The Whale: Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now. Ooh, this is an interesting sensation. What is it? Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things. Lets call it a... tail! Yeah! Tail! And hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing past what I'm suddenly gonna call my head? Wind! Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting. I'm dizzy with anticipation! Or is it the wind? There's an awful lot of that now isn't it? And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'! That's it! Ground! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me? Hello Ground!
[dies]
Cover illustration im doing for the book 'Drawing of the Three' as a fun but learning project
Im trying to create a visually interesting image. Would this image (if rendered in oils or something) make you want to pick up the book in a book store?
Did you do a thumbnail? Right now the overall value scheme feels a little disjointed. Everything feels a little too light everywhere and feels absent of any real dark passages. If you did a thumbnail post it. It'll be easier to see if there was any problems.
Im thinking 'visually interesting' in regards to having many foreground/middlegound/bground objects. Multiple areas to focus for the viewer. Little details of information. Im trying to draw an image which is simple to look at on first glance, but has little details too.
(e.g pepsi cup, gun, creatures on the beach, bloody hand)
I guess im also wondering if it makes people want to find out the story of the book. "why is this dude laying on a beach?" is he dying? dying (or pissed? )
heres the actual book cover i got at home. ive avoided looking at other previous published prints.
edit2:
shiz - i did thumbnails. ill post up my sketches as soon as i find it.
Im thinking 'visually interesting' in regards to having many foreground/middlegound/bground objects.
No, no, no WRONG.
This is the kind of thinking that leads to Star Wars prequels being full of useless shit, thinking 'more = better'. More does not equal better. More effective = better.
Luckily, I have a very direct example on hand, in the form of the Wheel of Time book covers.
Your sketch reminds me of the originals- trying to make things interesting by cramming in a ton of shit, ruining the overall read by not bothering to focus on any one particular thing.
The ebook covers, which were done by much better and deservingly well-known artists, don't waste their time waving their dicks around trying to render a bunch of shit, or throw in a bunch of colors for its own sake. In almost every case the newer covers use simpler compositions and use simpler color schemes than the originals, and as a result, they're 1000 times better. Focusing on an effective graphic read over just having a lot of 'stuff' shows.
If simple and effective weren't better than complicated and clumsy, hardware stores would go out of business because everyone would just buy one of these instead of a set of real tools.
I suppose this argument isn't going to be effective if it turns out you like the original covers, but if you do, you're fucking crazy.
Bacon is right as usual, but I was more interested in why a guy falling asleep on a beach was supposed to be interesting.
well, he is actually passing out from exhaustion/his injuries and those creatures in the back ground are man eating lobsters. So it's a little more intense than your initial read, although I guess we would have to fault the artwork for that. Also bacon, I hate to say it, but while I agree that the new covers are superior pieces of art, I honestly kind of like the old ones. That's the way fantasy paper back covers are supposed to look.
Now I'm not normally one to make the argument "but that's how it has always been done", but this particular piece of nostalgia I think I'd rather keep.
Book covers are a special kind of beast. They need to be eye catching. That is literally their entire purpose, to make people interested as they are walking down the aisle glancing at covers at Barnes and Noble or whatever.
That's why the more successful newer book covers Bacon linked all have extremely visually striking composition. Simple, very graphic organization of shape, value, and color. Some of those covers illustrate an actual scene from the books, but the included narrative detail is always restrained in service to creating an effective image. It's not a panel from a comic. The only narrative that needed to be expressed is how these characters are so fucking cool that you just can't stand not reading this book to know more.
There is kind of a sobering fact that many younger artists are a bit too naive about, which is that even in the most charitable of circumstances the average viewer will look at a piece of art in a gallery context for something like 7 seconds before moving on. How do you think an average schmoe in a book store is going to stop for? Can you even make him stop long enough to read the title? You have much bigger problems than getting them to wonder why there is a hidden anachronism within the composition and why that cowboy is so sleepy.
JohnTWM: I can respect a sense of nostalgia towards that kind of artwork, but let's be honest. The original covers rest pretty easily somewhere between the cover art for an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons module book, and an Everquest expansion pack box. It's not hard from a marketing perspective to try to understand why an art director might want to shoot for a more broad appeal with an image that is attractive in general, rather than one that is encoded with special nerd pheromones meant to attract the existing captive base.
That's the way fantasy paper back covers are supposed to look.
So, "terrible", then?
I'm not the biggest fantasy book fan in the world, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
Who's basically considered the greatest, or at least most iconic, fantasy book cover illustrator of all time? Frank Frazetta. What was the major thing that he did that his contemporaries and lesser artists since then failed to do? Make simple, dramatic, striking compositions.
