Honestly, this cover is so amazing I’ve been hesitant to post it up out of fear of doing it an injustice. Which I’m sure to do, as usual.
A couple non-cohesive thoughts:
– The story follows a love triangle between two half-brothers and a woman. One brother is a war veteran and the other is a bookish poet. As such, the photos used on the cover make sense (almost comically so), especially the mystery of the woman.
– The “House of Meetings” is the conjugal visit room of the gulag that the two brothers are holed up in. It plays a central role to the story. What’s odd to me is that the cover puts a huge amount of emphasis on a single room, much like the story, but there’s a door on the other side which opens to a room with a bed, which means that the cover isn’t The house of meetings. Which is odd. But I assume I’m just taking it too literally.
– The narrative follows a couple different letters written to different characters. Which justifies the papery-feel of the walls, and the faux-3Dness of the space.
– The portrait of Stalin contextualizes the story.
– Finally, the type is really well done. As in, it looks photographed. I assume it’s digital, but I tip my hat to whichever designer pulled that off.
Wow. Possibly one of the best covers ever to grace these pages. It all looks so well done. Not sure if this is available in the UK, but would love to see it in the flesh. I wonder if the portrait might have looked better embossed rather than spot-varnished? This is very beautiful and very clever.
er- no, that’s actually my grandad on the right- photographed in 1930’s Poland. This whole jacket, type and all was built like miniature set out of foam-core and photographed by mr. Geoff Spear. This was a rejected idea I had used on P.D. James’ “The Murder Room.” Luckily I was given another chance to use it here. Though I’m a little sad C-Dog hasn’t ragged on it yet…
If I may asked, besides the joy of working with your hands, what advantage is it in actually building and photographing a diorama instead of just setting it up on a computer?
The vertically stretched portraits on either side bother me; looks like something a noob would do.
I think he should have either found very vertical images and kept their proportions or constrained the photos more realistically to the sides of the box.
I have to agree about it feeling somehow arkward. I can see why so many people are raving about it, but personally, I’d have liked to have it looking more like a diorama, since the designer has gone to the trouble of making one.
A design observer may notice that one of Peter Mendelsund’s earlier designs – for R.Calasso’s “K”, http://covers.fwis.com/k – employs a technique that morphologically is similar to Paul Sahre’s illustration for an article in NYT (May 7, 2006) – http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/05/05/magazine/07freak.190.jpg.
Of course, just combing for reference points that might be relevant.
We saw a very interesting cover by Peter Mendelsund some time ago (http://covers.fwis.com/amadmandreamsofturingmachines).
It always raises the question if and how it would be possible to build on, re-use and vary a good, new design approach.
Phaidon in recent years has published three books with cover designs that make use the ‘aesthetics of diagrams’: first, ‘Vitamin D: New Perspectives in Drawing’ (Phaidon: 2005); then ‘Vitamin Ph: New Perspectives in Photography’ (Phaidon: 2006); and now ‘Eliot Noyes’ by Gordon Bruce (Phaidon: 2007).
Has the Kidd flare. It seems to be another one of those art for art’s sake pieces. I like it. I mean it stands out but has a dream soft quality to it that sucks you in. I hope that the characters in the book can be tied to the images on the cover in some way. Then it really brings it together nicely.
I saw this book in Barnes and Nobel yesterday, and I have to say it was my least favorite among the new hardback releases. I enjoy it even less in hard copy form.
It’s too ham-handed, too busy. Looks like the designer was trying his damnedest (or poorest?) to fit all of these photos onto one cover… It looks like a very sloppy photo collage at a very bad post-modern art show.
How about leaving the text the way it is, removing everything else, and then putting a small house symbol/icon in the center.
The ‘less is more’ mantra seems like it’d make sense in a book store, but the joy of book cover design – and the reason we started this blog – was because books seem to have made it through whatever transformation cereal boxes, movie posters, and car ads went through. They are singular works of art that need not necessarily compete with bright fields of color, but instead allow the designer to express visually the thoughts of the author.
Furthermore, I don’t see the manipulation of focus, the alignment of photos, and the gentle texture overall being ham-handed at all, but instead elegant and refined. It certainly is not the most graphically strong piece on the planet, nor on the shelf, but it doesn’t have to be. This is the wrapping-up of stories, not the dumbing-down of Choco-Puffs.
