There’s a lot to like here. Get rid of that mad plant and most of the wonky green bridge(?) — keep the half-hidden left column for balance — and I think it would work.
You really think the figure is poorly drawn? Even with all those fingers, I think it does a pretty good job of catching the emotion and windblown physicality of the situation.
I dunno, Nathan. The way I read/see this, it’s expressionist-lite. Saying the legs look broken is a bit like saying the body looks too wiggly in Munch’s The Scream.
That’s a good point. what constitutes “good art” is a very nebulous discussion, but good art can be bad cover design, as the latter is a goal-oriented effort. (In this case, though, I think it’s also just bad art.)
red
10 years ago
Is this the sequel to “Vampire’s Forbidden Territory”?
Tura
10 years ago
Munch’s paintings would make good book covers, and as far as I remember I have seen some? Some psychology book at least, I think, but it is hard to find that on search engines.
I really do like Munch’s paintings. But when I see it (or works from many other known artists for that matter) in a book cover, it simply doens’t work very well. At least for me.
Of course, one of the reasons that Munch’s art works so well as book covers (especially for textbooks and nonfiction books) is that it is recognizably known.
Well, some pieces are. I am not sure if that one for example screams Famous Painting!! They have raw emotion and recognisable humans so good for many covers… But it’s true, science textbooks like to use famous art on covers, for some instant good vibes I guess. Odd that, when ‘Art’ rarely honours science much.
Jen
10 years ago
Well, since Munch seems to be the topic
of the day regarding the choice to put his art
on book covers… I have to say The Scream
for a book cover has got nothing on The
Scream PUNCHING BAG I recently saw
in some bullshit novelty catalogue.
Jen
10 years ago
By the way, is that red stuff on the left
hand side supposed to be bloody veins
and arteries?
![cover[1]](https://lousybookcovers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/cover136.jpg)
There’s a lot to like here. Get rid of that mad plant and most of the wonky green bridge(?) — keep the half-hidden left column for balance — and I think it would work.
And the human figure is poorly drawn, too. So keep the bridge and the title…
You really think the figure is poorly drawn? Even with all those fingers, I think it does a pretty good job of catching the emotion and windblown physicality of the situation.
The legs look bizarrely broken.
I dunno, Nathan. The way I read/see this, it’s expressionist-lite. Saying the legs look broken is a bit like saying the body looks too wiggly in Munch’s The Scream.
@Take Cover
Yeah… because the person who made that cover is just as good as Edvard Munch.
There is a difference between a distorted figure from lack of ability to draw, and one which is distorted on purpose, y’know.
P.S.: Also, Munch’s works wouldn’t make good book covers, anyway.
That’s a good point. what constitutes “good art” is a very nebulous discussion, but good art can be bad cover design, as the latter is a goal-oriented effort. (In this case, though, I think it’s also just bad art.)
Is this the sequel to “Vampire’s Forbidden Territory”?
Munch’s paintings would make good book covers, and as far as I remember I have seen some? Some psychology book at least, I think, but it is hard to find that on search engines.
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/images/AC-1703-Fa.jpg for instance…
IMHO this isn’t in any way a good book cover. But maybe that’s just me.
I really do like Munch’s paintings. But when I see it (or works from many other known artists for that matter) in a book cover, it simply doens’t work very well. At least for me.
I sort of agree, I often like them, but a specifically made-for-the-book cover I like more, if that makes sense.
And I started to analyse why that painting of the cover is a bad painting, but it got too long so did not post…
Of course, one of the reasons that Munch’s art works so well as book covers (especially for textbooks and nonfiction books) is that it is recognizably known.
Well, some pieces are. I am not sure if that one for example screams Famous Painting!! They have raw emotion and recognisable humans so good for many covers… But it’s true, science textbooks like to use famous art on covers, for some instant good vibes I guess. Odd that, when ‘Art’ rarely honours science much.
Well, since Munch seems to be the topic
of the day regarding the choice to put his art
on book covers… I have to say The Scream
for a book cover has got nothing on The
Scream PUNCHING BAG I recently saw
in some bullshit novelty catalogue.
By the way, is that red stuff on the left
hand side supposed to be bloody veins
and arteries?