Not invented here No2.

ATTENTION ALL GRAPHIC DESIGNERS WHO CARE...

The late great Raymond Hawkey is not having a great time at the moment. 

Earlier this year I posted a piece about some limited edition posters that lifted Hawkey's classic 60's Penguin Len Deighton covers without apology or attribution. Well, it's happened again with his iconic 1962 Ipcress File book jacket...

Hawkey¹s classic 1962 book jacket published by Hodder & Stoughton

Now take a look at this...

A blatant and shameful copy of Hawkey¹s work to be published in June by Birlinn

The Art Director of the publishers of this lamentable effort  stated in an email to Edward Milward-Oliver (a friend and supporter of Hawkey's work) that this "cover is homage to Ray Hawkey's original jacket for The Ipcress File." 

I think that it an absolute insult to Ray and his work. And from what I understand, no permission was sort from Raymond Hawkey's widow. They just ripped it off, and it has to be said in a most inept way. What is more shocking to me is that neither Barry Fantoni (a very talented illustrator) nor the  cover designer (so called) James Hutcheson thought twice about this and went ahead with this effort. Did they not have an original idea between them?

Ray can't speak for himself so I would like any designer reading this, who is as outraged as I am, to lodge an email protest to the publishers with the message:  

STOP THE HARRY LIPKIN P.I. JACKET, IT HAS RIPPED OFF RAYMOND HAWKEY'S WORK! to info@birlinn.co.uk. 

They just might relent.

In my view they should send a letter of apology to Mary Hawkey and a design fee for their lamentable copy of Ray's cover. There is a delicate line between paying homage and ripping off. This effort falls wildly over the latter.

 

Comments

[Alistair Hall]

Hmmm. I'd say that when people rip things off, their crime is that they're trying to pass someone's else work off as their own; to dupe the viewer into thinking that theirs is a wholly original idea.

That's not really the case here though is it? The design evidently wants the reader to be aware of the original Deighton / Hawkey cover - it only really works in reference to it.

(How successfully it works is of course a different matter.)

But I agree that it would have been polite to get in touch with Mary first.

[Alistair Hall]

*someone else's

[Richard]

Outrageous Mike. Hawkey's is masterful. Email sent.

[Gerry Simons]

Email sent.

[Marc]

Shameful!

You might want to consider posting here Mike... they get 50+ thousand views for some of their posts:
http://youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/how-to-post/

And I'll fire them off an email.

[mike dempsey]

I have to disagree Alistair. To my mind this is not a witty pastiche, an ironic twist or a celebration. It is a blatant copy (and a naff one at that) of another designer’s work. A work that is very special in the cannon of British graphic history. Hawkey’s original 1962 Deighton cover was hard fought for, by both author and designer as the publishers, Hodder and Stoughton didn’t like it at all. In the event the book was reprinted on publication thus vindicating the duo.
If you are going to appropriate someone else’s idea be on very solid ground.
For example on the introduction of the UK Olympic logo an unknown designer quickly replicated the formation of the logo to spell ‘SHIT’. Now that’s what I call a great use of appropriation

[Mathew]

I hate to say this sort of thing happens alot I mean look at the incident between Banksy and Blek Le Rat.

[LondonLee]

Having once designed a magazine ad that was an homage to Saul Bass' 'Man With The Golden Arm' poster and then gotten letters from readers accusing me of plagiarism I am more sympathetic with the "this is a knowing tribute" opinion. Though agreed, it's not very well done. Unlike mine of course!

[Richard C Evans]

Thought the Penguin "Great Ideas" homage to Maciej Zbikowski's film poster for Freud far worse.
Less obviously a homage, because original less familiar, and somehow more offensive because a far better job was done of it.

Here:
http://stylec.yuku.com/topic/7880

[Bill Peschel]

It seems to me there are obvious differences between homage and plagiarism.

In a homage, the person can blending several references to genre into something new (see Quentin Tarentino).

In a homage, there has to be some similarity between the two works, with a twist added, that makes it obvious. For example, if the new book was called "The Watercress Files," then parroting the cover art makes sense.

It seems like here, they've simply replicated the idea. They didn't try to get new objects, except to replace a few things (glass with teeth instead of coffee cup, pills instead of cigs). They even positioned everything in the same locations.

It's as if they couldn't trust their own judgment to reposition the items, try a different filter, or change the size of the objects. They took someone else's ideas and decision-making process and aped it.

[Mike Dempsey]

Hello Bill - ironically even the teeth in the glass idea was lifted from another Hawkey book cover. So even that aspect was bereft of original thought.

[Richard C Evans]

Good to see article in today's Observer.
It's a fine line, but I see this as homage, or parody. Taking something familiar and putting, in this case, a geriatric spin on it.
The joke/homage only works to viewers familiar with the original.
That said, it's a cheap joke and a lazy way of doing things and result is second rate.
Grew up with this and Hawkey's Pan Thunderball bullet holes cover on my father's bookshelf. I always really liked them, but to a degree came to take them for granted.
They still stand up now, but are even more remarkable when both considered in context.
Positive thing about this, and the article is that Hawkey deserves wider recognition.

[mike]

Richard you might be interested to read an interview I had with Ray Hawkey back in 2009 here;
http://mikedempsey.typepad.com/graphic_journey_blog/2009/01/an-eye-for-detail.html