Renaissance Novella cover art

Renaissance's Novella was published with two versions of the cover art. the original was painted for the American first pressing of the album, but supposedly Annie Haslam was unhappy with that one and requested a new one be painted for future pressings. The one that was painted for the UK release would become the "main" cover art for the album in subsequent presses.

Original American painting:




"Main" British painting:



Edited by bardberic - April 13 2025 at 19:59

^Agreed. The colors, typography, and general background is better on the US version for me. And I have no problem with the placement of the characters either. But their faces are so weird looking! The "main" version has characters that looks much nicer, but I don't like that no one is looking at the book, and the colors are more washed out and pale. The ideal version for me would be the US version, but with faces drawn like the UK version. So I won't vote.

Awesoreno wrote: ^Agreed. The colors, typography, and general background is better on the US version for me. And I have no problem with the placement of the characters either. But their faces are so weird looking! The "main" version has characters that looks much nicer, but I don't like that no one is looking at the book, and the colors are more washed out and pale. The ideal version for me would be the US version, but with faces drawn like the UK version. So I won't vote.

The way I view it, the original takes place in the middle ages (1200s or so) with the woman and children reading a contemporary story and are thus focused on the words of the book, whereas the redo takes place in the contemporary era (1970s) with the woman and chosen gazing up as they're imagining what the fairy tale contains

But yeah, now that you've mentioned it, the art on the first does have a more classical feel, and I think the artist wanted to imitate artwork from the rensissance, whereas the second one looks very modern, as to fit in with other pieces of the 1970s,, such is why it seems so washed out.

Edited by bardberic - April 14 2025 at 00:26

bardberic wrote: Awesoreno wrote: ^Agreed. The colors, typography, and general background is better on the US version for me. And I have no problem with the placement of the characters either. But their faces are so weird looking! The "main" version has characters that looks much nicer, but I don't like that no one is looking at the book, and the colors are more washed out and pale. The ideal version for me would be the US version, but with faces drawn like the UK version. So I won't vote. The way I view it, the original takes place in the middle ages (1200s or so) with the woman and children reading a contemporary story and are thus focused on the words of the book, whereas the redo takes place in the contemporary era (1970s) with the woman and chosen gazing up as they're imagining what the fairy tale contains But yeah, now that you've mentioned it, the art on the first does have a more classical feel, and I think the artist wanted to imitate artwork from the rensissance, whereas the second one looks very modern, as to fit in with other pieces of the 1970s,, such is why it seems so washed out.

The second one has a fairy tale feel to it. I don't find it to be modern at all.

Except for the fact that the artist has no idea how to paint a human being, I like the general esthetics of the American original a lot more than the British. But they both look amateurish.

-Btw: it's so funny to me that someone can state that brown - or any natural/nature color really, is ugly. I guess tree trunks are ugly, and its pine cones, and of course many of the animals living in the forest. Brown eyes? Brown hair? Brown skin?

Edited by Saperlipopette! - April 14 2025 at 06:12

Octopus II wrote: I actually quite like both.

< defer="" ="https://static.cloudflareinsights.com/beacon.min.js/vcd15cbe7772f49c399c6a5babf22c1241717689176015" integrity="sha512-ZpsOmlRQV6y907TI0dKBHq9Md29nnaEIPlkf84rnaERnq6zvWvPUqr2ft8M1aS28on72PdrCzSjY4U6VaAw1EQ==" -cf-beacon=""rayId":"9302fc000958d197","Timing":"name":"cfExtPri":true,"cfL4":true,"cfSpeedBrain":true,"cfCacheStatus":true,"version":"2025.3.0","token":"717409392a644498b4dbcbfbeafd4181"" crossorigin="anonymous">

Edited by BrufordFreak - April 14 2025 at 05:50

She's reading to Anakin.

Saperlipopette! wrote: But they both look amateurish.

< defer="" ="https://static.cloudflareinsights.com/beacon.min.js/vcd15cbe7772f49c399c6a5babf22c1241717689176015" integrity="sha512-ZpsOmlRQV6y907TI0dKBHq9Md29nnaEIPlkf84rnaERnq6zvWvPUqr2ft8M1aS28on72PdrCzSjY4U6VaAw1EQ==" -cf-beacon=""rayId":"9303e0e8f97fdadb","Timing":"name":"cfExtPri":true,"cfL4":true,"cfSpeedBrain":true,"cfCacheStatus":true,"version":"2025.3.0","token":"717409392a644498b4dbcbfbeafd4181"" crossorigin="anonymous">

Edited by Criswell - April 14 2025 at 08:26

bardberic wrote: Renaissance's Novella was published with two versions of the cover art.

Hi,

I actually find the covers a bit scary and something that a record company would do to a band, and ignore their ideas and thoughts about the music.

The hard part of the different covers, is that it tells you a completely different something about the album ... one is a bunch of neat stories, for the kids, and the other, yet another piece of religious art during that time period to suggest that the religion is right and artistic, and people/folks aren't! Thus the sad face, is like a comment that the artist can not do anything right, as he/she is being told what to do!

So very American, that cover, where the movie studios originally owned everything music wise (they had the equipment for it) and then tried to get their stars to seem even better as singers. At that point, it was NOT about the story, but the fame that they could generate so folks would go to the theater, or buy the single. And it wasn't until the 1960's when black musicians broke the mold to smithereens!

The art of album covers, is something that should have been more important and valuable, as HIPGNOSIS made it be ... but so many bands had their whole thing ruined by bad covers, and I would have to ask Annie about this one, as the idea behind the covers are totally different and bizarre in the end ... and really ... very stupid and confusing to fans, about the music itself!

Aesthetically, I actually prefer the American cover and don't mind the unrealistic depictions of people. I would not expect it, but with the British version, I would have rather something more to the fairy tale feel like a crouching knight on one knee with sword and shielding raised about to be stepped on by a giant cyclops, and an even more giant squid or octopus arm about to grab the giant cyclops. Or just make it more Grimm... I wish it was more nightmarish. Or some basic computer graphics of the lines of a novel (bringing the Renaissance into the 20th century, and maybe have had Kraftwerk and Gary Numan collaborate on the album). I can dream. Be nice if they would have a version with Annie Haslam's own art.