Yeah. The whole book is pretty amazing. These boys don’t ‘ef around. ...Although, sadly, the endnotes say that this will be Karlssonwilker’s last book project? Lets hope that’s just the (short-term) frustration of creating something this awesome talking…
After you see the video it makes sense. By itself it is interesting. Kind of has an 80’s flair to it. It’s fun. I’m sure the book is a great. Seems like a lot of time and money and energy went into it all… Good for them. Nice work.
Definitely something we’ll be reading about in Print or CA if it’s not in there already.
I really don’t care for it, but I’m willing to secede that it perhaps just comes down to personal taste, and interests?
There’s nothing alluring or interesting about it for me. A bit like a dull text book, yeah? The letters flanking the left don’t even feel like part of the cover… I have no clue what the graphics are, and they don’t look pretty to me.
It’s very architectural and mathematical… wouldn’t it be neat to have a book about architecture bend that motif?
Wait, so are there 5000 different covers for the same book? Or is it just 1 cover? I have to partially agree with C-Dog – this cover doesn’t grab me at first. It’s only after finding out how it was made that it becomes interesting to look at. Maybe the big type running along the side distracts from the graphs. Big type is great. But are we seeing too much of it lately? Is it getting dangerously overdone?
I admittedly only just watched the explanatory video about the cover, but I’m still not impressed.
I guess it works as a post-modern art piece—if you dig the convoluted nature of the graphs—but, like most post-modern art, without a lengthy explanation it has little or no meaning, connection to the viewer, or a visual presence.
The idea of the cover is brilliant but why does the visual information have to be so theoretical and data oriented. It has a dated April Greiman look – circa 1985.
Can you imaging if they had done 5000 images of the empire state building at different times of the day a la Warhol?
Saw this on Chin Music Press just then, and the picture Craig shows is 3 of the isometric views. So I was intrigued. Even in the small pictures I could see they were all slightly different, and that most of the type on the left ran down the spine, not the front.
If I had seen the cover as presented here first, I would have been a bit underwhelmed, too…
As it stands, not having very much idea what Creative Time is, from a first impression point of view, the image that the phrase conjures in my mind mixes very interestingly mathematical/ graphical nature of the imagery.
Reminded me vaguely of Sagmeister, with it’s black and white alternating lines and large text, and then with it’s conceptuality.
Ah well, it successfully creates a connection to the viewer in me.
Conceptually very interesting, but it doesn’t stand on its own. As far as I’m concerned, if a cover needs a backup video in order to serve its purpose, it hasn’t really accomplished its goal. I agree with BeauGeste – It looks dated, and it really looks “done before.”
I think this qualifies as “the best thing ever”. C’mon, 5000 different covers!? I don’t know about you guys, but my cover making machine has a hard time coming up with one freaking design.
In a way, the actual look of the thing is beside the point, although I happen to think it looks pretty cool.
Don’t get the masturbation reference (what’s wrong with masturbation anyway?).
Design a book and cover for a conceptual art based organization by turning the cover into a conceptual based art piece itself. Seems perfect for the audience.
Jan was Sagmeister’s intern (i believe) and then Sag hooked up hjalti with jan after he left. Not a very interesting fact but I read their awesome ‘tellmewhy’ book which points this out.
Not impressed. The video helped I suppose, and while it’s a cool idea, the execution lacks.
Perhaps it’s just not my style, but from seeing the inside of the book (which is beautiful) I just think this cover is pretty blah. I don’t like the triangles, the image nor the treatment around it.
It’s dry data. I love the concept, but I would have liked to see the data turned into something other than charts and graphs. Use the input to select a frame from a short video, then manipulate the image somehow… maybe.
An eagle-eyed reader sent this to me yesterday, (thanks!)
I would go through the process of explaining this amazing cover if Creative Time hadn’t already gone through the effort of making a video about it. So go to the official site, and make sure you check out the first video.
— Ben Pieratt, 2007-05-30 09:39:00
Yeah. The whole book is pretty amazing. These boys don’t ‘ef around. ...Although, sadly, the endnotes say that this will be Karlssonwilker’s last book project? Lets hope that’s just the (short-term) frustration of creating something this awesome talking…
— Sergio, 2007-05-30 09:50:00
After you see the video it makes sense. By itself it is interesting. Kind of has an 80’s flair to it. It’s fun. I’m sure the book is a great. Seems like a lot of time and money and energy went into it all… Good for them. Nice work.
Definitely something we’ll be reading about in Print or CA if it’s not in there already.
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-05-30 10:51:00
I really don’t care for it, but I’m willing to secede that it perhaps just comes down to personal taste, and interests?
