# Are Book Covers a Dying Art?



## Steerpike (Aug 6, 2012)

Good story on NPR's Weekend Edition. The audio is at the site:

In The E-Book World, Are Book Covers A Dying Art? : NPR


----------



## Wynnara (Aug 6, 2012)

I think book covers may be a transformed art, but hardly a dying one. The needs of a e-book cover are different than that of a print book cover but that kind of first visual impression is still very much needed regardless. Plus, every time you introduce a new technology, the old one influences it but eventually the new tech develops a visual language of its own. 

It seems to me that whenever a new way of visually telling the story is invented, both the old way and the new way set off on their own paths. Like... when photography was invented, painters who had spent their whole lives trying to perfect what we would call today "photo-realistic realism" all threw up the their hands and went "gah!! you've just negated all my work with this-... this machine!!"... but then time passes and painting changes. It becomes about all the things you _can't_ do with a camera... it becomes impressionism and abstract art... and photography wanders off and evolves as well with different lenses, light and shadow, etc. etc. 

Oh and be sure to watch the TED talk that Chip Kidd did. It's pretty entertaining.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 7, 2012)

Yes. I suppose it is fair to say that the nicely detailed covers of the past are a dying art. With eBooks, where you have to rely on a thumbnail for attention, there is no need (and probably no desire) for an intricate Michael Whelan painting on your book cover. That's too bad, in a way.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 7, 2012)

It would be nice if we had some data indicating what percentage of published books actually contain highly detailed cover art now, versus a few years ago. The article is woefully short on data, which makes this (at the moment, at least) nothing more than anecdotal.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 7, 2012)

Article? It reads a bit more like an ad to me.


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Aug 7, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yes. I suppose it is fair to say that the nicely detailed covers of the past are a dying art. With eBooks, where you have to rely on a thumbnail for attention, there is no need (and probably no desire) for an intricate Michael Whelan painting on your book cover. That's too bad, in a way.



For once I could not agree with you more. 
Ebooks and their art or lack of it I should say will ruin the older form of book covers forever. It's a shame too just when we were finally getting good art work for sci fi and fantasy books to. Pity.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 8, 2012)

I treat the quality of an ebook's thumbnail as a sign of how much effort the author put in to make his or her story presentable and marketable, and I'm less likely to read an ebook with a badly-done cover. I don't think this makes me particularly unusual.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 9, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:
			
		

> I treat the quality of an ebook's thumbnail as a sign of how much effort the author put in to make his or her story presentable and marketable, and I'm less likely to read an ebook with a badly-done cover. I don't think this makes me particularly unusual.



I agree 100% & that's one of the things self-pubbed authors skimp on a lot of the time. I look at the cover as a picture representation of the author's professionalism & effort in detail. If the cover is crap, chances are you're dealing with an amateur. That's just my opinion, but I'm quite certain the whole "don't judge a book by its cover" idea isn't what happens in reality.


----------



## danr62 (Aug 9, 2012)

Yes, but I think the argument being made here is that there is less room for "real" art on the thumbnail covers, so authors and publishers are opting towards more iconic imagery.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 9, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> I treat the quality of an ebook's thumbnail as a sign of how much effort the author put in to make his or her story presentable and marketable, and I'm less likely to read an ebook with a badly-done cover. I don't think this makes me particularly unusual.



I think we probably underestimate how much impact the cover art makes. Good-looking cover art makes us _unconsciously_ treat the book as professional, and vice versa. Now certainly you can get over that with a bit of concentration, but most readers aren't doing that. If person A recommends book Z to person B, and person B checks out the Amazon page, and the cover art looks amateurish, B might go, "Eh, maybe not" without even bothering to look into it. But if the cover art looks great, then B can move on to other things, like whether the description/reviews matter.


----------



## Aosto (Aug 9, 2012)

ebooks still require cover art, it's the cover that lets me know if I'm going to at least read the first few pages. I've passed up many titles on Amazon simply because of poor cover art.


----------



## icebladeaskante (Oct 10, 2012)

Cover art is a touchy subject of mine, but I think publishers appreciation for how it influences a new buyers decision is dying.

