Author |
Message |
Michael T. Owens
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 02:52 am: |
|
Which one catches your eye? Why? |
Cynique
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Sunday, February 09, 2003 - 06:27 pm: |
|
Artwork. Photographs can take away from the creative effect of a book. |
Tee C. Royal
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 06:16 am: |
|
Hmmmm...it depends on what the artwork and photographs are. There are some photographs that have nicely "summed up" a book, yet there are some that are ghetto (IMO). And I've seen a few with artwork that caught my eye and others that didn't... So...again, I say, it depends! -T |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 10:20 am: |
|
I'd have to say depends. Striking artwork can attract me to a book (however, lousy artwork would not repel me from one--it might just as well make me pick up the book (what is this about? Why did they use such awful artwork?) Same thing with a photo--so I guess attractive or striking art or photo catches my eye. |
akaivyleaf
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 03:09 pm: |
|
If the photo is relevant to the story then a photo is most appropriate (like Antwone Fisher) otherwise I'm an Artwork person. I realize that sometimes you don't know which is most appropriate until you read the story but when I go book shopping, I tend to grab the colorful books first. They mostly have artwork on the cover.
|
Michael T. Owens
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Monday, February 10, 2003 - 08:49 pm: |
|
So basically what you all are saying is that anything goes as long as it's done well? |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) | Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 01:13 pm: |
|
It doesn't even have to be done well--though an author might stay up nights regretting a book with an ugly cover--but it should be striking--should catch the eye and induce a browser to pick up the book. |