Why is DT sticking with Hugh Syme?

[Implode]

It's not about making sense in the physical world. Obviously no one cares if the artwork is fantastical. No one is saying, "Why is there a unicyclist up above the clouds??? That doesn't make any sense. This art is schlock." But artwork does have follow its own established verisimilitude. Draw a flying car, a monkey-dog creature, a giant Newton's cradle. That's all fine. The issue of "not making sense" is when the art is inconsistent with itself. The bridges randomly ending, all objects except one having a shadow going one direction, images layered incorrectly or having noticeable cutoffs, watermarks left on final drafts, etc. These are all examples of things that take the viewer out of the state of being immersed in the artwork. This is the difference between, "Wow! This MC Escher picture is awesome!" and "The angle of this book and its shadow looks off to me... :/ "

[Madman Shepherd]

I think the critique comes from the idea that face to face, people wouldn't complain like that. When talking face to face with someone, let's say, in an open forum, people often tend to sugarcoat things or outright not say them for the sake of not offending other people, not hurting their feelings, or whatever. But on the internet, it's easy to just spill a big speech about how something isn't good, and why.

I'll agree that this is the case with some people. However, that's not to say that all of us are afraid to say something to someone's face. It's one thing to do so politely and another to obnoxiously say something sucks. And I certainly did (politely) address my concerns with MP over Hugh's cover art several times after they were announced.

What did he say?

[TheGreatPretender]

It's not about making sense in the physical world. Obviously no one cares if the artwork is fantastical. No one is saying, "Why is there a unicyclist up above the clouds??? That doesn't make any sense. This art is schlock." But artwork does have follow its own established verisimilitude. Draw a flying car, a monkey-dog creature, a giant Newton's cradle. That's all fine. The issue of "not making sense" is when the art is inconsistent with itself. The bridges randomly ending, all objects except one having a shadow going one direction, images layered incorrectly or having noticeable cutoffs, watermarks left on final drafts, etc. These are all examples of things that take the viewer out of the state of being immersed in the artwork. This is the difference between, "Wow! This MC Escher picture is awesome!" and "The angle of this book and its shadow looks off to me... :/ "

Well, like someone already mentioned, a lot of these things are the types of things that most people wouldn't even notice if they weren't pointed out. The bridges, for example. So a couple of them disappear. NOW we know they do, but who honestly would notice something like that on Amazon or at a store, just looking at the album art and saying, "I'm gonna order this album"?

This is not something that's going to be examined in museums and art classrooms for decades to come. Sure, some album art does get that kind of attention, but if Hugh Syme actually WANTED his album art to get that much attention, I'm sure he'd make it more consistent.

[Setlist Scotty]

I think the critique comes from the idea that face to face, people wouldn't complain like that. When talking face to face with someone, let's say, in an open forum, people often tend to sugarcoat things or outright not say them for the sake of not offending other people, not hurting their feelings, or whatever. But on the internet, it's easy to just spill a big speech about how something isn't good, and why.

I'll agree that this is the case with some people. However, that's not to say that all of us are afraid to say something to someone's face. It's one thing to do so politely and another to obnoxiously say something sucks. And I certainly did (politely) address my concerns with MP over Hugh's cover art several times after they were announced.

What did he say?

Usually I got no response.

This is not something that's going to be examined in museums and art classrooms for decades to come. Sure, some album art does get that kind of attention, but if Hugh Syme actually WANTED his album art to get that much attention, I'm sure he'd make it more consistent.

That may be true, but when you're of the high caliber that Syme is known for, then you are *expected* to always produce top notch, high quality artwork. He should *always* WANT his album art to get as much attention so as to be deserving of being seen in a museum. But sadly, that has not been the case for several years now.

[TheGreatPretender]

Yeah, but there's a difference between, "This guy has a big reputation and has done some classic album covers in the past, so someone of his caliber should care more about this sort of thing." and what I said above, "whether it's attractive and eye catching. Will it pique a stranger's curiosity? Does it appropriately represent the tone of the album?"

Should someone like Syme pay more attention to avoid such mistakes and inconsistencies? Sure. But does the art still look good? Is it still attractive? I would certainly say so.

[Setlist Scotty]

But does the art still look good? Is it still attractive? I would certainly say so.

Right there is the issue - you may think that it's attractive, as many fans might, but to plenty of other fans, myself included, the artwork is not attractive, or certainly not as attractive as it could be, because of the easily seen and fixable flaws.