Since most of the books I read are American (and dead tree) I get to see some truly amazing covers, and yet I tend to notice that when they get a UK publishing the books lose that pretty feel and become plain and boring as though UK and Ireland will not read Fantasy books with beautiful covers. Now I know there is a lot of good pretty covers that are UK published, but in general that's what I've found. For example Mercy Thompson Book Covers The top images are the American version, under that is the first round of UK versions, and then I think its the German. Are cultures really so different that UK people wouldn't buy the American version? 

And changing covers really bothers me, I understand that its an attempt at rebranding the book image, yet its still annoying and if it occurs too often I stop buying the books in my local bookshop and start buying through the various Amazons to purchase the American versions - which don't seem to change as much. When an author starts to write different worlds, its nice to be able to look a cover and know which series it belongs to. Mercedes Lackey for example, with her you know if a book she's releasing is part of the 500 Kingdoms or Valdemar series simply because she's kept the same style of cover for each series.


----------



## Weaver (Oct 10, 2012)

Well, my friend Greg got absolutely amazing cover art for his ebook.  http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SX0U0-EYUoU/TzXGqd1L3qI/AAAAAAAAAFk/OGRoVqOx70k/s1600/InSiegeofDaylight_Dieavaul.jpg  He also paid good money for it.  So I don't think that cover art is becoming unpopular or whatever, only that some self-published authors are choosing to save money by not spending it on the cover art.  

Truth be told, I'd rather see a book with a fairly _plain_ cover (not the same as one having _bad_ art) and a good story inside than one with a flashy cover illustration and a poorly written (and poorly edited) story.  The same goes for ebooks.


----------



## Motley (Oct 10, 2012)

Look at Kindle book listings and judge a book by its cover. People do it. If you want to offer a professional product, you can't get away with stock and a plain font title unreadable at thumbnail size. There are competitions for ebook cover art. They are excellent marketing tools as well.

I read a study recently about self-published books and what paid practices resulted in more sales for the author. Professional book cover design increased sales by 34% over those who made a plain cover themselves. The largest difference came from hiring a professional editor, however. I'll try to find the article again.

I only think quality book cover art is dying because too many writers fail to produce a quality product - the book - even if their story is strong.


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 11, 2012)

icebladeaskante said:


> Are cultures really so different that UK people wouldn't buy the American version?



There is a difference in taste, at least as fas as I'm concerned. I'm Dutch, not British, but in general I tend to buy the UK version, because they are (to me) more tasteful.
The American covers in your example are (again to me) rather flashy and I prefer the UK ones. The German covers aren't very interesting.
I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, of course. I haven't made a study of it, but I suppose it goes for other types of packing materials as well.


----------



## Aravelle (Oct 11, 2012)

I don't know if it's dying, but it has certainly weakened. Cover art doesn't seem to be taken seriously by the author: they'll just slap on any "cool" picture they want, regardless of whether it's accurate or relevant to the story. I hate hate _hate_ a majority of cover art. I feel it should be elegant, subtle, and/or meaningful. It needs to capture the essence of the story.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 11, 2012)

I don't think the suggestion is that you don't need covers. The idea is that given eBooks and the necessity for the cover to serve as a thumbnail, we're losing a lot of the nicely-detailed cover art of the part. A magnificent scene by Michael Whelan, rich with small details, simply isn't necessary or maybe even desirable when you're selling an eBook.


----------



## Devor (Oct 12, 2012)

I was kind of struck by the difference in the covers between Michael Sullivan's self-published books and the ones published by Orbits.  He posted those here.

Fantasy has always been a genre noteworthy for its visuals.  It's hard for me to believe that such art will disappear.  Even if it moves off of the cover, I think authors will build additional visuals in their websites and other promotional materials.

If fantasy book covers continue to trend towards seemingly generic symbols, authors will find other ways to help their books stand out.


----------



## icebladeaskante (Oct 12, 2012)

Graylorne said:


> There is a difference in taste, at least as fas as I'm concerned. I'm Dutch, not British, but in general I tend to buy the UK version, because they are (to me) more tasteful.
> The American covers in your example are (again to me) rather flashy and I prefer the UK ones. The German covers aren't very interesting.


I suppose I enjoy that flash and I love that the tattoos change in the American covers to reflect the changing story, for example the first book focuses on werewolfs, as reflected by her tats, whereas the second book focuses on vampires, and again her tats are of a bat and its interesting. While the UK covers are simply a graveyard and you could be forgiven for thinking its another vampire based story. To me the UK covers are boring, and fantasy should not be boring. You can do tasteful without losing that interesting side to things. 