“They are singular works of art that need not necessarily compete with bright fields of color, but instead allow the designer to express visually the thoughts of the author.”
“Fraid not. The cover of a book represents a much larger artistic creation and body of work: i.e. the book that it’s the cover of—and in my estimation shouldn’t TRY TO transcend that role. I would venture to say that it is the book’s job to fit into a bookstore, and complement the color planes thereof—otherwise it runs the risk of failing, wouldn’t you say? Why fight against the venue? I can understanding wanting a book to “stand out,” but this one doesn’t come close…
This cover is hardly elegant or refined. It calls no new shots and takes no new aim. Every ounce of it has been done before, and considerably better. The angles feel completely forced. The tones, shadows, manipulation of the photographs fail to complement each other. The whole thing screams Photo Shop triteness. The color pallet is flushed out, lacking.
It’s not in my interest, nor in the interest of the blog, to ‘get over’ discussion; indeed, the very reason the comments are enabled are to create discourse and critique. While you raise valid points, I wholly disagree with them. Allow me to parry:
Works of art singular in that they are derived from the concept; clearly the quality of the cover depends upon it; however, a singular work of art does not rely wholly upon its self-referencing or self-efficating. ‘Tis silly to think that I meant otherwise.
I would also make it clear, as evidenced by the numerous covers we’ve posted so far, that as singular works of fine art, the best covers do ‘stand out’ beautifully, and happily fail to rest upon or compliment the ‘color planes’ of a shelf – like this one.
As an addendum, which I failed to mention in my initial post, is that the use of white space above and below the primary action makes this altogether more successful. Kudos to the publisher and marketing team for not slapping a quote in there too.
Well, Chris, I’m an English major and I have a hard time deciphering exactly what it is you’re saying. Suffice it to say, what I meant by “get over it” is that certain folks should agree to disagree on certain things. I never meant to revoke the right of conversation, I simply meant that it rubs you the right way, and me the wrong.
I’m not so sure we agree on one very large, fundamental concept though. I do believe a book cover is subservient to the book it is attached. I’m not sure if that mindset flies against the very foundations of graphic design or not, but that’s my interpretation.
I don’t think we’re talking about this cover anymore, though…
Honestly, this cover is so amazing I’ve been hesitant to post it up out of fear of doing it an injustice. Which I’m sure to do, as usual.
A couple non-cohesive thoughts:
– The story follows a love triangle between two half-brothers and a woman. One brother is a war veteran and the other is a bookish poet. As such, the photos used on the cover make sense (almost comically so), especially the mystery of the woman.– The “House of Meetings” is the conjugal visit room of the gulag that the two brothers are holed up in. It plays a central role to the story. What’s odd to me is that the cover puts a huge amount of emphasis on a single room, much like the story, but there’s a door on the other side which opens to a room with a bed, which means that the cover isn’t The house of meetings. Which is odd. But I assume I’m just taking it too literally.
– The narrative follows a couple different letters written to different characters. Which justifies the papery-feel of the walls, and the faux-3Dness of the space.
– The portrait of Stalin contextualizes the story.
– Finally, the type is really well done. As in, it looks photographed. I assume it’s digital, but I tip my hat to whichever designer pulled that off.
*salute
— Ben Pieratt, 2007-03-26 21:04:00
The portrait of Stalin is spot-varnished.
— Joseph, 2007-03-26 22:23:00
Just brilliant – I like the slight hint of color on the hanging portrait. Kidd is a masterful designer.
— Chuck S., 2007-03-27 01:19:00
A riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a book cover. No matter what the storyline is, it makes me wonder. Lots.
— Blake, 2007-03-27 05:15:00
Wow. Possibly one of the best covers ever to grace these pages. It all looks so well done. Not sure if this is available in the UK, but would love to see it in the flesh. I wonder if the portrait might have looked better embossed rather than spot-varnished? This is very beautiful and very clever.
— Matt, 2007-03-27 07:58:00
Is that Kidd on the right?
— mike, 2007-03-27 10:01:00
er- no, that’s actually my grandad on the right- photographed in 1930’s Poland. This whole jacket, type and all was built like miniature set out of foam-core and photographed by mr. Geoff Spear. This was a rejected idea I had used on P.D. James’ “The Murder Room.” Luckily I was given another chance to use it here. Though I’m a little sad C-Dog hasn’t ragged on it yet…
— Peter Mendelsund, 2007-03-27 13:09:00
Peter: You’re saying that we’re looking at a picture of an actual diorama?? Wow. That is impressive.
