the man. No real translation for this one.
*

Bottoms, without attribution or quotes, out of hand states that Thompson would send all Buddhists to hell.
*

Bottoms assigns to Mr. Thompson an encompassing and devouring depression. Bottoms repeatedly refers to cases of depression in others, including rampant prevalence of the disease throughout Bottoms’ own addicted-handicapped family, as somehow being assigned through dictum to Thompson. Bottoms pulls the little knowledge of history of the outsider art movement he has from the black, grainy pit of his own experience and brushes across the entire field, including splashing across Thompson and his work. Translation: Bottoms lazily takes what admittedly little he knows about art, outsider art and life and decides to present this small vial of poison as the facts in his “documentary filmmaker” presentation of Thompson and Kox’s life.

Bottoms presents so much unusual text and silly links that I guess I could go on for days and days. But, as I’ve said, I am bored with this and must stop. This is as good a place to stop as any

Part Two

I am reviewing this book on my own, this Colorful Apocalypse, after reading it twice cover to cover, reading most of it more times than I can count and after concentrating on Mr. Thompson’s portrayal more so than the rest. As I’ve said, I know Mr. Thompson and know Mr. Kox less so. Most of my review deals with the parts related to Mr. Thompson.

It is as clear to me as the sky above that Bottoms not only has created a fictional account of the time spent with Mr. Thompson but that Bottoms has also created a message and vision that belongs only to Bottoms. In interviews conducted after the publishing, Bottoms does what most con men do when removed from their craft…they invent a persona and become it for the interviewer. Bottoms claims in an interview that “I also wanted to let them speak for themselves at length, more at length than I might otherwise, in another project.” He asserts that he documented, consulted, recorded and vetted what he wrote, that he alone respects the message these visionary artists have embraced and show in their art. He accuses many galleries and museums of attempting to “collect stories and package them and offer them up” in some unusual conspiracy of capitalism that denigrates the vision. He says that, for the most part, they miss the important message behind most visionary art and Thompson’s in particular and accuses galleries and museums of deadening the message. Bottoms, naturally, initially sees himself above all this in a way a documentarian is above advertising. But, in his pseudo artistic and martyred style designed to engender a feeling of motherly love for Bottoms, he then asks “Well, what the hell do I do?” when referring to how he spends time with his victims only to report on them later for his own enrichment.

Time after time in Colorful Apocalypse, Bottoms intimates that Mr. Thompson suffers great depression because of the way he acts and what he says but provides no proof. Bottoms states that it is wrong to equate madness with freedom, wrong to disenfranchise artists in the way AVAM does, according to him, but provides to backup to his thoughts save for the background he has dealing with a nutcase in his own family. Seemingly, we the readers, are to blindly accept Bottoms as a visionary psychologist because there exists a frightening homicidal madness enveloping his won family. He asks us to believe that he is manner clairvoyant because he has suffered under familial insanity. But, I don’t buy it. I don’t believe he sees that true nature of people anymore than a tree knows its being wet down by the dog lifting its leg right next to it. I don’t accept Bottoms cutesy, trifled style of denying his attempt at documentary writing by claiming, as he does, that he is a master memoirist, that his goal was to live with, to breathe with, to listen to his victims. The proof that he did none of what he claims in interviews conducted the book was published exists in the Colorful Apocalypse. His book damns the stated goals, the espoused life-journey-as-writer that he wears like a red badge of courage. I think Bottoms is neither documentarian nor memoirist, illuminated writer nor sparkling recorder, not insightful author nor accomplished feeling-because-I’ve-been-hurt puppy dog. I think what Bottoms has produced is a con. And that con marks him more than any claim else.

I’m bored again. Maybe more later.

— ioema , 2007-05-11 15:07:00 -0400

thanks, ioema,
it’s no clear to me that reading this book is dangerous.

— priit , 2007-05-11 16:39:00 -0400

The longest post ever award goes to…

This cover makes me think of a Picasso masterpiece with a few holes torn into it. It’s a striking cover, but those bright yellow banners are counter productive.

I don’t really know how I would have placed the text with such a busy background, but I wouldn’t have done that.

— C-Dog , 2007-05-11 20:13:00 -0400

Aside from all the nit-picking, this cover is basically awesome. Super use of colour, strong imagery that just pulls you in and considered use of space – sometimes less just isnt more. A cover for the maximalism generation…

— teaim , 2007-05-11 23:32:00 -0400

i apologize if this has already been explained…the cover art is a painting that is 10.5 feet x 7 feet and resulted from a collaboration between William Thomas Thompson and Norbert Kox, two visionary artists.

— ioema , 2007-05-12 11:16:00 -0400

Reminds me of ye ole’ Jane’s Addition album cover, Ritual de lo Habitual – minus the x-rated parts. Fonts are not quite right but the rest is tasty.

— Chuck S. , 2007-05-13 20:41:00 -0400

Jane’s Addiction I meant. Slap on the right for my spelling err.

— Chunky S. , 2007-05-13 20:42:00 -0400

Ehh… not feeling those banners. They feel way too tacked on, very top card solution.

m welch

— , 2007-05-27 07:28:00 -0400

Whoa! Voodoo craziness!

Hide your goats and candles.

But mostly. . . hide those banner things! This isn’t a “Medieval Times” Ye Olde Menu. [Sorry if I’ve harshed on anyone’s santaria mellow.]

— Christian in NYC , 2007-06-13 18:35:00 -0400