I actually found this Ilona Andrews Blog an interesting discussion on the whole issue of covers overseas, she actually doesn't post the UK versions which is a pity because I think (and i'm more than a little biased cause I love her books to pieces) that they really really let down her series, they look terribly unprofessional and again a little boring.


----------



## Aravelle (Oct 12, 2012)

Graylorne said:


> There is a difference in taste, at least as fas as I'm concerned. I'm Dutch, not British, but in general I tend to buy the UK version, because they are (to me) more tasteful.
> The American covers in your example are (again to me) rather flashy and I prefer the UK ones. The German covers aren't very interesting.
> I don't pretend to speak for anyone else, of course. I haven't made a study of it, but I suppose it goes for other types of packing materials as well.



I agree. European covers are generally more artful to me.


----------



## Weaver (Oct 12, 2012)

Aravelle said:


> I don't know if it's dying, but it has certainly weakened. Cover art doesn't seem to be taken seriously by the author: they'll just slap on any "cool" picture they want, regardless of whether it's accurate or relevant to the story. I hate hate _hate_ a majority of cover art. I feel it should be elegant, subtle, and/or meaningful. It needs to capture the essence of the story.



I agree that many self-published ebooks do appear to have cover art that is 'just slapped on' with no thought for relevance to the story, but how is this any different from the covers of many traditionally published books with their cool-but-_wrong_ covers?  Maybe they assume the readers won't notice that the cover art has nothing to do with the story, although obviously some of us _do_ notice.


----------



## Aravelle (Oct 13, 2012)

I'm not a big fan of those either, honestly. If it's irrelevant it's just.. tacky.


----------



## J.P. Reedman (Dec 24, 2012)

Well, there's definitely less covers by artists using paint/pastels, and more digital art and photo art--I've noticed this on both pro published and self published books. Although I've seen some amazing digitally created covers, I've also seen too many with a person slapped over a photo, and too many not relevant to the book.
 I generally tend to prefer UK covers on book, in comparison to some American lines (Daw, I think)--colourful but often gaudy and a sometimes bit too child-like for adult fantasy. (I'm think back a bit now, to the days of Darryl K Sweet's lurid art!) Mind you, a reviewer said exactly that about the cover for my novel 'Stone Lord' which is actual artwork. They thought it looked too YA. In restrospect it maybe should have been a bit darker and grittier, but I was pleased with it--my novel is set in the era of Stonehenge and I was scared I'd end up with a cover than was just the stones (leading viewers  to think it was non-Fiction) or some kind of 'shaggy cavemen' scenario, when these were people of the bronze age, living in a type of 'heroic society.' (Think Troy rather than Quest for Fire!)


----------



## TWErvin2 (Dec 24, 2012)

Digital art is becoming more frequent. Even so, skill and artistic ability show through and I believe it does affect the attention a potential reader will give to a work. I see it with print editions of my novels at book signings and SF/Fantasy conventions. Good cover art will cause a potential reader to stop, at least for a few seconds--and sometimes more to consider the work.  

I would imagine it's the same online, even with thumbnails.

An author that skimps, especially in the fantasy genre, I believe affects potential overall readership. Word of mouth, is certainly more important--and the quality of the story behind the cover, but it requires a solid pool of initial readers for that to have any effect.


----------



## Leif Notae (Dec 26, 2012)

When you are talking about a net cost of $500-$1500 for self pubbing costs, you will cut corners if you can. In this day and age, unless you get a funding site started or get financial aid, you will do what you can to save money (especially if you are in a professional mindset).


----------



## Jabrosky (Dec 27, 2012)

Considering the legendary impatience of many self-publishers on the Internet, I'm not surprised they don't bother to invest in making a quality cover. However, I agree that a distinct and memorable cover can definitely benefit a book's sales, paper or electronic.


----------



## Addison (Jan 2, 2013)

I've recently been questioning some people's creativity when it comes to cover art. As some have heard, Holly Wood's most recent movie posters show little to zero creativity and imagination. Cover Art, like writing, should show creativity, originality. (While representing what they're helping promote of course.)


