• Features
• Recently commented
• Submit a cover
• About
• RSS
• Search
• Login

•  

Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Ohhh I need it!

Gotta love the “book inside the book” concept when it´s so nicely done… Pearson´s work is inspiring.

— Ana. , 2008-07-03 00:55:00 -0400

wow.
very clever
very very clever

— , 2008-07-03 01:16:00 -0400

these look beautiful, I love the work Pearson does for Penguin – I bought a lot of books from the great loves series he did and i think i’ll most likely end up buying a lot of these as well. I particularly love the George Orwell one, reminds me wonderfully of the classic penguin crime books.

— , 2008-07-03 01:37:00 -0400

wow. he is a genius and I love the «great ideas» book covers.

— Marta , 2008-07-03 02:33:00 -0400

I collect this man’s work. Very few people make the book as cherished an item as Pearson. The historic design vernaculars that these covers span is remarkable. Absolutely perfect.

It’d be fun to know more about the process on these. How much is found art/pick up from old posters/books and how much of it was drawn and redone and made original? Phil and a few of the other artists who created these covers are wonderful designers as well. Long live the UK.

— Ian Shimkoviak , 2008-07-03 05:47:00 -0400

Brilliant. I must have this.

— , 2008-07-03 05:56:00 -0400

hm, the ‘Nature’ cover is strongly reminiscient of the artwork on the Pulp ecology-themed album ‘we love life’

— , 2008-07-03 12:08:00 -0400

Laura, I was thinking that too!

These are really nifty covers. As a whole they’re really sweet, but there are a couple of duds in there… notably the “Concerning Violence” and “Man Alone with Himself” covers. But the one pictured here more than makes up for them.

I love green… only geniuses prefer green, don’t you know?

— C-Dog , 2008-07-03 14:48:00 -0400

awesomenessnessnessness.

— zach , 2008-07-03 16:11:00 -0400

Laura, pretty much every single book in this collection is a rip of something. They are beautiful to look at and hold, but that taints them somewhat for me.

— , 2008-07-04 07:07:00 -0400

I have always thought the spine was the weakest part of the series, but I like the concept.

— ERIC , 2008-07-05 16:58:00 -0400

Are we not smart enough to read through the comments and deem what is noteworthy ourselves? I find a highlight AND noteworthy button laughable, and the jacket design equivalent of the ‘Big Book look.’ Is anyone else with me here?

— Auguste , 2008-07-06 06:35:00 -0400

No, I’m not with you here Auguste.

I really don’t see the big deal in a Noteworthy highlight, nor do I find it insulting to my intelligence. I guess I’m just not that sensitive of a person to care about it enough to complain.

Also, I don’t really see this as a “Big Book Look.” Care to explain?

— , 2008-07-06 14:03:00 -0400

Agree 100% with Auguste. The sidenote and the highlighting are like being squirted in the eye while eating grapefruit.

I quite liked the first two series of Great Ideas; they were handsome because the title pages they directly aped were handsome already.

This series seems like a lot of b-minus puns (get it, reproduction, snort) with little if any care for the content of the books. As Peter said, the repurposing of the Lustig Sheltering Sky is borderline shameless.

While I’m at it, scanning and rearranging Hans-Eduard Meier’s approximation of 5th-century BC Greek lapidary lettering for Plutarch is just ahistorical looniness. And the Proust cover looks as English as a tea cosy. Also my cat’s breath smells like cat food.

— Dean , 2008-07-07 01:30:00 -0400

Speaking of “homages”, The Future of an Illusion is right out of Daniel Pelavin’s studio, fifteen or twenty years back.

To be expected in an historical series, or going too far?

— , 2008-07-08 01:54:00 -0400

for m welch:

http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/20070211maloney.pdf

— Auguste , 2008-07-09 11:53:00 -0400

Auguste—
I know what the Big Book Look is, but fail to see how the example shown or a select few in the link apply. To me, they are much more imaginative that the simplicity of big book.

And it’s not that I don’t like big book (I practically worship Paul Bacon), but I was just looking for some clarity on your thought about it and not a pdf.

— , 2008-07-09 12:13:00 -0400

There is nothing big book about these. The refinement of the design, the delicate elegance with which they work as a series and make you want to own all of them and not just one, as well as the pure use of color and post-modern quotation even down to the reproduction value is wonderful to hold, read and own. That to me is the success of a book. These are not the type of books that you buy because you like to read or enjoyed the cover. You buy these to sit on your shelf because they are beautiful and culturally rewarding to own and behold. They are a pleasure to read in a modern day sense as well because of how short they are. Perfect little doses of quality reading. That part of it’s design was thought our through and through by Mr. Lane (years ago in founding Penguin) and all the designers who worked on these. If anything, it is a continued “homage” to the paperback and the concept of quality, affordable reading for the masses—a legacy Penguin has a stronghold on (and with these type of editions and the designers they choose to work on them, Penguin makes it all that more clear that it still cares about that legacy deeply).

The design here is more than about the cover. Unfortunately, that is what we are here to discuss mainly.

— Ian Shimkoviak , 2008-07-09 15:06:00 -0400

m –

I merely mean the gawdy highlight and noteworthy arrow as dumbed-down just like I find the majority of Big Books. Simple as that, my comment.

— Auguste , 2008-07-10 02:56:00 -0400

The highlight on the noteworthy comments is what bugs you???? Who cares man!? Ha! I guess it is a bit bright. Peter is an accomplished designer, so maybe that way the reason for the noteworthiness of it all… geeez. We should all get on the phone. This type of communication blows sometimes.

— Ian Shimkoviak , 2008-07-10 08:21:00 -0400

Are these in shops yet? The designers that the ‘homages’ were meant for might have been credited on the books?

— , 2008-07-10 22:04:00 -0400

The covers in question carry the (original) artist’s credit and permission was sought from their families before proceeding.

As for a similarity to Pulp’s album cover, I couldn’t agree more – but you try setting those letters on one line!

By the way, Jarvis Cocker’s latest album cover is a pastiche of Penguin’s 1966 cover for ‘Jubb’ (Keith Waterhouse).
It’s a caring, sharing world …

— , 2008-07-15 01:01:00 -0400

wow,wow,wow,wow,wow,wow,wow, wow …

— , 2008-07-21 06:53:00 -0400

can som peep tell me wer the cover is at. can only see the sied of da books? wots so good????!!!

lov to da Bazza

;;;;;

— , 2008-09-17 03:20:00 -0400

THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A MAN WHO UNDERSTANDS DER GEBRAUSCHGRAFIK PERFECTION. This is excellent.
Although the trim is a little off on my copy, production is key even in the giddy, heady experience after the creation of genius.

— , 2008-09-17 03:20:00 -0400

I love this. I bought 15 copies of this £20.47 on Amazon and put them on my bookshelf next to each other. A bargain.

— , 2008-09-17 03:21:00 -0400

oh soz peeps
duh

— , 2008-09-17 03:22:00 -0400

yapay havuz firmasi ? http://www.yapayhavuz.com

— red pepper , 2009-12-03 09:00:10 -0500

Wonderful man, thanks

— elektronik sigara , 2010-01-08 13:44:58 -0500

turkiyem

— garlica , 2010-01-20 07:18:31 -0500

biber hapi
fx15
lida
rent a car
magna rx
penis büyütücü
elektronik sigara

— red pepper , 2010-01-28 06:02:42 -0500

comment anonymously or login/register