He didn't have the most realistic rendering, or anatomy, or paint the most detailed things, or go for the most complicated setups, and wasn't necessarily the most creative person in terms of concept design- I mean he's pretty great at all those things, sure, but take any aspect by itself and you could probably come up with someone that does that one thing better- but he's considered the best mainly because his compositions are so good that they can knock you flat on your ass from across the room.
Are you going to tell me that Frazetta's paintings aren't how fantasy covers are supposed to look? Even considering that the stereotypical art that exists now has been pretty much defined by artists desperately trying to rip him off, but falling way short of the mark where it counts?
That's the way fantasy paper back covers are supposed to look.
Now I'm not normally one to make the argument "but that's how it has always been done", but this particular piece of nostalgia I think I'd rather keep.
And THAT'S one of the reasons fantasy has been historically ghetto-ized. Because those kind of covers are cheap, pulpy, oversaturated and ridiculous. They don't exactly fill me with confidence regarding the content.
Actually having large author names doesn't bother me particularly because books are organized by the author and generally speaking people are looking for a book because of the author.
But that's more for the spine, on the cover it can be large and noticeable but really doesn't need to take up more than 1/4th any more than that is kind of overkill.
In regards to fantasy covers, if its your typical terrible scifi fantasy cover than for me to pick it up it needs to overcome it's ugly cover debt.
Ways to overcome ugly cover debt: It was recommended to me, the author has won awards or is well known, It's premise is really good.
The other day I saw a book with everything on the cover typeset with Abaddon (You probably have seen it if you hate the font or maybe you like godsmack)
But my basic idea is that if it can't get published with a real book design it's because it sucks. (This mostly applies to new books though not necessarily classics)
When I think "cool fantasy art", I totally think of some dude with jeans and a purple belt sauntering out of his house built using Little House on the Prairie-level construction techniques, and then proceeding to swear at the clouds like some crazy old man.
When I think "cool fantasy art", I totally think of some dude with jeans and a purple belt sauntering out of his house built using Little House on the Prairie-level construction techniques, and then proceeding to swear at the clouds like some crazy old man.
He's not swearing at the clouds, he's trying to get some passing truck to blow his horn. I thought you knew about art?
Hey fellas cheers for the comments regarding novel covers. All interesting reading everyones different views on it. Personally, I always thought a cover which told a narrative was more interesting, although I can see how a more conceptual cover is far superior for capturing the viewers immediate interest. Haha, i dont feel right criticising those covers, considering i cant do any better
Bacon - those links are badass! Nice source of reference for what i should be aiming for (and what i should be avoiding:)) I reckon I’ll roll with the sketch ive got, and try not to detail it up too much. I can see it doesnt work as a novel cover, but as an illustration on its own, i think it may be a successful piece. *i think im guilty of having grown attached to an idea that just isnt working
Ive done some more tests before I take a crack at rendering this bad boy up in oils. not enough to bother reviving my thread.
Posts
can't stop laughing. too good.
ahahaha, I'm sending this to a friend. We've been on a back-and-forth pokemon-themed comics bend, lately. She'll love this.
P.S. Tam you rock.
The Whale: Ahhh! Woooh! What's happening? Who am I? Why am I here? What's my purpose in life? What do I mean by who am I? Okay okay, calm down calm down get a grip now. Ooh, this is an interesting sensation. What is it? Its a sort of tingling in my... well I suppose I better start finding names for things. Lets call it a... tail! Yeah! Tail! And hey, what's this roaring sound, whooshing past what I'm suddenly gonna call my head? Wind! Is that a good name? It'll do. Yeah, this is really exciting. I'm dizzy with anticipation! Or is it the wind? There's an awful lot of that now isn't it? And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and flat and round, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ow', 'Ownge', 'Round', 'Ground'! That's it! Ground! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me? Hello Ground!
[dies]
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
a derp
blerp blerp gah
Im trying to create a visually interesting image. Would this image (if rendered in oils or something) make you want to pick up the book in a book store?
(e.g pepsi cup, gun, creatures on the beach, bloody hand)
I guess im also wondering if it makes people want to find out the story of the book. "why is this dude laying on a beach?" is he dying? dying (or pissed? )
heres the actual book cover i got at home. ive avoided looking at other previous published prints.
edit2:
shiz - i did thumbnails. ill post up my sketches as soon as i find it.
Try drawing up some thumbnails that aren't just narratives.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
No, no, no WRONG.
This is the kind of thinking that leads to Star Wars prequels being full of useless shit, thinking 'more = better'. More does not equal better. More effective = better.
Luckily, I have a very direct example on hand, in the form of the Wheel of Time book covers.
Original covers
Ebook covers
Your sketch reminds me of the originals- trying to make things interesting by cramming in a ton of shit, ruining the overall read by not bothering to focus on any one particular thing.