If anyone should know, it should be Syme and other well-known album cover artists, that their artwork is going to be dissected by the respective band's rabid fanbase (DT, Rush, Megadeth and even various pop artists). It's different if the artwork is created for an advertisement that will likely be forgotten weeks or months after it was published, which Syme has done his fair share of (and could directly or indirectly be the reason why he's gotten sloppy in recent years). Album artwork is a much more permanent thing, and therefore deserves a lot more focus to detail.

Once again, if I were doing the cover art, you can be sure that I would take every precaution possible to make sure that there weren't any flaws in the final piece. That certainly is the case with the artwork I did do for DT in the past (see one of my previous posts) and I'm sure there are many other fans who are better artists than me that would agree.

[Implode]

Agreed. Sure, most people might not notice the problems. And even if they did, it won't affect record sales. But being complacent enough to use those facts to justify the laziness is not the mark of a good artist.

[TheGreatPretender]

But again, for something that's gone unnoticed by most people for years, something that would go on to be unnoticed if someone else didn't point it out, I think "Easily Seen" isn't that accurate.
And if you can't enjoy it because of a couple of flaws, it's like a good actor who says he can't enjoy movies because some of the actors in them aren't as good as he is, and he can point out all their flaws. If you can't appreciate a work as a whole, for what it was trying to accomplish because a few little details aren't as good as you would make them, well, nothing in this world is perfect, so that's unfortunate, isn't it?

As for the album artwork itself, I'm also a graphic artist, and yes, if it was something like a cut off image, or a watermark issue, I would always make sure they weren't seen. And yes, I would make sure that all my objects had consistent shadows.
But making the decision to have the road end behind a column and then not appear on the other side of it is really not that big of a deal as far as I'm concerned, and if there was an issue, like the image of the road was cut off beyond that point, then I'd easily settle with the decision to leave it out on the other side of the bridge. I'm sorry, but that is nitpicking.

[Jaffa]

TGP, I honestly think you just need to accept that people have different standards than you do.  The issues may seem small to you, and that's fine, but it's also fine that other people take those same issues more seriously. 

[TheGreatPretender]

TGP, I honestly think you just need to accept that people have different standards than you do.  The issues may seem small to you, and that's fine, but it's also fine that other people take those same issues more seriously.

Yeah, but this isn't a "bash Hugh Syme's DT cover art" thread, it seems to be a general discussion thread on the issue. If people can argue for why the art sucks, I don't see why people can't argue for why it doesn't suck? It seems like you're saying, "Butt out, we're too busy hating on it to listen to your counter points and positive opinions about it."

[orcus116]

I don't think those kinds of lazy mistakes are causing people to have much issue with the art as much as the integrity of the artist. If DT wants to use Syme, fine, but with a lot of little things on each album cover that are amiss he loses more credibility as an artist purely on the technical side.

[Jaq]

TGP, I honestly think you just need to accept that people have different standards than you do.  The issues may seem small to you, and that's fine, but it's also fine that other people take those same issues more seriously.

Yeah, but this isn't a "bash Hugh Syme's DT cover art" thread, it seems to be a general discussion thread on the issue. If people can argue for why the art sucks, I don't see why people can't argue for why it doesn't suck? It seems like you're saying, "Butt out, we're too busy hating on it to listen to your counter points and positive opinions about it."

Just do what I did. Back away from the thread slowly. 

[Setlist Scotty]

And if you can't enjoy it because of a couple of flaws, it's like a good actor who says he can't enjoy movies because some of the actors in them aren't as good as he is, and he can point out all their flaws. If you can't appreciate a work as a whole, for what it was trying to accomplish because a few little details aren't as good as you would make them, well, nothing in this world is perfect, so that's unfortunate, isn't it?

Well I doubt there are actors who believe something like that, altho I'm sure there are some who can't stand to watch movies with certain actors because they give poor performances.

I realize that the world is not perfect, and I'm not expecting perfection. But I am expecting better execution of ideas than what we're seeing in some of the images Syme has been released in recent years. It would be different if he had always been a sloppy artist, but that has not been the case, and not all the images he does now are flawed. But there are many now, and especially when it comes to the cover art, there's no reason to excuse it.

As for the album artwork itself, I'm also a graphic artist, and yes, if it was something like a cut off image, or a watermark issue, I would always make sure they weren't seen. And yes, I would make sure that all my objects had consistent shadows.

Glad to hear it - this makes you different from Syme, in and of itself.

But again, for something that's gone unnoticed by most people for years, something that would go on to be unnoticed if someone else didn't point it out, I think "Easily Seen" isn't that accurate.