— Martin, 2007-03-27 14:12:00
If I may asked, besides the joy of working with your hands, what advantage is it in actually building and photographing a diorama instead of just setting it up on a computer?
— gk, 2007-03-27 14:36:00
Also, I think the cover is beautiful
— gk, 2007-03-27 14:36:00
Wow. At first glance, I thought, “Nice.” Then when I stopped to look for a second, I was blown away. Quite the piece of art this cover.
— Lizzy, 2007-03-27 16:43:00
Absolutely stunning and brilliant Mr. Mendelsund.
— Nicole Caputo, 2007-03-27 17:14:00
I think it’s amazing that it was literally built and photographed. Just proves that not all craft is lost in deisgn! Right on.
— Nathalie k, 2007-03-27 20:46:00
Darnit… I meant “design” not “deisgn.”
— nathalie k, 2007-03-27 20:47:00
the reverse blurring of the type is a genius touch
— brett jordan, 2007-03-28 02:06:00
it’s magic
— chicca, 2007-03-28 04:13:00
The vertically stretched portraits on either side bother me; looks like something a noob would do.
I think he should have either found very vertical images and kept their proportions or constrained the photos more realistically to the sides of the box.
Aside from that it’s awesome.
— andrew, 2007-03-28 07:11:00
“The vertically stretched portraits on either side bother me; looks like something a noob would do.”
It’s just perspective, methinks.
— dave, 2007-03-28 09:12:00
I just don’t know. It seems innovate and awkward at the same time.
Bad title at any rate.
— C-Dog, 2007-03-28 12:56:00
*innovative
— C-Dog, 2007-03-28 13:01:00
I have to agree about it feeling somehow arkward. I can see why so many people are raving about it, but personally, I’d have liked to have it looking more like a diorama, since the designer has gone to the trouble of making one.
— Felix, 2007-03-28 14:05:00
A design observer may notice that one of Peter Mendelsund’s earlier designs – for R.Calasso’s “K”, http://covers.fwis.com/k – employs a technique that morphologically is similar to Paul Sahre’s illustration for an article in NYT (May 7, 2006) – http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/05/05/magazine/07freak.190.jpg.
— priit, 2007-03-28 15:27:00
priit – I see what you’re saying.. but I don’t think you’re saying much. Repetition isn’t exactly a dying art.
I will say that this House of Meetings cover immediately reminded me of Paul Buckley’s treatment of Dangerous Pilgrimages.
— Ben Pieratt, 2007-03-28 16:55:00
Of course, just combing for reference points that might be relevant.
We saw a very interesting cover by Peter Mendelsund some time ago (http://covers.fwis.com/amadmandreamsofturingmachines).
It always raises the question if and how it would be possible to build on, re-use and vary a good, new design approach.
Phaidon in recent years has published three books with cover designs that make use the ‘aesthetics of diagrams’: first, ‘Vitamin D: New Perspectives in Drawing’ (Phaidon: 2005); then ‘Vitamin Ph: New Perspectives in Photography’ (Phaidon: 2006); and now ‘Eliot Noyes’ by Gordon Bruce (Phaidon: 2007).
— priit, 2007-03-29 04:34:00
Chip Kidd is way better looking than the guy on the cover, for what its worth.
— kiss-ass, 2007-03-29 09:11:00
haha,
— Ben Pieratt, 2007-03-29 10:02:00
Has the Kidd flare. It seems to be another one of those art for art’s sake pieces. I like it. I mean it stands out but has a dream soft quality to it that sucks you in. I hope that the characters in the book can be tied to the images on the cover in some way. Then it really brings it together nicely.
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-03-29 15:48:00
I’m pretty sure they just threw them on there cause they liked the cut of their jib.
Content tie-ins are overrated anyway.
— Ben, 2007-03-29 21:25:00
I saw this book in Barnes and Nobel yesterday, and I have to say it was my least favorite among the new hardback releases. I enjoy it even less in hard copy form.
It’s too ham-handed, too busy. Looks like the designer was trying his damnedest (or poorest?) to fit all of these photos onto one cover… It looks like a very sloppy photo collage at a very bad post-modern art show.
