In posting this cover, I really just wanted to draw attention to the title treatment.
The shaping of the type is incredibly subtle, (so much so that I missed it the first time around), but adds so much to the character of the cover. What could have been run-of-the-mill is instead reasonably exceptional.
I take this as a lesson in small touches making a world of difference.
I love Marks covers, I don’t like this though. If that type was floating on a solid color background without the other two images, maybe i would dig it more. I kind of get what he is doing here, but it’s too subtle. Maybe just that top skyline could have been removed…
I’m not kidding…can someone please articulate the point of setting the title type this way? I think I need to be hit over the head with an explaination, because I’m still not getting it (but the rest of you seem to).
Hey AMF, can’t say there’s one answer to your question, but, the way I see it, the type is recreating a view of the waterfront—notice the visual relationship between the title and the image above. In a way, Mark has delivered a less-cartoony version of this: http://www.lifelounge.com/resources/GALLIMAGE/manhattan_logo.jpg
Ian, I see your point about the use of photography, but I like the mood that such images convey—a certain wistfulness and nostalgia. I think setting the type by itself on a color background would have come across as clever but cold.
I can’t see beyond Neutraface. No more Neutraface.
I like the intent of the type treatment, although I’m not sure if it’s executed as well as it was conceived. Maybe if it weren’t just a left-to-right crescendo, but more of an arch? (I’m sure they tried that…)
If a designer has to ask what the “concept” is behind a type treatment is—and there isn’t some specific book-related or I-did-this-incredible-amount-of-research-on-this-arcane-thing type answer—- then it seems obvious to me that it doesn’t work.
This may seem terribly literal of me, and I know how you all hate literalism, but a concept should be, uh, kind of obvious. So that people will, you know, “get it”. But that’s just me. Art school folks will no doubt think that’s terribly boring of me. So be it.
Whatever the answer, this title type looks like a mistake. Or just poorly executed. So, I guess I don’t agree that this is “reasonably exceptional”, Ben.
If it were executed better there would be no question what it was doing nor all these posts about “what I think he’s trying to do here is”.
But—like an editor would say—aside from that I love it! [heh]
I may be out of step here with this observation, but I find this cover a little overworked. Too many elements and ideas going on. Perhaps it is a matter of taste but I prefer a strong singular concept. This seems like the designer couldn’t bring himself to let go of an element – or two.
while the title treatment may be a nice thought, i don’t think it was executed as well as it could have. the letters seem to step up, rather than it being a gradual incline.
i think that david’s right about the designer holding onto too many elements. simplify it – get rid of manhattan. stick to the waterfront.
In posting this cover, I really just wanted to draw attention to the title treatment.
The shaping of the type is incredibly subtle, (so much so that I missed it the first time around), but adds so much to the character of the cover. What could have been run-of-the-mill is instead reasonably exceptional.
I take this as a lesson in small touches making a world of difference.
— Ben Pieratt, 2008-02-04 06:29:00
Also, the kerning on F R O N is driving me bonkers.
— Ben Pieratt, 2008-02-04 06:31:00
Wow—lesson learned! This is beautiful.
— Suzie, 2008-02-04 08:41:00
I also appreciate the subtle use of the arc with the image above, suggesting the view from the coin-operated telescopes—it’s a nice, confident move.
Oh, and I agree about the kerning…
— Jose Nieto, 2008-02-04 09:16:00
You’re misspelling “Mark”.
— GH, 2008-02-04 11:05:00
I must be dense. Can someone explain to me why the title type works? It was the first thing I noticed (and not in a good way). Am I alone here?
— AMF, 2008-02-04 11:59:00
You’re misspelling “Mark”.
D’oH.
I think I was confusing him with Marc Cozza
— Ben Pieratt, 2008-02-04 12:04:00
I agree with AMF I immediately noticed the title type.
