Any Cover You Can Do, Dave Johnson Can Do Better

A contributor to the all-star Whatnotisms sketch blog (featuring work by the likes of Jock, Amanda Conner, Sean Phillips, Eric Canete, Bill Sienkiewicz and more) Dave Johnson has contributed some tremendous comics covers over the years and more than earned his perch.

As such, he’s unafraid to take flawed or ill-conceived covers to task. In recent week’s he’s stirred some ire, singling out Frank Quitely’s award-winning Batman & Robin covers as being not particularly deserving of fanfare. But he’s backed up his comments with the kind of criticism made possible through a lifetime of trial and error. What started as a recurring feature on Twitter is now the subject of a new blog. A new weekly experiment, Johnson Covers Hi-Lo showcases covers from popular series like Red Hood and the Outlaws and Johnson’s attempts to retouch them as more compelling images.

Here’s one example from last week’s crop of covers. While Johnson liked the logo and treatment of Futaki’s cover for Severed #4, he had numerous problems with the overall concept and composition. Here’s the original:

Now, Johnson’s comments on Twitter and his blog. You’ll want to start reading the Twitter analysis from the bottom up.

Talked about this cover on Twitter yesterday. But wanted to show a possible solution to why I didn’t feel the over all design left me cold. It’s hard to do too much since I don’t have the actual file to work with but you get the idea.

I still feel it doesn’t pop as much as I’d like, but it’s not like I’m getting paid to it, so it is what it is.

Finally, his suggestion for revision:

Keeping in mind Johnson wasn’t working from scratch and didn’t have access to the original image elements, do you like his version better?

Comments

  1. Johnson’s version is better.
    He is especially right about the coloring as his is darker and more vivid.

  2. I prefer the original. Johnson’s lacks subtlety. Too dark.

    • agree.

    • I agree too. The original is more subtle. Dave Johnson is one of my favorite cover artists, but the original is more subtle, inline with the store.

    • *story

    • Considering Severed as a suspense story beneath a period piece, I prefer Futaki’s. The pastel hues (opposed to Johnson’s grit) do more to serve the story’s escalating tension, rather than depicting the book as outright gore-horror. Futaki’s cover teases the monster lurking beneath the surface of a optimistic era (when you could more easily trust a stranger) and fits the tone of the book FAR better for me.

      On the same note, I remember the bear trap scene FAR more vividly than the gorey reveal of the first victim.

    • @CanuckGoose Exactly. To me the actual image of the diner is not supposed to be overtly creepy, just more of a faded post card type of thing that the “monster” has actually ripped through. So it wouldn’t make sense for the post card to be so dark.

    • Agreed. The selling points of this book aren’t gore or darkness, it’s suspense, so the image of a scary face popping out from a bright, inviting old-timey scene is much more effective. The Johnson cover looks like a generic horror-movie DVD cover.

    • I agree as well. I think having the same tone and hue is to make it subtle. I took it as a metaphor – it’s supposed to sort of blend together, just like our cannibal salesman blends in with normal folks. But if you know what you’re looking for, the horror is there, just under the surface, ready to tear through the facade.

    • Should read ” I think the point of having the same tone…”

    • @ KennyG great point, I totally agree.
      Johnson’s covers are ALWAYS ridiculously awesome, but in this case the original is better in my opinion. I would like to see what Dave would do working completely from scratch on a “Severed” cover because I’m sure it would look rad. I was surprised to see this cover being chosen for critique considering the huge amount of so-so covers that come out, I think Futaki has been doing better than most.

    • The original is far superior to the remake. I actually prefer the detail portrayed in the mouth and shadowed eye of the creature in comparison to the gore and lack of imagination in johnson’s art. johnson is amazingly talented but Futaki’s art is prime.

    • The selling points of the book arent any subtle creeping building of tension, the selling point is scott snyder. the cover should just be all type that reads :FROM SCOTT SYNDER WRITER OF AMERICAN VAMPIRE AND BATMAN with batman very large…

  3. Wow. I didn’t think Dave Johnson was such a curmudgeon about this stuff. I mean it makes sense cause he is one of the best, if not ‘THE’ best, comic cover artist out there right now. But…

    I love Futaki’s covers! They have been some of the best covers of the year and it really sets the mood for each issue. Maybe doing 7 straight issues of tears on the cover might be boring to some. But it keeps with the aesthetic of the book being unnerving and disturbing at the same time.

