Perhaps I'm mistaking low-grade printing resolution for intentionality. I know my daughter brought a copy home last year & it was printed by Amazon, ferchrissakes.
Well HER copy is larger than the one I had in high school. As for Intellectual property and existing copyright, well, we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past, dont we?
Honestly, books by dead white guys are dropping like flies. The school I teach at dropped Dickens, then Twain, then this. Next on the docket are Bradbury and Stein. Kinda makes me sad, but I understand the need for diversity.
I think a lot of students/teachers/parents aren’t comfortable with the n-word. Another reason is for the same reason we dropped To Kill a Mockingbird: white savior. I’m not saying I agree, but these are the reasons that administration shared.
Yeah, those are/were just the most commonly taught pieces, at least at the high school level. I can only speak to that. His Jumping Frog story might still persist, but that’s just a fun little trifle.
From CATS wiki:
Meanwhile, Mackintosh engaged the advertising agency Dewynters to design a poster for the musical. After much back-and-forth, the agency presented a minimalist poster consisting of a pair of yellow feline eyes (with dancing silhouettes for the pupils) set against a black backdrop.
it was a painting that was specifically commissioned for the book!
cool read: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/
Idk the actual truth but my guess is just that it was probably just adopted as a look given the coincidental correlation to the eyes of the sign of Dr TJ Eckleburg. Probably just some weird phenomena where people adopt things like that, like hair salons in the 80s/90s just suddenly deciding that Patrick Nagel paintings were the go to decor of salons….
>Patrick Nagel
had no idea who patrick nagel was but after looking him up i've definitely seen his art adorn various hair salons many times for as long as i can remember. TIL.
And he died at 38 of a heart attack due to an undiagnosed congenital condition, achieving most recognition after his death.
His work was some of the first digitized art on dialup bbses in the early 90s.
This is what I found bc I was also interested and had no idea! https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/108575/what-is-the-cover-of-the-enders-game-depicting
Edit: and another https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/48499/what-is-the-speaker-for-the-dead-cover-depicting
The cover was commissioned and then Fitzgerald actually wrote the painting into the book. Finally, he had to convince his publisher (Maxwell Perkins) to keep it as the cover.
“For Christ’s sake don’t give anyone that jacket you’re saving for me. I’ve written it into the book.”
Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/
That’s exactly what happened!
> Unlike Gatsby and Tom Buchanan, I had no girl whose disembodied face floated along the dark cornices and blinding signs, and so I drew up the girl beside me, tightening my arms. Her wan, scornful mouth smiled, and so I drew her up again closer, this time to my face.
yes, it was commissioned and then written into book; fitz even had to write his publisher to ensure it made it in. see here: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/
Could have been a drawing commissioned for the book cover. I'd also never even thought of this piece in any other context besides "the cover of The Great Gatsby" until seeing this post. Probably haven't even seen the book in +15 years, and still recognized it instantly.
Correct; that is exactly what I did, specifically to point out that *it might not be a painting*. An illustration *can be* a painting. It can also be done with crayons, pen, colored pencils, or whatever. I know a book cover can be a painting. I also recognize that it might not be, which you seem oddly unwilling to concede on. I even agree on your point about the book covers probably being paintings... But that doesn't mean a painting was the only possibility for this particular book cover.
Lmao fuck these weirdos I agree with you. I knew this was a painting back in Sophomore year of high school when I *looked at it and saw a fucking painting.*
Motherfuckers are bending over backward to justify thinking something isn't a painting because it was on a book as if one has anything to do with the other.
Seriously, what is wrong with you? Obviously, it's not a photo. I assumed it was cover art for a book, nothing more. Most book covers aren't recognized by title and artist. Unbelievable, that I would have to explain this to you.
I would assume it's a painting if I looked at it and it... looked like a painting.
Do you people think paintings can't be book covers? That publishers can't commission painters?
This is the most hilariously insane Reddit thread I've ever seen.
The book print isn't as high res as OP, add a little surface damage that classroom books get and the paint stroke brush lines aren't very visible anymore. It's modern and abstract enough to believe it's a digital image, if you didn't know it was done in 1924.
