With the size relation thing, I actually kinda like that exaggerated sense of scale. The tour art seems to go even further in regards to that.
I get that - and especially with the child on the giant's shoe. But the child and viewfinder are "normal" size, so shouldn't the two items be consistent in scale? It's not like that tour art where it's a miniature child on top of a viewfinder.
As for the metallic logo, I do see where you're coming from, although it's one of those things where it looks pretty clear at a certain size (it looks just fine when it's the size of a desktop background, so maybe it was designed for a vinyl size), but the smaller it is, the harder it is to distinguish.
Understood, but it is something to consider, because while vinyl has seen a resurgence, its sales are still relatively small compared to CD sales, and especially digital sales and streaming. OTOH, it also should be remembered that the artwork will be featured at a large scale on vinyl and maybe even some posters, so the smaller details should also be thought of, too.
I also wouldn't necessarily agree that Hugh's attention to detail has decreased over the years, because Permanent Waves' cover is simply a photo by Flip Schulke with three elements pasted on, with seemingly nothing other than a filter to blend them in (after all, he's pasted two of them in a convenient spot where the lack of shadows won't be noticable, but the newspaper actually sticks out for its lack of blending). A Farewell to Kings is similarly rough around the edges as a composite image.
That may be true, but he didn't have Photoshop available to him in 1979, let alone 1977!
What can be done with manual photo composing is far more limited than what can be done since Photoshop developed into a powerful tool in the early 90s.
That's the thing though, his style often isn't to make things look photorealistic. The abstract visual choices and the highly saturated lighting should probably be clues to that.
I beg to differ on that. While there is a certain amount of creativity obviously included, the majority of his artwork is intended to look photorealistic, or else he wouldn't constantly be using various photographic elements and manipulating them into the image so that (in general) they fit. Otherworldly does not mean non-photorealistic.
My main issue with detail nitpicking like this is the echo chamber amplification effect. A lot of those minuscule details would never be noticed by the majority of users until they're pointed out to them. And then, when it's pointed out to you, you can't help but seeing it. So you basically end up having something you enjoyed ruined by nitpickers, AND you feel stupid for liking it in the first place. And all of a sudden everyone are professional digital artists who "could do it much better"...
You do bring up a good point, and I agree that there is the pile on effect where many end up taking it too far. But while I don't condone those that go too far with their criticisms (I'd like to think I'm not one of those who have, altho you and/or others might disagree) or blanket statements about how it "sucks", as was already pointed out, this is human nature especially in the world we live in now. So knowing that and that this artwork is going to be viewed by a very rabid fanbase that does tend to nitpick every detail, wouldn't it have been good for Hugh to make sure all those little details were resolved? It's not like this is the same as the artwork he's done for businesses where it's forgotten about weeks after it is published.
Honestly, given the vitriol Hugh Syme gets, I'm kind of surprised that the same sort of thing isn't directed towards Larry Freemantle whenever his work is brought up. Images and Words alone has like 3 different artstyles, worse perspective issues, a wonky majesty symbol, a lack of clarity in the logo and title and probably a few more things if I looked hard enough. Awake's mirror casts no shadows (it also looks like an asset from Diablo or something in the way it gleams garishly in contrast to the lighting of the rest of the image) and the spider's web finishes in the air. Syme would be verbally lynched here if he did a cover with those same qualities.
The Awake cover doesn't really bother me altho I'm not big on that spider's web; I've always attributed the mirror to floating in space, so its shadow is outside the cropping of the image. But personally I've always had issues with the cover art for IaW and it's always ranked low for me because of the odd mix of styles used in it. I would love to see the cover redone properly in a photorealistic manner.
Also sure, DT could commission any number of relatively unknown artists... but Hugh Syme definitely has his own visual signature (that has come to be associated with the band), regardless of if it's to everyone's taste. Would your average unknown artist be as instantly recognisable (which ultimately, matters a lot when it comes to things like album art) as him? I kind of doubt that.
Artwork by someone else may not be instantly recognizable, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The TA artwork was a real surprise for a lot of the fans and IIRC, one that was welcomed by the majority.
You know why I think that child is proportionally small?....It's to emphasize the size of the giants shoes.
These small sized children are on the patch of land where the giant sleeps, which is on The Top of The World.
And that's fine - I don't have a problem with that. But IMO, the viewfinder could've been made just a wee bit smaller so that it was at the same scale as the child, since they're the same distance away from the person looking at the artwork. That said, it's a minor quibble that doesn't bother me much.