    I think he needs to calm down….also his version is too bloody for my taste.

  4. I love Dave Johnson’s work, but I’m gonna go with Futaki’s cover. Perhaps Johnson’s technical acumen is correct, but his cover doesn’t fit the tone of the overall series. Johnson’s cover is too ‘grungy’ and ham-fisted in comparison.

  5. The conversation on comic book cover design always focuses heavily on the illustration and usually tends to ignore the graphic elements that tend to make or break the cover. I think the second version, if redone in Johnson’s style with the original files prob would have worked better. Much more contrast and focus.

    That lettering and graphic stuff that integrates into the image logo really sets an amazing tone for the book. This is one of the few comics covers that i’ve seen recently thats actually had real design thinking behind it, instead of just individual, unrelated components dumped on a page. Sure its not perfect but it was much better than most of the stuff thats being put out. Quality Graphic Design in comics is almost non existent, which is quite sad.

  6. While I like both covers, I think Futaki’s cover, along with what’s inside the book, scares the living shit out of me and I love it!

  7. I think Johnson’s usual work is fantastic and all, but Futaki’s cover is leagues above Johnson’s version here.

  8. The problem with Johnson’s cover is that his aesthetic comes from Playstation 1 survival-horror, which looked like ass.

  9. I think the point was to make it unclear at first whether or not the face was coming out of the diner or the cover. And if Johnson had bothered to read the issue he would realize that this diner does not have a parking lot out front and that’s why we have grass. Futaki’s is superior.

  10. I don’t like either cover, to be honest.

  11. I think a lot of Johnson’s criticisms are actually some of the biggest strengths of the cover — namely you don’t know what the face is bursting through and the coloring. He makes great covers, but his edit feels cheap and trashy in a low-budget horror flick, where as Futaki’s cover captures a softer, subtler horror that you have to think about. And because you have to think about it, it’s scarier.

    • I completely agree.

      Dave Johnson covers are fantastic, but evidently Dave Johnson’s corrections to other covers are not. Futaki’s covers look like picturesque period movie posters being ripped through, whole Johnson’s remake looks like someone pasted a picture of a mouth on a dingy picture of a diner. Like someone said above, it really looks like a Playstation cover from 1997.

      All that said, I do like Johnson’s willingness to volunteer some friendly criticism.

  12. I think it’s a little tacky to go after an indy book by an artist trying to make a name for themselves. If you want to point out some of what makes it past the big two’s editors, or call out someone like Quitely who has a huge fanbase and truly is capable of better, that’s one thing….

    As an artist, I appreciate tips from a lauded veteran such as Johnson, but you don’t make yourself look taller by digging a hole under the person next to you.

    • I really doubt that was his intention. Hopefully Futaki can look at the critique for what it was. Take something from it, but also see that there are wildly different opinions (this thread alone…).

      It would’ve maybe been better if Johnson talked to Futaki first & got permission to do a public critique — cuz yeah, it does come off a little wrong-time-&-place, a little unprofessional. Why wasn’t this a private conversation between artists?

    • Exactly. I don’t think it was a personal attack on Futaki or anything, but I don’t think Johnson thought of him much when he put him on blast like that.

  13. I think the original is way better and more disturbing visually. It has more of a psychotic look with the colors and imagery than the Johnson’s which as some people stated looks run of the mill playstation cover paint by the numbers typical horror look just doesn’t do it for me.

  14. Even giving it a pass for “It’s not my job to make this cover, I’m just pointing out problems” the second cover looks like a generic movie poster. It’s unstuble as others have said and it’s bland. Oh look, dark book is dark! Were Johnson’s cover the one used, I’d have left the book on the stands.

    Something about the whole “I can design anything you can do better” thing smacks of tacky, though. Not saying it’s wrong per se… but… I don’t know. I don’t like it.

  15. My problem is that he contradicts himself when critiquing the books. Apparently using the same hue for the fore and back images is a “no-no” (Says who?) but it’s okay for Red and Green to be displayed together even though his art school teachers told him not to. But it’s okay, because we’ve couched it inside a disparaging term about art teachers not getting work as artists? WTH? It’s all so vague and arbitrary and individual that I really can’t put stock in what he says. And if you’re going to critique an artist, that’s one thing, “doing” the cover over again is another. And doing it in such a half-assed, low-rent manner is demeaning to the other artists. If you’re gonna play this game, rebuild the cover from ground up. I don’t care that it’s not your job.