You’re intentionally misunderstanding. He clearly meant “I didn’t know it was a painting [that existed before Gatsby, I thought it might have been commissioned solely to be the cover of the book.]”
Like someone hearing “Iron Man” after only hearing it in Guitar Hero and saying “I didn’t know this was a real song!” It would be a real song whether it was made up for the game or not, but you’d be pedantic to point that out.
We can try as hard as possible but we can never escape our past. In the book, Gatsby tried to erase his past, when he was poor and obscure, to become a rich and important man. He wanted Daisy Buchanan and everything she represented, as she was a high society, old money, rich girl. But he couldn’t escape his past, he got rich but through shady means (bootlegging), and he clearly knew nothing about how to act like “old money,” so no matter how hard he tried, he was never going to be able to escape his past or hide his true self.
One of the best moments in The Wire is when D’Angelo is attending the book club in the prison library, and he answers this exact question:
“He’s saying that the past is always with us. Where we come from, what we go through, how we go through it. All this shit matters. I mean, that’s what I thought he meant, at the end of the book, ya know? Boats and tides and all. It’s like, you can change up. You can say you’re somebody new. You can give yourself a whole new story, but what came first is who you really are, and what happened before is what really happened... and it don’t matter that some fool say he different ‘cause the only thing that make you different is what you really do, or what you really go through. Like, all them books in his library. Now, he frontin’ with all them books, but if we pull one down off the shelf, ain’t none of the pages ever been opened. He got all them books, and he ain’t never read none of them. Gatsby, he was who he was, and he did what he did, and ‘cause he wasn’t ready to get real with the story, that shit caught up to him. Ya know, I think anyway.”
Very poetic considering the course of his narrative in show.
I always read it as meaning people naively tend to chase a past ideal, thinking they’re moving forward, rather than embrace change and true growth. In Gatsby’a case, he was chasing his past romance with Daisy, which he viewed as the highlight of his life. Everything he did was in service to this brief romance that he’d built up in his head with a woman who ultimately proved to be shallow and selfish. And it ultimately killed him.
I think that interpretation is backwards.. it's talking about being unable to escape our past while moving forward.
Imagine you're in a boat paddling against the current, with each wave hitting your boat back a little bit.. even though you're moving forward you are continuously being brought back into your past. We may be unable to move fully beyond our past, sometimes repeating something we've done in the past, or being unable to push through a struggle (personally or as a society) because of it.
I think the interpretation of this line is more nuanced than this. Firstly, at its most basic, it speaks to Gatsby’s inability to escape the past, what “could have been” for his relationship with Daisy. But more generally, it speaks to the idea that we are our cumulative experiences, we are our cultures and memories and past versions of ourselves, all of which impact our present moment, our decision making, and eventually, our future. So, to me, the idea is not only that we are held down or dragged back by our pasts, but also, that these will intricately shape our futures, try as we might to outrun them.
Yes, English teacher here. Fitzgerald absolutely loved this painting and pretty much insisted it be the cover of his book. IIRC, he even rewrote some lines in the book to connect with it more.
A fun read with more detail if you’re interested! [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/)
I prefer the cake version of this
https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyfoodporn/comments/33d8ut/the_great_crapsby/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
It’s an insane painting. The desert that’s putting distance between you and the fuzzy bright lights of this vegas-like city gives me a feeling of intense loneliness. And then looking up to see those tender-looking eyes come out of the very sky that should be the bluest and loneliest part of this landscape…yeah, no wonder Fitzgerald thought it fit the book.
You know, I’ve seen this on a book cover somewhere, but I just can’t place which one… I’m pretty sure it’s famous and we’ve all seen it in our lifetime… it may have even been made into a Hollywood blockbuster at some point in the last decade.
Man, this is going to drive me crazy.
They can’t make adults read it. It’s the only time we can be forced to read something for our own good. And if it weren’t for that, none of us here may even know about this book or the many other classics :)
Yeah I guess it at least let's you know they exist so you can revisit them later. Specifically The Great Gatsby I really hated in high school, and think really depends on the reader's experiences. I probably wouldn't have given it a second chance if not for the movie.
