A Facebook post I came across yesterday prompted an interesting discussion that I thought I’d entertain here. An author had posted a photograph of a proof copy of his novel, and I happened to notice that the cover artist’s signature was on the cover itself. I pointed out that such a thing is a bit tacky from a professional standpoint, and recommended asking the artist to provide a clean copy. Other commenters, however, cast their voice in favor of the practice, asserting that the artist deserves credit. Some went so far as to claim that it was normal (I assure you, it isn’t. (>^-‘)> ).
Cover artists most certainly deserve recognition for their awesome work, and the appropriate place to ascribe credit is the colophon (i.e., copyright page), particularly when most artists’ imprints aren’t exactly the clearest way to read their name. The artist has every right to sign display and standalone copies of the artwork in question, but the actual cover is production material, which is no place for embedded autographs. Can you imagine, for instance, watching an animated film in which the contributing artists had overtly signed each cell they worked on in-frame?
It strikes me as an insecure and amateur move that needlessly diverts attention to the artist’s self, rather than letting the work stand as a representation of the story and author for which it was commissioned. As an editor, I don’t require credit at all, let alone to sign the footers of every page I touch and point out which sentences are mine in the finished book. As a composer, I don’t whisper my name at the end of tracks I provide for a film. Even as an author, I don’t stamp my name within the narrative itself. Again, as artists we are definitely entitled to credit for the work we do, but credit should go where credit goes, and art – particularly production art created for someone else – should be allowed to shine unblemished by our desire for recognition.
(As an aside, I should note that I’m excluding such instances where the artist seamlessly weaves his or her imprint into the image itself, at which point, as attention-seeking as it may still have the potential to be, it should be judged for its own artistic merit rather than at this external level.)
But this is just my take. If you’re an author, how would you feel if your publisher or cover designer handed you a proof with the artist’s name on the cover alongside your own? If you’re an artist, do you feel there’s a case to be made for autographing the work you provide for another’s project?
Bene scribete.
Writin' Fish 
I appreciate this part here:
(As an aside, I should note that I’m excluding such instances where the artist seamlessly weaves his or her imprint into the image itself, at which point, as attention-seeking as it may still have the potential to be, it should be judged for its own artistic merit rather than at this external level.)
As with some of my favorite historical artists, this is done. It is even done by some of the best forgers – counter to their “art-form” – which is highlighted in an episode of White Collar, I believe.
I meant to sign in to post the “Anonymous” comment
| I appreciate this part here:
|
| (As an aside, I should note that I’m excluding such instances where the artist seamlessly weaves his or her imprint into the image itself, at which point, as attention-seeking as it may still have the potential to be, it should be judged for its own artistic merit rather than at this external level.)
|
| As with some of my favorite historical artists, this is done. It is even done by some of the best forgers – counter to their “art-form” – which is highlighted in an episode of White Collar, I believe.
Yeah, I’ve seen some pretty neat instances of artists incorporating their imprint as a motif throughout their body of work. But when it’s simply sitting on top of the art and obscuring it in however small a way, I guess I’m just not a fan. (>^-‘)>
Personally, it wouldn’t bother me. So long as it was obvious which one of us was the author of the book and which one of us was the artist I wouldn’t mind having the artist’s signature on the cover.
I’ve seen a few instances where the cover artist (or photographer in some cases) was mentioned on the back cover. I guess I wouldn’t mind that; after all, books are often judged by their cover, so a good one is helping the author sell more books and should receive appropriate credit. However, the vast majority of the work was done by the author, whose name, in my opinion, should be the only one on the front cover.
That’s more or less my take… As important as covers are, and as great as great ones can be, they’re commissioned to be created as representations of the book, not as personal showpieces for the artist. Can you imagine a tattoo artist wanting to sign your body for the work he did? (>^-‘)>
As artists, musicians, designers, our names certainly belong in a project’s credits when we contribute work to it. Why would that be insufficient – why would we need, or even want, to scar the art itself with our own vanity? It’s just in poor taste, in my opinion.
I think I would make a distinction between art that is commissioned solely for the book and art that exists that is used for the book. If it is solely for the book, then I would think that only the author’s name would be on the front. If it is an existing piece, it would probably be appropriate for the artist’s name to appear on the book. Presumably the author picked the piece based on his/her appreciation of the artist’s work and should acknowledge it.
Certainly – if the cover is made from a pre-existing image created for another reason and already signed, then that’s another matter entirely! (>^-‘)>