  16. I admire that DJ has the time, energy and will to do something like this. Certainly his body of work, just in the last three years even, justifies his opinion on these matters be taken seriously. More please.

  17. The REVEREND doesn’t lie! He is ABSOLUTELY right about the dead space. Plus, the centering of the image teeters a bit on being symetrical and therefore a bit boring. I would’ve tried to create an imbalance, and therefore some uncertainty and danger in the piece.

    Johnson is the man. Follow him on DeviantArt and see all the cool sketches and Drink and Draw pieces he does. Insanely inspirational. I met him at Jet City comic last year and he was so super nice. I mentioned loving him on Superpatriot and he was so delighted he gave me a free signed print.

  18. Hey, at least the guy does interiors! Why Futaki? Why not Cassaday?

  19. Sounds like a guy with a big ego criticizing a cover that was absolutely fantastic and way better than his terrible rework.

  20. I don’t know if I’m alone on this, but it seems really egotistical of Johnson to decide that he’s the foremost expert on covers. I admit that I do like his work, but rather than tearing apart the hard work that other artists put in on their covers, why doesn’t he just observe what he thinks is wrong and apply that to his work, or express his ideas in a less public venue. This screams: “Ha ha ha, I am better than you”, and that’s just not professional.

  21. Man that’s egotistical. Especially considering that revised Severed cover looks like it was knocked up by a 13 year old with Microsoft Paint.

  22. I think equally erroneous is the premise of this article.
    If you want to claim DJ is great at critiquing covers, for gods sake pick an example he is actually correct in, not merely picking one that has particularly harsh quotables.

    In this day and age of internet tough guys, I would like to think we are no longer impressed with these vocal “mavericks” who gain more fame for their outspoken opinions than their art.

    • What do you mean? He’s only got two critiques up on the website so far. And, whether right or wrong in this specific critique, as a graphic designer & comic creator, I’m really interested in the idea of dissecting covers for what works & doesn’t, especially coming from a seasoned veteran.

    • From the article, it sounded like he’s been doing “critiques” for a while on twitter.

  23. There’s a reason Johnson wasn’t asked to do covers for this series. His covers are very effective, and are appropriate for certain books. They’re perfect for PunisherMAX, Deadpool, exploitative things like that, but Severed relies on that subtle realization that there’s something off about what you’re experiencing, and not on a “HOLY SHIT LOOK OUT A MONSTER!” reaction from the reader/viewer. Severed is meant to unsettle you slowly and subtly, and that cover (all the covers for the series in fact) contribute to that. If Johnson doesn’t like it, fine, but posting your own version just makes it clear why you weren’t given the job in the first place.

  24. There really is a strange tangent-line thing going on between the two main elements in Futaki’s though. That said, I don’t think Johnson really fixed that in his version. And yeah, there’s a context between this cover & the ones before it that Johnson completely ignores, which makes the critique a little unqualified in my opinion.

    • the more i look at it, the more i think the original could have just been slightly tweaked. Really my only issue with the original is that it lacks some depth and pop. That face doesn’t appear to be tearing through and creating a first read as much as it might want to. I think the others are right….Johnson’s looks a bit too video game or movie poster. (and thats a bad thing)

  25. reading some of his tweets and posts, i think Johnson could have gone about critiquing his colleagues in a more professional manner. I know its all about creating big hyperbole laden statements and making some cute tweets that bring attention to yourself, but really i’m kinda shocked at the reckless abandon that so many comics professionals have for throwing their colleagues under a public steamroller and talking shit in public forums. As if networking, career preservation and burning bridges means nothing in that world. Its an incredibly odd world.

    • Yeah, you’d think with the relatively small (and shrinking) number of people involved, creators and fans alike would behave a bit better.

    • Agreed & agreed, Wally.

    • fans are one thing…i mean its short for “fanatic”…but creators..those are supposed to be industry pros. The freelance creative business IS personal relationships, so you’d think they’d be more restrained. I’ve met and worked with a few creators (one gets a ton of praise on this site) on licensed projects that had no restraint on the shit talking floodgates. I was just shocked at how easy the dirty laundry is shared. Its a comics culture thing thats for sure.