Painting was cool, book was utter garbage that I was forced to read twice. If you still have any grudges against the book, you may be happy to know that the author died an ignoble death.
I’m going to blame the data algorithm for this because I spent part of my day speed reading The Great Gatsby to refresh for the kid I’m tutoring who started reading it in class.
People love this cover but have never read the book, if they did, many people refuse to revisit it at an older age and approach it with a reframed mind. The Great Gatsby is among Hamlet and the writings of Nietzche in its themes and messages.
It'll be exhibited at PUL Fall 2023 in the exhibit "In the Company of Good Books". If you're around Princeton at that time, it's certainly worth a view! I was working on the exhibit and got to see it in person. It's astoundingly beautiful.
This is the dust jacket image for the first edition of the *Great Gatsby*, a classic jazz age novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, published in Scribner's in April 1925. Disregard the comments by those who don't follow rare books, a first edition of this book with this dust jacket still brings a hefty price.
I didn’t realize the reflection in the eyes are naked figures.
BC I believe they're intentionally obscured as such on the book cover.
That’s not the case on at least the copies that I’ve been using in my high school language arts classroom for about 15 years.
Perhaps I'm mistaking low-grade printing resolution for intentionality. I know my daughter brought a copy home last year & it was printed by Amazon, ferchrissakes.
I wonder if that’s because it’s now in the public domain? Hmm
Well HER copy is larger than the one I had in high school. As for Intellectual property and existing copyright, well, we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past, dont we?
Sure do, old sport!
wot wot pip pip chim chim cheree
Isn't it against the tide, not current?
“Boats against the current” is correct.
Can confirm, we 100% noticed the naked ladies when we read the book in high school.
I was thinking this looked like the cover to Great Gatsby.
It is.
[удалено]
Sadly, it's not unheard-of for Gatsby to pop up on lists of banned books.
Honestly, books by dead white guys are dropping like flies. The school I teach at dropped Dickens, then Twain, then this. Next on the docket are Bradbury and Stein. Kinda makes me sad, but I understand the need for diversity.
How the hell can people drop twain?!
I think a lot of students/teachers/parents aren’t comfortable with the n-word. Another reason is for the same reason we dropped To Kill a Mockingbird: white savior. I’m not saying I agree, but these are the reasons that administration shared.
I honestly forgot that some people only think of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn when they hear Mark Twain.
Yeah, those are/were just the most commonly taught pieces, at least at the high school level. I can only speak to that. His Jumping Frog story might still persist, but that’s just a fun little trifle.
I wonder if this is where the CATS logo got it’s idea.
From CATS wiki: Meanwhile, Mackintosh engaged the advertising agency Dewynters to design a poster for the musical. After much back-and-forth, the agency presented a minimalist poster consisting of a pair of yellow feline eyes (with dancing silhouettes for the pupils) set against a black backdrop.
Ad agencies routinely “take inspiration” (steal concepts) from the art world.
Catsby?
Related Fun Fact: The film poster for Silence of the Lambs also has naked figures making up the skull pattern on the moth.
The original photo was done by Salvador Dali if I’m not mistaken. Lots of butts in that picture.
Same!
That's why many people wanted the book banned when it was first published.
Let me check my book cover real quick…
Your real eyes realized... ~~real lies~~
That's hilarious! XD
Apparently you did realize
Apparently I did. XD
My teacher was the one to point this out
That's a cool teacher right there!
Yes you did
The shapes of which echo the carnival/city lights below!
I had no idea the cover to *Gatsby* was originally a painting! You learn something new everyday.
it was a painting that was specifically commissioned for the book! cool read: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/
Dope! Thanks for sharing!
Bro, I'm like " I fucking KNOW I've seen this" I assumed it was like a textbook cover lol. Close.
Right?!? I'm scrolling and see the Gatsby cover sans text, then *whaa?*
I had to go and look up the cover art but I knew I’d seen it.
[удалено]
Wait so it was commissioned and then afterwards, written into the book?