The ebook covers, which were done by much better and deservingly well-known artists, don't waste their time waving their dicks around trying to render a bunch of shit, or throw in a bunch of colors for its own sake. In almost every case the newer covers use simpler compositions and use simpler color schemes than the originals, and as a result, they're 1000 times better. Focusing on an effective graphic read over just having a lot of 'stuff' shows.
If simple and effective weren't better than complicated and clumsy, hardware stores would go out of business because everyone would just buy one of these instead of a set of real tools.
I suppose this argument isn't going to be effective if it turns out you like the original covers, but if you do, you're fucking crazy.
Twitter
well, he is actually passing out from exhaustion/his injuries and those creatures in the back ground are man eating lobsters. So it's a little more intense than your initial read, although I guess we would have to fault the artwork for that. Also bacon, I hate to say it, but while I agree that the new covers are superior pieces of art, I honestly kind of like the old ones. That's the way fantasy paper back covers are supposed to look.
Now I'm not normally one to make the argument "but that's how it has always been done", but this particular piece of nostalgia I think I'd rather keep.
Still not very interesting.
That's why the more successful newer book covers Bacon linked all have extremely visually striking composition. Simple, very graphic organization of shape, value, and color. Some of those covers illustrate an actual scene from the books, but the included narrative detail is always restrained in service to creating an effective image. It's not a panel from a comic. The only narrative that needed to be expressed is how these characters are so fucking cool that you just can't stand not reading this book to know more.
There is kind of a sobering fact that many younger artists are a bit too naive about, which is that even in the most charitable of circumstances the average viewer will look at a piece of art in a gallery context for something like 7 seconds before moving on. How do you think an average schmoe in a book store is going to stop for? Can you even make him stop long enough to read the title? You have much bigger problems than getting them to wonder why there is a hidden anachronism within the composition and why that cowboy is so sleepy.
stupid little drawing of myself
So, "terrible", then?
I'm not the biggest fantasy book fan in the world, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
Who's basically considered the greatest, or at least most iconic, fantasy book cover illustrator of all time? Frank Frazetta. What was the major thing that he did that his contemporaries and lesser artists since then failed to do? Make simple, dramatic, striking compositions.
He didn't have the most realistic rendering, or anatomy, or paint the most detailed things, or go for the most complicated setups, and wasn't necessarily the most creative person in terms of concept design- I mean he's pretty great at all those things, sure, but take any aspect by itself and you could probably come up with someone that does that one thing better- but he's considered the best mainly because his compositions are so good that they can knock you flat on your ass from across the room.
Are you going to tell me that Frazetta's paintings aren't how fantasy covers are supposed to look? Even considering that the stereotypical art that exists now has been pretty much defined by artists desperately trying to rip him off, but falling way short of the mark where it counts?
Twitter
ooh! I know!
that Playstation game the Flower people are making!
whats it called... JOURNEY!!!
E: oh you've already started using it haha sorry!! >_>
And THAT'S one of the reasons fantasy has been historically ghetto-ized. Because those kind of covers are cheap, pulpy, oversaturated and ridiculous. They don't exactly fill me with confidence regarding the content.
Kinda like how when author's names take up half of the cover space. I'm automatically all like, "ugh" and stuff.
How else will you know who it's by?
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
Mike Jones! MIKE JONES!!! MIIKEEE JONES!!!!
Mike Jones.
But that's more for the spine, on the cover it can be large and noticeable but really doesn't need to take up more than 1/4th any more than that is kind of overkill.
In regards to fantasy covers, if its your typical terrible scifi fantasy cover than for me to pick it up it needs to overcome it's ugly cover debt.
Ways to overcome ugly cover debt: It was recommended to me, the author has won awards or is well known, It's premise is really good.
The other day I saw a book with everything on the cover typeset with Abaddon (You probably have seen it if you hate the font or maybe you like godsmack)
But my basic idea is that if it can't get published with a real book design it's because it sucks. (This mostly applies to new books though not necessarily classics)
:?
... Really? They are god awful.
That says to me, hey, what a fucking adventure!
Twitter
Very hastily made. But you get the idea.
Speaking of awful sci-fi/fantasy covers, has anyone else seen this gem of a blog?
I got it pretty well much straight away.
He's not swearing at the clouds, he's trying to get some passing truck to blow his horn. I thought you knew about art?
Bacon - those links are badass! Nice source of reference for what i should be aiming for (and what i should be avoiding:)) I reckon I’ll roll with the sketch ive got, and try not to detail it up too much. I can see it doesnt work as a novel cover, but as an illustration on its own, i think it may be a successful piece. *i think im guilty of having grown attached to an idea that just isnt working
Ive done some more tests before I take a crack at rendering this bad boy up in oils. not enough to bother reviving my thread.
capnmango - i like your drawingz!
Now if I could only get people to like my personality.