    • To put it in context. He posted a shitty cover of his own on twitter, too. He apologised if he was to harsh and said basically everybody fucks up sometimes.

      This has nothing to do with “dirty laundry”.

    • @Wally: The thing about comics culture is that — compared to other art forms like music or film — it’s relatively easy and common for fans to become pros. The majority of film fans or music fans harbor little to no aspirations of making music or film, but I don’t think that’s the case in comics. As a result, today’s fans become tomorrow’s professionals. I think unprofessional public behavior from creators reveals some difficulty overcoming their former fan tendencies.

    • Maybe somebody should link Johnson to the previous iFanboy articles promoting decorum amongst fans and creators. 😛

    • @bendrix–you put things out there in public there are no “takesy backseeys”. The fact that he didn’t think about what he was saying until after it was published says even more. Even when you tear something apart it needs to be defended with critical, logical methodology, not just wow factor and hyperbole.

      @ken–yeah i’ve gathered that. Also from what i’ve gathered many pros have gone from service industry survival jobs and fanboys to creators, so they’ve never really had to learn about the dynamics of full on office professionalism or engaging in that career climbing chess match. Twitter is dangerous.

    • @wally I don’t see it as “taken apart with wow factor and hyperbole”. And he didn’t take anything back. It was like the conclusion to his thought out and planed feature about covers (that also included that it’s, of course, just his opinion). I saw it first hand and it didn’t come remotely like you paint it here.
      I’d take any bet that no creator of those covers took this half as bad as some guys on here do. It was more like an advice. Not tearing anybody down.

      @Ken And yes, I bet it’s fucking easy to break into comics and every fan becomes a pro. And of course no one who is really into music ever plays in a band. You caught that over at the Byrne board? Sounds like Byrne to me.
      Funny how it is disrespectful to give some thought out criticism on someones work, but it’s not disrespectful to paint all comic creators as unprofessional fanboys. Didn’t you just say fans and creators should behave better?

    • @bendrix…we can agree to disagree on that. I believe in thinking before you tweet, but some don’t and thats cool. And honestly, i’m not the first person to suggest comic creators lack professionalism when it comes to twitter, or to notice that there are a lot of wars and ego fights on there between creators.

    • @bendrix: Whoa, dude. I wasn’t directly commenting on Dave Johnson’s cover critique, but you prove my point about a need for better behavior.

      I did not say — and certainly don’t believe — that’s it’s easy to break into comics. I said it’s easier than film and music. And my larger point was that the comic book industry has a greater percentage of fans that want to be creators than the music or film industries. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear, but I think it was.

      Of course people who like music play in bands — I’ve been one of them. (And I’ve never been to the Byrne board, and don’t know much about the guy beyond his work, so your oblique insult is totally lost on me. I appreciate the thought though.) However, for as many musicians as I know, there are FAR more people who can’t play a note and have never picked up an instrument. And millions of people go to the movies every single week, but how many of them want to pick up a camera and make their own movie let alone get good enough to create professional work? Extremely few.

      My only point was that out of the few hundred thousand folks buying comics, a large percentage of them harbor aspirations of making comics, and because of the low number people involved in comics at any level, their chances of success are better than in some other mediums. And because comics fans have a better chance of becoming comics pros than fans of other media, it would be wise for them (for anyone really) to take a little more care before firing off sarcasm-driven responses to dissenting opinions.

      I’m not saying I’ve never made sarcastic comments, but no one’s perfect, and we should all try to relax and be more respectful.

    • @wally Sure. This stuff happens. And if it does, it’s unprofessional. But I don’t see Johnson criticism as something like this. And I think he thought very well before he tweeted.
      It can be argued if any creator is allowed to criticise the work of any other creator in public at all. But again, I don’
      t see any creator complain about Johnsons comments. Either they are to professional to do so, or they didn’t take it that hard, and even maybe as an advice and got something out of it.
      As I see it, the fans, again, are trying to make this into something it’s not.