But making the decision to have the road end behind a column and then not appear on the other side of it is really not that big of a deal as far as I'm concerned, and if there was an issue, like the image of the road was cut off beyond that point, then I'd easily settle with the decision to leave it out on the other side of the bridge. I'm sorry, but that is nitpicking.

I will agree that some of it might be nitpicking the minor details that only an artist is going to see such as in SC. But when it's something much more obvious or easily seen, such as the cutting off of the earth or the watermark showing (DT12), the lighting/shadows being off or the majesty symbol being at the wrong perspective (BCaSL), or the balls of the newton's cradle not lining up (8v), don't tell me that's nitpicking. That's seeing obvious flaws due to the artist being lazy, and it's something that the average Joe (non-artist) can easily spot. And guess what? These average Joes have spotted them as is evidenced by the recent thread(s) discussing the cover art for DT12. I'm sure you can find similar discussions about BCaSL and 8v if you care to dig them up.

[Jaffa]

TGP, I honestly think you just need to accept that people have different standards than you do.  The issues may seem small to you, and that's fine, but it's also fine that other people take those same issues more seriously.

Yeah, but this isn't a "bash Hugh Syme's DT cover art" thread, it seems to be a general discussion thread on the issue. If people can argue for why the art sucks, I don't see why people can't argue for why it doesn't suck? It seems like you're saying, "Butt out, we're too busy hating on it to listen to your counter points and positive opinions about it."

Well, that wasn't my intention at all, so I apologize if that's how I came across.  It's just that from my perspective, reading your posts, it seems like you are genuinely bothered by the fact that other people have a problem with the artwork.  Maybe I'm just misreading the tone of your posts.  If so, I apologize again.  At any rate, I didn't mean to tell you to butt out; I just thought you seemed way more confrontational about the issue than you needed to be. 

[TheGreatPretender]

And if you can't enjoy it because of a couple of flaws, it's like a good actor who says he can't enjoy movies because some of the actors in them aren't as good as he is, and he can point out all their flaws. If you can't appreciate a work as a whole, for what it was trying to accomplish because a few little details aren't as good as you would make them, well, nothing in this world is perfect, so that's unfortunate, isn't it?

Well I doubt there are actors who believe something like that, altho I'm sure there are some who can't stand to watch movies with certain actors because they give poor performances.

Trust me, there are. I've known a few from my acting studio. And they complain, they say, "Man, I used to enjoy this movie, but watching it now, I just can't get over this and that". And I'm talking little things, like actors blinking a lot or licking their lips, which are things that we're told to avoid doing as much as possible on screen, unless it's intentional. And I always notice it too, now, but I don't let it bother me, because the point of these movies is to tell a story, and if the director succeeds in doing that, then I'm okay with a couple little technical mistakes on behalf of the actors.

I will agree that some of it might be nitpicking the minor details that only an artist is going to see such as in SC. But when it's something much more obvious or easily seen, such as the cutting off of the earth or the watermark showing (DT12), the lighting/shadows being off or the majesty symbol being at the wrong perspective (BCaSL), or the balls of the newton's cradle not lining up (8v), don't tell me that's nitpicking. That's seeing obvious flaws due to the artist being lazy, and it's something that the average Joe (non-artist) can easily spot. And guess what? These average Joes have spotted them as is evidenced by the recent thread(s) discussing the cover art for DT12. I'm sure you can find similar discussions about BCaSL and 8v if you care to dig them up.

The Newton's Cradle is another thing that I never noticed, and after having it being pointed out, it still doesn't bother me. Yes, again, personally, I'd make sure it was proper, but as far as the aesthetic properties of the actual album art go, that hasn't changed for me. Is it pretty? Yes, I still think so.

Well, that wasn't my intention at all, so I apologize if that's how I came across.  It's just that from my perspective, reading your posts, it seems like you are genuinely bothered by the fact that other people have a problem with the artwork.  Maybe I'm just misreading the tone of your posts.  If so, I apologize again.  At any rate, I didn't mean to tell you to butt out; I just thought you seemed way more confrontational about the issue than you needed to be. 

Well, I get passionate about my debates, and I do love debating, but no, I wasn't getting confrontational or defensive or anything of the sort.

[Mebert78]

Just chiming in and don't mean to sidetracked the discussion... Personally, I do enjoy Syme's art at first glance and I do hope DT continues to use him.  To me, his art always "pops" and he's part of the DT culture now.  But he does need to be more careful about the mistakes.  The DT12 planet slice, or whatever you want to call it, was particularly unfortunate because I saw that version appear in various online stores, album reviews and YouTube videos, etc.  So, even though he ultimately corrected it, it was still widely circulated by those promoting the album -- and that's not cool.  DT music is perfection.  I want the artwork to be perfect as well. 