----------



## Darkblade (Jan 4, 2013)

I think the decline in detailed cover art comes more from the success of the less detailed but more iconic cover designs used in most mainstream fiction that spread into Fantasy through the "adult covers" for the Harry Potter series and the Twilight series. When two of the best selling book series ever have covers just portraying a random object that relates to the story, it makes sense for other to follow suit.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 4, 2013)

I've seen those Potter covers, but those aren't the original covers that the books had when they became so famous. I think they're editions where the cover is actually responding to the minimalist trend in cover art, not a cause of it. Twilight, on the other hand, had those covers at the beginning as I recall.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Jan 11, 2013)

I have never used ebooks or anything like that I still buy books. Sure ebooks are convenient but I prefer a real book.  I think for my stories when I have to get cover art I will use more of the computer generated art rather then traditional. I am not planning on this because I'm trying to follow a trend it's just how I imagine it in my mind.

Now I'm sure that some of you here prefer more traditional artwork over the digitalized but does that ever turn you away from reading the book? I personally don't care how the cover is made just as long as it catches my attention. It should stand out in the store. If you see a book in the store or online and it is more digital art cover does that make you feel any different about it? It's hard not to judge books by their cover.


----------



## Nihal (Jan 29, 2013)

Sidenote: This "digital art" vs "artwork" made me stop and think "Wait, *what*?!". I guess you're referring to photomanipulations, 3D and overpainting, but they're hardly the only kind of digital art and a digital painting is no less "artwork" than a traditional one.


Well, I buy books by cover too. Not only the cover, but if the editor/author couldn't care to do something good - it can be simple but still good - it tells me they're not really careful. It raises some doubts about the quality of the story. Someone who didn't bother with the presentation of his work seems amateurish for me. Remember.. Professional means good, meanwhile amateur is often an euphemism for "bad", you won't want to be taken by one.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 29, 2013)

Good artwork is good artwork, I don't care if it is hand-painted, digital, or whatever. the rise of ebooks and the advent of the thumbnail book cover simply means that a lot of the nicely detailed artwork of the past is becoming less common, because those types of covers don't work as well when you make thumbnails out of them.


----------



## Devor (Jan 29, 2013)

The basic cost/benefit analysis, if people are mostly seeing a thumbnail, then the finely detailed cover art isn't going to be as worth the extra money.  But I don't think they're going to die.  They can still look nice as a thumbnail if they're designed with that in mind, and since you can use cover art for a lot of different purposes, I think you'll continue to see the nice detail on a lot of books.

For instance, if there's a section of the cover that's highly detailed, it might make a beautiful website banner, could still look attractive as a thumbnail, but might also be rewarding to those who see more than a thumbnail.

In addition, ereaders are still a little new, and in particular, I think the user interface for the sales pages still have the most room for growth.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you might still see changes at the point of sale that give the cover art more prominence.

I think the trend of basic-symbols on the cover, like you see with Hunger Games, is just a trend with modern tastes that will lose steam sooner or later.  Maybe it's popular right now because of the thumbnail thing, but there's a lot you can do with thumbnails.  And sooner or later those symbols will start to look tired.

I think with a little time you'll see some creative things start to happen with cover art based on the needs of the modern book.  I look forward to seeing them.


----------



## Corysaurus (Mar 12, 2013)

I agree that cover art has become a bit boring. The historical novel with often have images of old off-center portraits, thrillers are dark and non-specific, graphic designers have generally replaced artists, stock art is rampant in the e-book world, etc.

But if you're a writer and your cover _does not_ fall into these boring categories, you will get more eyeballs looking at your book.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 14, 2013)

Well, the 'old' cover art was only around for a few decades. You'd see it a bit before the 50s if you looked at old magazines like _Weird Tales_ or _Amazing Stories_, but certainly publishers in the Victorian age weren't commissioning paintings for every pulp sf novel that hit the shelves. Heck, my dad is only 50, but nearly every book he has from his youth has a nice little etching on the side (often just vines or something, though a couple have a picture of the characters or setting) and then just a blank front and back cover. I love the covers of _Wheel of Time_ as much as the next girl, but it's hard to say we're losing something when you look at the big picture.

Part of me hopes we do just go back to the days of a decorative border and a nice font. It will make browsing the self-published ebooks section of Amazon a little less cringe-worthy.


----------

