Are Book Covers a Dying Art?

[Weaver]

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]

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

 

[J.P. Reedman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.