Invisible Cities

things I do like:

typography design

the window-frame view mimics the structural framing within the book (story within the story)

visual simplicity outside the frame, complexity inside the frame works well with the richness and the sparsness of the book itself

things I don't like:

drawing inside feels messy, and faux antiquated. the book exists outside of time. yes the characters are from history, yes it is a historical possibility, but the descriptions of cities are anachronisitic and take for granted inventions and conditions outside of the time period of the two men

too straightforward for a book that is not straightforward

things I do like:

includes a concept from the book (reflected city) in the actual design of the typography (and thus makes the type a thing, not a description of a thing)

attempts to be sparse

things I don't like:

ends up cluttered by too much text

lacks spark

repeats the title. the reflected design should have included enough information so as to not need repeated for clarity

things I do like:

this is the copy I have

like the first design, it includes both sparseness and visual complexity, in an interior/exterior composition

the simplicity of the type

things I don't like:

once again the interior is simply overcrowded. it is also a collage that features italy a little too prominently - it seems more about the author (or marco polo) than about what the book is saying. cover designs that simply slap a good-looking piece of art on the front, that is close enough to do just fine, always seem lazy.

that italo is in italics (seems like a dumb typography pun)

things I do like:

modern take on the overall look.

paper cutouts makes the letters feel like things instead of just letters, and thus the letters become stand-ins for the cities themselves

the building sitting on top of the I carries the look of many of the cities within the book without being too specific about which one it is representing

things I don't like:

it feels just ALMOST there. the building on top of the I is nice because it is whimisical, but because it is just one building it seems a little too cutesy for the book.

pictures from an exhibition at MassMoCA from an exhibition entitled after the book

things I like:

an understanding of space that it not strictly possible (these cities are all impossible) 

use of negative space to suggest looking through buildings and space and into other buildings

things the first makes me think of:

vellum, possible transparency as way of getting at cities within cities within cities, possible use of vellum AND cutouts to have different levels of visibility (some cities should match up in places with others to represent that these are essentially one city repeated with changed aspects