This is not that bad, to be honest. A little off, yes, but it’s definitely passable and even more easily fixable, especially compared to some of the other stuff on this site.
Oh, look. This first-time poster has email through mozmail.com, a service to “Protect your identity with secure phone and email masking.” Sockpuppetry ahoy!
Ah, I get you. I suppose I’m just used to that sort of watercolor style since it’s a somewhat common aesthetic where I’m from (or so I’ve personally observed), but I can definitely see how the detail-lessness would throw some people off.
And about the email thingy: I’m kind of protective of the number of people who have access to my actual address. I didn’t mean to make it look like I commented for the mere sake of being provocative (and then hiding behind a ‘sockpuppet’, haha), I genuinely tried to be constructive. I only recently started visiting this page regularly, so, naturally, it seems very off.
Anyway, I hope we can end this conversation on a good note. Ahoy!
I think the implication is that you were the author trying to justify your decisions.
I agree that this is a watercolor aesthetic. Unfortunately, unless you’re JRR Tolkien and its still the 60s, then it’s a poor choice for a book cover.
The text treatment looks adequate to me, but the image is not dynamic enough to attract me in a sea of book covers, nor does it give me any idea what the book is about.
I think the implication is that you were the author trying to justify your decisions.
Oh shit, that idea didn’t even occur to me, my bad, then, haha.
Unfortunately, unless you’re JRR Tolkien and its still the 60s, then it’s a poor choice for a book cover. […] the image is not dynamic enough to attract me in a sea of book covers, nor does it give me any idea what the book is about.
Oh, yeah, it definitely gives off the old-school vibe. I suppose it’s a matter of taste (at least in terms of when a book cover can be categorized as downright lousy), and I think I personally just see it as passable. Boring and vague, yes, but not utterly incompetent enough to be called lousy in my opinion.
But that’s the magic of art in general: everyone has differing opinions on individual works, and having healthy discussions about them nurtures everyone’s knowledge about the art form in question. It didn’t even cross my mind that the lack of dynamics and ‘context-giving’ could be an issue, and here I am, wiser about what to look for in a book cover and/or when making one myself.
I mean, it’s not really a matter of taste when it comes to book covers. The book cover’s job is to sell the book; it’s about marketing, not pleasing a particular art aesthetic. This art has no business being on a book cover, unless the book is Watercolour: A How-To Book
A book called Secrets and Seductions deserves so much better.
Of course, if the author is already famous, they can afford to cater to artistic preferences because their name alone will sell the book. I’m pretty sure Marilyn Weimer is not yet a household name and needs to utilize every marketing trick in the indie author’s toolkit.
Which includes a cover that tells the target market, “This is a book that has elements you love in a story!”
Aaah, okay, so if I’m understanding correctly, a quote, unquote “lousy” book cover here isn’t just a book cover that showcases painfully bad/incompetent art/graphic design, but also book covers that don’t adequately market the book, even if the art itself – separated from the context of its marketing function – wouldn’t have been categorized as such.
Correct, although I would also contend that the watercolor art is, at best, mediocre; if it weren’t for that line of probably-trees at the top of the probably-cliffs, it would scarcely be identified as a landscape.
Feel like I can see a dog or maybe a bear on the right lower side of the cliff
Shhhhh. It’s a secret.
Well I’m glad it’s not a seduction
This is not that bad, to be honest. A little off, yes, but it’s definitely passable and even more easily fixable, especially compared to some of the other stuff on this site.
I don’t know how you “fix” a murky, detail-less watercolor when the watercolor is the problem.
Oh, look. This first-time poster has email through mozmail.com, a service to “Protect your identity with secure phone and email masking.” Sockpuppetry ahoy!
Ah, I get you. I suppose I’m just used to that sort of watercolor style since it’s a somewhat common aesthetic where I’m from (or so I’ve personally observed), but I can definitely see how the detail-lessness would throw some people off.
And about the email thingy: I’m kind of protective of the number of people who have access to my actual address. I didn’t mean to make it look like I commented for the mere sake of being provocative (and then hiding behind a ‘sockpuppet’, haha), I genuinely tried to be constructive. I only recently started visiting this page regularly, so, naturally, it seems very off.
Anyway, I hope we can end this conversation on a good note. Ahoy!
I think the implication is that you were the author trying to justify your decisions.
I agree that this is a watercolor aesthetic. Unfortunately, unless you’re JRR Tolkien and its still the 60s, then it’s a poor choice for a book cover.
The text treatment looks adequate to me, but the image is not dynamic enough to attract me in a sea of book covers, nor does it give me any idea what the book is about.
Oh shit, that idea didn’t even occur to me, my bad, then, haha.
Oh, yeah, it definitely gives off the old-school vibe. I suppose it’s a matter of taste (at least in terms of when a book cover can be categorized as downright lousy), and I think I personally just see it as passable. Boring and vague, yes, but not utterly incompetent enough to be called lousy in my opinion.
But that’s the magic of art in general: everyone has differing opinions on individual works, and having healthy discussions about them nurtures everyone’s knowledge about the art form in question. It didn’t even cross my mind that the lack of dynamics and ‘context-giving’ could be an issue, and here I am, wiser about what to look for in a book cover and/or when making one myself.
I mean, it’s not really a matter of taste when it comes to book covers. The book cover’s job is to sell the book; it’s about marketing, not pleasing a particular art aesthetic. This art has no business being on a book cover, unless the book is Watercolour: A How-To Book
A book called Secrets and Seductions deserves so much better.
Of course, if the author is already famous, they can afford to cater to artistic preferences because their name alone will sell the book. I’m pretty sure Marilyn Weimer is not yet a household name and needs to utilize every marketing trick in the indie author’s toolkit.
Which includes a cover that tells the target market, “This is a book that has elements you love in a story!”
Aaah, okay, so if I’m understanding correctly, a quote, unquote “lousy” book cover here isn’t just a book cover that showcases painfully bad/incompetent art/graphic design, but also book covers that don’t adequately market the book, even if the art itself – separated from the context of its marketing function – wouldn’t have been categorized as such.
Bingo!
Correct, although I would also contend that the watercolor art is, at best, mediocre; if it weren’t for that line of probably-trees at the top of the probably-cliffs, it would scarcely be identified as a landscape.