[Setlist Scotty]

And if you can't enjoy it because of a couple of flaws, it's like a good actor who says he can't enjoy movies because some of the actors in them aren't as good as he is, and he can point out all their flaws. If you can't appreciate a work as a whole, for what it was trying to accomplish because a few little details aren't as good as you would make them, well, nothing in this world is perfect, so that's unfortunate, isn't it?

Well I doubt there are actors who believe something like that, altho I'm sure there are some who can't stand to watch movies with certain actors because they give poor performances.

Trust me, there are. I've known a few from my acting studio. And they complain, they say, "Man, I used to enjoy this movie, but watching it now, I just can't get over this and that". And I'm talking little things, like actors blinking a lot or licking their lips, which are things that we're told to avoid doing as much as possible on screen, unless it's intentional. And I always notice it too, now, but I don't let it bother me, because the point of these movies is to tell a story, and if the director succeeds in doing that, then I'm okay with a couple little technical mistakes on behalf of the actors.

Well, then I guess that's on them, now isn't it? But now your analogy is getting away from the point that I brought up already:

I realize that the world is not perfect, and I'm not expecting perfection. But I am expecting better execution of ideas than what we're seeing in some of the images Syme has been released in recent years. It would be different if he had always been a sloppy artist, but that has not been the case, and not all the images he does now are flawed. But there are many now, and especially when it comes to the cover art, there's no reason to excuse it.

I think it's safe to say that no one in this thread who is critical of Syme is expecting perfection from the man. But when the flaws happen a lot and especially end up on the cover art or are very obvious to even the untrained eye, it's a problem.

Trust me, I love what Syme has done - I think he has some great ideas, but unfortunately, in recent years, the execution of those ideas has become poor. I don't have a problem with DT using Syme, as long as these easy to correct flaws no longer appear in the artwork, because I think that DT deserves the best representation possible. That is why I have been involved in this thread, and I'm guessing the same is true of most others, as well.

The Newton's Cradle is another thing that I never noticed, and after having it being pointed out, it still doesn't bother me. Yes, again, personally, I'd make sure it was proper, but as far as the aesthetic properties of the actual album art go, that hasn't changed for me. Is it pretty? Yes, I still think so.

Perhaps your eyes are not as critical as some others then, altho admittedly, the what eventually became a pre-release version of the 8v cover art (with the purple lines) had the moving balls much more shifted out of alignment than the final piece, which is what drew my attention to the issue in the first place.

If you, as a graphic artist are perfectly fine with seeing major flaws in his artwork for DT, more power to you. But don't expect the rest of us graphic artists to conform to your point of view, which is the impression I get from the fact that you're willing to argue so passionately about this. It bothers me, and it bothers others. If we want to express our concern over these flaws and wonder why DT would continue to employ someone who doesn't show the same care for the execution of the ideas that we do, then we should be able to.

[TheGreatPretender]

If you, as a graphic artist are perfectly fine with seeing major flaws in his artwork for DT, more power to you. But don't expect the rest of us graphic artists to conform to your point of view, which is the impression I get from the fact that you're willing to argue so passionately about this. It bothers me, and it bothers others. If we want to express our concern over these flaws and wonder why DT would continue to employ someone who doesn't show the same care for the execution of the ideas that we do, then we should be able to.

Hey, I totally understand being bothered by such things, and trust me, I do wonder why or how he let those mistakes slip by. But I think a few of the people in this thread are just being a little too harsh about it. To say it's flawed is one thing, but to say stuff like it's absolutely unacceptable, it's a travesty, it's ugly, is a little uncalled for, IMO.

[Setlist Scotty]

I think a few of the people in this thread are just being a little too harsh about it. To say it's flawed is one thing, but to say stuff like it's absolutely unacceptable, it's a travesty, it's ugly, is a little uncalled for, IMO.

Perhaps - especially if they use the blanket statement "IT SUCKS!!!!" But I still agree with such statements that it is unacceptable or a travesty, coming from a world renowned artist like Syme. If we were talking about a new artist working for an up and coming band, then a lot more would probably be forgiven. But because DT is well known (relatively speaking) and because Syme is an established artist who's been doing this for roughly 40 years (and likely is paid top dollar), it is a travesty that he would allow artwork with unacceptable errors to be released - repeatedly.