There’s nothing alluring or interesting about it for me. A bit like a dull text book, yeah? The letters flanking the left don’t even feel like part of the cover… I have no clue what the graphics are, and they don’t look pretty to me.
It’s very architectural and mathematical… wouldn’t it be neat to have a book about architecture bend that motif?
I’m sure it’s indicative of the text inside: dry.
— C-Dog, 2007-05-30 15:01:00
C-Dog is willing to secede? Please don’t leave us just yet.
I think you meant concede.
— sinkfish, 2007-05-30 16:15:00
Wait, so are there 5000 different covers for the same book? Or is it just 1 cover? I have to partially agree with C-Dog – this cover doesn’t grab me at first. It’s only after finding out how it was made that it becomes interesting to look at. Maybe the big type running along the side distracts from the graphs. Big type is great. But are we seeing too much of it lately? Is it getting dangerously overdone?
— Tal, 2007-05-30 18:27:00
“I think you meant concede.”
You might have a point there.
— C-Dog, 2007-05-30 19:32:00
I admittedly only just watched the explanatory video about the cover, but I’m still not impressed.
I guess it works as a post-modern art piece—if you dig the convoluted nature of the graphs—but, like most post-modern art, without a lengthy explanation it has little or no meaning, connection to the viewer, or a visual presence.
— C-Dog, 2007-05-30 21:55:00
The idea of the cover is brilliant but why does the visual information have to be so theoretical and data oriented. It has a dated April Greiman look – circa 1985.
Can you imaging if they had done 5000 images of the empire state building at different times of the day a la Warhol?
— beauGeste, 2007-05-31 05:57:00
Saw this on Chin Music Press just then, and the picture Craig shows is 3 of the isometric views. So I was intrigued. Even in the small pictures I could see they were all slightly different, and that most of the type on the left ran down the spine, not the front.
If I had seen the cover as presented here first, I would have been a bit underwhelmed, too…
As it stands, not having very much idea what Creative Time is, from a first impression point of view, the image that the phrase conjures in my mind mixes very interestingly mathematical/ graphical nature of the imagery.
Reminded me vaguely of Sagmeister, with it’s black and white alternating lines and large text, and then with it’s conceptuality.
Ah well, it successfully creates a connection to the viewer in me.
— Joseph K, 2007-05-31 09:18:00
Good eye. I believe Jan and Hjalti (i.e. Karlsson/Wilker) met while working at Sagmeister.
— Sergio, 2007-05-31 10:51:00
Conceptually very interesting, but it doesn’t stand on its own. As far as I’m concerned, if a cover needs a backup video in order to serve its purpose, it hasn’t really accomplished its goal. I agree with BeauGeste – It looks dated, and it really looks “done before.”
— JasFitz, 2007-05-31 21:01:00
Busy.
— dave, 2007-06-01 05:40:00
I think this qualifies as “the best thing ever”. C’mon, 5000 different covers!? I don’t know about you guys, but my cover making machine has a hard time coming up with one freaking design.
In a way, the actual look of the thing is beside the point, although I happen to think it looks pretty cool.
— jg, 2007-06-01 07:24:00
On one hand I like the concept
on the other, it wreaks of pompous designer masturbation
— g, 2007-06-01 09:34:00
“wreaks”?????
REEKS!
— sinkfish, 2007-06-01 09:46:00
Don’t get the masturbation reference (what’s wrong with masturbation anyway?).
Design a book and cover for a conceptual art based organization by turning the cover into a conceptual based art piece itself. Seems perfect for the audience.
— jg, 2007-06-01 10:14:00
Jan was Sagmeister’s intern (i believe) and then Sag hooked up hjalti with jan after he left. Not a very interesting fact but I read their awesome ‘tellmewhy’ book which points this out.
— Kevin Kelly, 2007-06-01 11:44:00
Not impressed. The video helped I suppose, and while it’s a cool idea, the execution lacks.
Perhaps it’s just not my style, but from seeing the inside of the book (which is beautiful) I just think this cover is pretty blah. I don’t like the triangles, the image nor the treatment around it.
m welch
— m welch, 2007-06-01 13:01:00
It’s aesthetically not pleasing…
— C-Dog, 2007-06-01 16:59:00
I like the cover, i like the book concept, i like the viral markeing campaign.
— Margherita, 2007-06-04 02:04:00
It’s dry data. I love the concept, but I would have liked to see the data turned into something other than charts and graphs. Use the input to select a frame from a short video, then manipulate the image somehow… maybe.
— rek, 2007-06-04 04:58:00
Eh. [shrug]
— Christian in NYC, 2007-06-13 22:04:00
NEXT!
— Patrick, 2007-06-29 16:47:00