— Auguste, 2008-02-04 19:18:00
I love Marks covers, I don’t like this though. If that type was floating on a solid color background without the other two images, maybe i would dig it more. I kind of get what he is doing here, but it’s too subtle. Maybe just that top skyline could have been removed…
— Ian Shimkoviak, 2008-02-05 02:33:00
I’m dying to know what the little doohickey is between the subtitle and the author’s name…
— dave, 2008-02-05 06:26:00
I’m not kidding…can someone please articulate the point of setting the title type this way? I think I need to be hit over the head with an explaination, because I’m still not getting it (but the rest of you seem to).
— AMF, 2008-02-05 07:14:00
I believe it’s set like that in order to mimic the way the city skyline builds up from the shoreline – the waterfront as it were.
— dave, 2008-02-05 07:40:00
Hey AMF, can’t say there’s one answer to your question, but, the way I see it, the type is recreating a view of the waterfront—notice the visual relationship between the title and the image above. In a way, Mark has delivered a less-cartoony version of this: http://www.lifelounge.com/resources/GALLIMAGE/manhattan_logo.jpg
Ian, I see your point about the use of photography, but I like the mood that such images convey—a certain wistfulness and nostalgia. I think setting the type by itself on a color background would have come across as clever but cold.
— Jose Nieto, 2008-02-05 07:41:00
The little doohickey between the title is a set of little feet walking, dave.
I still think it would have worked a bit more without that top skyline…
Overall, this is pleasant, but not conceptually as strong as some of his other work.
— Ian Shimkoviak, 2008-02-05 09:13:00
I can’t see beyond Neutraface. No more Neutraface.
I like the intent of the type treatment, although I’m not sure if it’s executed as well as it was conceived. Maybe if it weren’t just a left-to-right crescendo, but more of an arch? (I’m sure they tried that…)
— nana, 2008-02-05 09:53:00
god bless neutraface. one of the best typefaces around.
— mike, 2008-02-05 20:36:00
If a designer has to ask what the “concept” is behind a type treatment is—and there isn’t some specific book-related or I-did-this-incredible-amount-of-research-on-this-arcane-thing type answer—- then it seems obvious to me that it doesn’t work.
This may seem terribly literal of me, and I know how you all hate literalism, but a concept should be, uh, kind of obvious. So that people will, you know, “get it”. But that’s just me. Art school folks will no doubt think that’s terribly boring of me. So be it.
Whatever the answer, this title type looks like a mistake. Or just poorly executed. So, I guess I don’t agree that this is “reasonably exceptional”, Ben.
If it were executed better there would be no question what it was doing nor all these posts about “what I think he’s trying to do here is”.
But—like an editor would say—aside from that I love it! [heh]
— Christian in NYC, 2008-02-10 14:11:00
I may be out of step here with this observation, but I find this cover a little overworked. Too many elements and ideas going on. Perhaps it is a matter of taste but I prefer a strong singular concept. This seems like the designer couldn’t bring himself to let go of an element – or two.
— David MacGregor, 2008-02-14 18:37:00
That’s some piss poor kerning, specifically the space around the “O.” Watching spacing around the O is kerning lesson one.
The picture on top seems tacked on and not necessary. The main image seems striking enough I think.
I don’t know, I’m not getting all ga-ga over some slightly poorly done perspective type for the title.
m welch
— m welch, 2008-02-21 18:21:00
while the title treatment may be a nice thought, i don’t think it was executed as well as it could have. the letters seem to step up, rather than it being a gradual incline.
i think that david’s right about the designer holding onto too many elements. simplify it – get rid of manhattan. stick to the waterfront.
— ashley, 2008-02-21 19:25:00
beautifull…great stuff
— khokhar, 2008-03-11 05:36:00
I don’t get it… just becuase one can make the sizes of the letters different from one another doesn’t mean one should do so.
?
— C-Dog, 2008-03-15 21:59:00
A bit of nasty porn now: how much a designer earns by doing a cover such as this? Anyone?
— Heitor, 2008-04-18 13:05:00
I’d like to see it without the skyline also, or at least de-emphasized more. but i really like the type- to me, it undulates, like water.
— kellyc, 2008-04-28 16:56:00