  26. The purpose of a cover is not to be subtle, its not to be loud, its not to be a faithful tribute to the book inside, its to get your attention and hopefully sell the book (don’t judge a book by its cover, it has a literal meaning too) Most of the people around these parts are probably already reading this book and its probably because of snyder. The cover could have been blank and most of us would have bought it. Johnson is critiquing the cover on its impact strictly as a cover. Magenta and light cyan are a strange choice, and certainly don’t evoke horror. Strong visceral covers,tend to sell more than subtle ones.

    I really enjoy the covers for this series, but i enjoy them as interesting clever thoughtful, well rendered works of art, i bought the series for snyder. take his name off, and i wouldnt have noticed the interesting clever thoughtful, well rendered work of art, nearly as much as the blood covered scarefest. You may complain that it looks like a movie poster or a video game cover but last time i checked movies and video games are pretty successful so maybe that’s not a bad thing.

    Johnson has proven his talents as a cover artist time and time again. Maybe, just maybe consider he might know what he’s talking about.

    • Dave Johnson does know what he’s talking about. Unfortunately, since art is subjective, that doesn’t mean he’s right. No one is right or wrong in this case. Except for you actually. You are wrong when you imply that, since Dave Johnson does great covers (which he does), his opinion and style should be applied to EVERY comic book cover. Sadly for Johnson, there is an audience outside those that read books with bold covers. It’s like saying that superhero books sell the best, so that’s all anyone should write. There’s room for everyone on the playground, and perhaps since Scott Snyder is selling this book on his name alone (according to your assumption), he can afford to use a cover artist that is appropriate to his story, and not the one that is going to grab a ten-year-old’s eye from across the store.

    • @abstract – Yeah, I’m with @Actual here. This is pretty obviously not a mainstream book OR an ideal jumping-on point issue. It’s a mini-series that should (I assume) be read from issue #1 on. So, while jumping off the shelf visually is always good, there’s something to be said here for the fact that the cover might be more about carrying through the pre-established tone for the people currently reading it. As you already said, it’s probably primarily Snyder’s name carrying interest for this book, as well as the story that’s been presented so far.

    • HA, it is YOU who are wrong! i did not imply that dave johnsons opinion and style should be applied to EVERY comic, i don’t believe that, so why would i imply that. If that’s why you got out of it, that’s all you. All i said is that as someone who has done amazing covers, even winning an eisner for them, you may want to consider what he’s saying, as his would be considered an authoritative voice on the subject. While everyone has an opinion, they arent all equal.

      While i wont get into a debate now on the subjectivity of art (there is certainly a lot more debate on that issue that you seem to think) this isnt entirely about art. i admitted that i love these covers as works of art, but is that the purpose of the cover? Most of the people here are talking about how well the cover shows the story, but i don’t see how you get that without having read the comic. Nothing on either cover here says subtle evocative depression era horror, you get all that from knowing what it is already. If you want your cover to be something that someone looks at after reading and says “oh i get it” then you really aren’t fufilling what has classically been the purpose of a cover. While art may be subjective (or may not or somewhere in between) sales are not. There are “rules” of color, composition, lighting, and tone, that more often than not work as far as getting someones attention on shelf. Maybe not you, certainly not everyone, but they do work for many, possibly most, even people who arent 10 year olds.

    • @jasonheart, that is a very good point about the issue number. no one will be buying this from issue 3, and i do think issue 1 had a better shelf presence than this one. (and again, i dont think any of them are bad) but this is the cover that hit the shelves last week and that is what johnson is talking about, how does the cover work. while no one will start with this, if this is the first issue someone has seen, how well will it grab them and make them look for the other 2.

      Johnson doesnt claim to look at the context of these in the larger picture of a series, and maybe that is something he should be considering. its like how linked covers work better when you see them all together (i love when retailers miss this and place linked covers in the wrong order) but not as well individually. on the flip side, a good cover should function regardless of its place as part of a series.

  27. It’s very easy to take someone elses work and “improve it” especially in ones opinion. Honestly Johnsons colors looks very poor and it looks nothing like the diner in the story. Futakis cover looks like something from the book while johnsons looks like a nighttime murder shack. Also Johnsons white logo sticks out to much, it looks more like an advertisement then a comic logo. Your eye it completely focused on it and it takes away from the art.

  28. Just visited his blog and looked at the big sampling of his critiques. IMHO with his track record of flat one note two dimensional covers and almost criminally inept grasp of human anatomy Mr. Johnson should probably be the last person in the industry to situate himself as arbiter of taste.