How about leaving the text the way it is, removing everything else, and then putting a small house symbol/icon in the center.
Less is more, babies.
— C-Dog, 2007-03-30 09:30:00
The ‘less is more’ mantra seems like it’d make sense in a book store, but the joy of book cover design – and the reason we started this blog – was because books seem to have made it through whatever transformation cereal boxes, movie posters, and car ads went through. They are singular works of art that need not necessarily compete with bright fields of color, but instead allow the designer to express visually the thoughts of the author.
Furthermore, I don’t see the manipulation of focus, the alignment of photos, and the gentle texture overall being ham-handed at all, but instead elegant and refined. It certainly is not the most graphically strong piece on the planet, nor on the shelf, but it doesn’t have to be. This is the wrapping-up of stories, not the dumbing-down of Choco-Puffs.
— Chris Papasadero, 2007-03-30 12:29:00
c-dog has ham hands
— john, 2007-03-30 23:39:00
Whether you like the cover or not, the designer deserves credit for being innovative and avoiding the big circle over the photo approach.
— mike, 2007-03-31 07:37:00
My hands are made of stars.
“They are singular works of art that need not necessarily compete with bright fields of color, but instead allow the designer to express visually the thoughts of the author.”
“Fraid not. The cover of a book represents a much larger artistic creation and body of work: i.e. the book that it’s the cover of—and in my estimation shouldn’t TRY TO transcend that role. I would venture to say that it is the book’s job to fit into a bookstore, and complement the color planes thereof—otherwise it runs the risk of failing, wouldn’t you say? Why fight against the venue? I can understanding wanting a book to “stand out,” but this one doesn’t come close…
This cover is hardly elegant or refined. It calls no new shots and takes no new aim. Every ounce of it has been done before, and considerably better. The angles feel completely forced. The tones, shadows, manipulation of the photographs fail to complement each other. The whole thing screams Photo Shop triteness. The color pallet is flushed out, lacking.
You like, I don’t… get over it?
Less is never not more.
— C-Dog, 2007-03-31 11:32:00
*Um… what the hell are the HTML formating tags for this joint anyway? That quote in my post is suppose to be in italics.
— C-Dog, 2007-03-31 11:35:00
“You like, I don’t… get over it?”
It’s not in my interest, nor in the interest of the blog, to ‘get over’ discussion; indeed, the very reason the comments are enabled are to create discourse and critique. While you raise valid points, I wholly disagree with them. Allow me to parry:
Works of art singular in that they are derived from the concept; clearly the quality of the cover depends upon it; however, a singular work of art does not rely wholly upon its self-referencing or self-efficating. ‘Tis silly to think that I meant otherwise.
I would also make it clear, as evidenced by the numerous covers we’ve posted so far, that as singular works of fine art, the best covers do ‘stand out’ beautifully, and happily fail to rest upon or compliment the ‘color planes’ of a shelf – like this one.
— Chris Papasadero, 2007-04-02 18:03:00
As an addendum, which I failed to mention in my initial post, is that the use of white space above and below the primary action makes this altogether more successful. Kudos to the publisher and marketing team for not slapping a quote in there too.
— Chris Papasadero, 2007-04-02 18:06:00
Great point Chris. I dont know how many times I design something with negative space only to hear marketing say “thats a great place for a quote”
— Henrik Larsson, 2007-04-05 12:54:00
Well, Chris, I’m an English major and I have a hard time deciphering exactly what it is you’re saying. Suffice it to say, what I meant by “get over it” is that certain folks should agree to disagree on certain things. I never meant to revoke the right of conversation, I simply meant that it rubs you the right way, and me the wrong.
I’m not so sure we agree on one very large, fundamental concept though. I do believe a book cover is subservient to the book it is attached. I’m not sure if that mindset flies against the very foundations of graphic design or not, but that’s my interpretation.
I don’t think we’re talking about this cover anymore, though…
— C-Dog, 2007-04-18 21:02:00
very impressive..
— nksoni, 2007-04-19 05:48:00
And yes, in person the cover looks so so fine.
— Ian B. Shimkoviak, 2007-04-24 08:56:00
This is TRUE design inspiration. It’s so simple, but so intriguing and poignant. It really makes me want to read the book.
— Bekey, 2007-05-12 14:06:00
I Agree to disagree with the above comment (Bekey)
— T. Kamir, 2007-08-22 10:03:00