|
Sunday, September 16, 2007LondonstaniI really have no idea why the hand-drawn aesthetic isn't carried all the way through on this (could have been really nice) cover. Is the inconsistency between the type and the illustration justified? (UPDATE: According to some very wise readers, yes, it is.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
|
About the BDR
Joseph Sullivan publishes the BDR. Follow him and the BDR on Twitter.
The BDR is on design:related. When linking to the BDR, please use http://www.thebookdesignreview.com NOT affiliated with the NY Times. |
5 comments:
Good point. However, it looks like the type was a starting point for the illustration (note the doodled frame around the author's name, and the 3D shading of the title). This reminds me of the way we doodle on newspapers, or as kids do on printed school forms. There's always the printed type as starting point that spawns the doodle.
I'm with talgoretsky--I like the aesthetic idea of the type having been there first, with the rest as graffiti drawn around it.
And I might be with you: I'm currently obsessed with the book Hand Jobs, buy y'all make really good points.
It really isn't bothersome. There is a irreverence here—as if someone took a nice clean book and doodled all over it. So it woiks!
I believe this is the same designer who did the UK paperback edition of Lethem's Fortress of Solitude, which is similar but (I think) superior.
Post a Comment