I won't say his artwork is ugly - I happen to like the general style that he has established and have loved just about everything he's done. But it is very disappointing to see an artist who I've appreciated for many years make such ridiculous errors that I know could have been fixed (in most cases) in a matter of a few minutes.

[TheGreatPretender]

Syme is an established artist who's been doing this for roughly 40 years (and likely is paid top dollar), it is a travesty that he would allow artwork with unacceptable errors to be released - repeatedly.

Well, to be fair, Photoshop originally came out 23 years ago, and since then the nature of graphic design changed in a big way, from websites packed with stock images, to the accessibility and power of the tools. I mean, yeah, 23 years is still a pretty long time, assuming he's been using Photoshop from the get go, but all I'm saying is that when he made those Rush covers and the stuff he became famous for, he was obviously using very different methods at the time. And like I said, even since the release of Photoshop, technology and the internet have changed in many ways, so through all that time, his methods obviously changed as well.

[Setlist Scotty]

Syme is an established artist who's been doing this for roughly 40 years (and likely is paid top dollar), it is a travesty that he would allow artwork with unacceptable errors to be released - repeatedly.

Well, to be fair, Photoshop originally came out 23 years ago, and since then the nature of graphic design changed in a big way, from websites packed with stock images, to the accessibility and power of the tools. I mean, yeah, 23 years is still a pretty long time, assuming he's been using Photoshop from the get go, but all I'm saying is that when he made those Rush covers and the stuff he became famous for, he was obviously using very different methods at the time. And like I said, even since the release of Photoshop, technology and the internet have changed in many ways, so through all that time, his methods obviously changed as well.

I'm pretty certain that he's been using Photoshop for many years - perhaps as early as Roll the Bones, or maybe even Presto. Even if he only started using Photoshop with Test For Echo, that's still 17 years ago.

Anyway, I'm failing to see your point in excusing him then. If anything, the opposite is true, because Photoshop made his life much easier. What used to take tons of time to accomplish (if it was even possible) now only takes a fraction of the time. So if there should be errors in his work, it should be in the earlier stuff, not the more recent stuff.

[TheGreatPretender]

I'm just saying it's not fair to compare his earlier work to his recent work because it was made using very different means. I'm not sure how he made the stuff he did back then, but there certainly were no watermarks to contend with and things of that nature. All I'm saying is that it was different back then. And even 17 years ago, it was different. I mean, as I recall, you couldn't just go online and easily find a website that offers a stockpile of high resolution images for purchase.
I'm just saying things change, maybe he's making so many oversights because these are things that he simply didn't have to deal with back then, so as a result, it's not something he pays close attention to.

[Viking of the Sagas]

Could be, but then again he probably would've learned it already being an expert on the program.

I don't think it's unacceptable but it's odd.

[TheGreatPretender]

Yeah, you're right. All I'm saying is that it's inaccurate to say he's got 40 years of experience, when 20 of those he'd been using completely different tools.

[orcus116]

Or why not just, you know, take his own photos?

[rumborak]

I just have to wonder how much time he actually spends on this, given how many DTFers produce more impressive album covers in a short amount of time.

[TheGreatPretender]

Or why not just, you know, take his own photos?

Of clowns on unicycles and interwoven highways?

[orcus116]

Why not? He's a highly paid artist.

[BlobVanDam]

I just have to wonder how much time he actually spends on this, given how many DTFers produce more impressive album covers in a short amount of time.

Slapping the incorrect DT font on an image you flogged from DeviantArt doesn't really count as producing an album cover.

[Implode]

I think he's talking about the stuff you make, Blob.

[GasparXR]

I just have to wonder how much time he actually spends on this, given how many DTFers produce more impressive album covers in a short amount of time.

Slapping the incorrect DT font on an image you flogged from DeviantArt doesn't really count as producing an album cover.

I'm glad someone else knows the truth!

[rumborak]

I just have to wonder how much time he actually spends on this, given how many DTFers produce more impressive album covers in a short amount of time.

Slapping the incorrect DT font on an image you flogged from DeviantArt doesn't really count as producing an album cover.

Which makes it even worse that they're still better than a lot of DT covers.

[RoeDent]

The booklet art in DT12 is some of the most interesting I've seen in a long time. A booklet you can pore over and study while listening. So many little details that you only discover on subsequent lookings.

[orcus116]

I think ToT was the last interesting cover/booklet they've had.

[?]

Finding out that DT used preexisting photos in the TOT booklet made me appreciate the artwork even more, because those pictures fit the themes and moods of the album so well.