|
Must every Armistead Maupin book have a picture of a San Francisco landmark on it? I know that San Francisco is a much a character as it is the setting of the vast majority of his work, but I'm pretty sure we can see the UK cover (the 2nd image) and not get all freaked out.
PS: I would love to hear from readers about the faux-distressed treatment on the US cover. There are a good number of covers that feature this. Have you used it before? Why? Is it overused?
Design by Charles Brock
I'm not crazy about the ornament across the face, but this is a really nice example of two very different typefaces working very well together.
UPDATE: Designer Charles Brock was nice enough to write in and tell me that the title and author name are in black and red foil, respectively. Can't wait to see it in person.
The US version is on top, the UK version is on the bottom.
A nice little glimpse into different approaches in art direction: words as wall, or wall as wall?
And while I know it makes sense historically, the photographs used in the US version strike me as a big odd, by which I mean about at least 16 years too odd. (Check out the subtitle.)
Cover by Helen Yentus
Anthologies come in two different flavors: general ones ("Great Writers of the blah blah blah") and more focused ones, such as this, for which "27 well-known authors (Günter Grass, Jonathan Safran Foer, Naguib Mahfouz, etc.) were asked to recommend work by a favorite non-English writer."
Using a map theme was probably a no-brainer to everyone involved in this project, but we shouldn't care: the execution of the design here looks pretty damned perfect. I can't wait to see this in person. Buy this book from Amazon.com
PS: It's an oldie but a goodie, as long as we're talking about anthologies...design by John Gall:
The scribbles make this cover.
One day I'll have to find and tag all the scribbly jackets and covers I've featured. The only other one that immediately pops to mind is this:
Design by Chip Kidd (I'm pretty sure)
One of the things I find most frustrating about doing this site in addition to my day job (send your offer to become Grand Patron of the BDR here :-)) is that I do too much looking for material online and not enough in bookstores. Thus, I would love to tell you that I'm sure Chip Kidd designed this (it's published by Vertical, so I'm 99% sure it's his) and that the title is J-Horror and not J Horror, but alas, I can't. I have to go to work.
What I can tell you: 1. the version with the hyphen is from the Vertical site and is probably the "real" one, and 2. I think this is pretty sweet. Isn't this why people who love graphic design really love it -- that eureka moment when you realize that the picture of the eye you started with contains a nice "J" for the title?
Buy this book from Amazon.com
Design by David Tran
"...(A) call to arms for fellow progressives with little real understanding of “the great beery, NASCAR-loving, church-going, gun-owning America that has never set foot in a Starbucks.”
This jacket most likely won't find a place in any design annual, but it's spot-on. The clear inference: Hey, progressives: see the pickup truck? The flag? The church? The small town you would never deign to visit? Well, guess who votes more often than you.
The most recent version of the London 2012 Olympic logo has been released, in four colors:
Here's a bigger one:
Just a wee bit of a different approach than Chicago's, no? Ah, we Midwesterners are a simple folk :-)
More info on the London design.
UPDATE: The Chicago logo doesn't conform to IOC standards: "On May 16, 2007, Chicago was informed that its logo, a representation of a torch with the flames reminiscent of Chicago's skyline, violated IOC rules against using Olympic torch imagery. In fact the IOC bidding rules prohibit logos containing the Olympic symbol, motto, flag or other imagery including a flame, torch or medal. Chicago agreed to revise the logo." (thnx, Wikipedia)
Apparently, logos have to incorporate the Olympic rings if the games have been awarded -- hence the London logo's use of them.
|
|