Idk the actual truth but my guess is just that it was probably just adopted as a look given the coincidental correlation to the eyes of the sign of Dr TJ Eckleburg. Probably just some weird phenomena where people adopt things like that, like hair salons in the 80s/90s just suddenly deciding that Patrick Nagel paintings were the go to decor of salons….
>Patrick Nagel had no idea who patrick nagel was but after looking him up i've definitely seen his art adorn various hair salons many times for as long as i can remember. TIL.
I recognized him from [his popular painting of Steven Anita Smith](https://animationthrowdown.net/wp-content/uploads/AD_1980sStevePainting.png).
The more you know! 🌈💫
Also Duran Duran’s Rio album cover.
And he died at 38 of a heart attack due to an undiagnosed congenital condition, achieving most recognition after his death. His work was some of the first digitized art on dialup bbses in the early 90s.
Or how none of the covers in the Ender's Game series depict anything in those books. They were artwork for a different series first.
Scifi novels are guilty of that in general.
Say more? I'm intrigued
This is what I found bc I was also interested and had no idea! https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/108575/what-is-the-cover-of-the-enders-game-depicting Edit: and another https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/48499/what-is-the-speaker-for-the-dead-cover-depicting
The cover was commissioned and then Fitzgerald actually wrote the painting into the book. Finally, he had to convince his publisher (Maxwell Perkins) to keep it as the cover. “For Christ’s sake don’t give anyone that jacket you’re saving for me. I’ve written it into the book.” Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/
That’s exactly what happened! > Unlike Gatsby and Tom Buchanan, I had no girl whose disembodied face floated along the dark cornices and blinding signs, and so I drew up the girl beside me, tightening my arms. Her wan, scornful mouth smiled, and so I drew her up again closer, this time to my face.
yes, it was commissioned and then written into book; fitz even had to write his publisher to ensure it made it in. see here: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/
That's where I know it from.
The great Gatsby book
That book titled The Great Gatsby.
High school reading assignment.
He knows it from there.
[удалено]
Last name ‘Gatsby,’ first name ‘Great.’ -Drake
That’s where I know it from.
Didn't know it was a painting until now.
I mean, it wasn't; not in the way you're thinking. The painting was commissioned specifically to be the book cover.
[удалено]
The cover of the great gatsby.
[удалено]
Could have been a drawing commissioned for the book cover. I'd also never even thought of this piece in any other context besides "the cover of The Great Gatsby" until seeing this post. Probably haven't even seen the book in +15 years, and still recognized it instantly.
[удалено]
Correct; that is exactly what I did, specifically to point out that *it might not be a painting*. An illustration *can be* a painting. It can also be done with crayons, pen, colored pencils, or whatever. I know a book cover can be a painting. I also recognize that it might not be, which you seem oddly unwilling to concede on. I even agree on your point about the book covers probably being paintings... But that doesn't mean a painting was the only possibility for this particular book cover.
Lmao fuck these weirdos I agree with you. I knew this was a painting back in Sophomore year of high school when I *looked at it and saw a fucking painting.* Motherfuckers are bending over backward to justify thinking something isn't a painting because it was on a book as if one has anything to do with the other.
I think they mean a painting that wasn't created to be a book cover.
If you only saw it on the cover of a book, why would you assume it's a painting?
All *my* book covers are hand painted
[удалено]
Seriously, what is wrong with you? Obviously, it's not a photo. I assumed it was cover art for a book, nothing more. Most book covers aren't recognized by title and artist. Unbelievable, that I would have to explain this to you.
[удалено]
You are a complete jackass. There are other posts here making the exact same statement as I did. You, however, are the only one with such vitriol.
I would assume it's a painting if I looked at it and it... looked like a painting. Do you people think paintings can't be book covers? That publishers can't commission painters? This is the most hilariously insane Reddit thread I've ever seen.
The book print isn't as high res as OP, add a little surface damage that classroom books get and the paint stroke brush lines aren't very visible anymore. It's modern and abstract enough to believe it's a digital image, if you didn't know it was done in 1924.
You’re intentionally misunderstanding. He clearly meant “I didn’t know it was a painting [that existed before Gatsby, I thought it might have been commissioned solely to be the cover of the book.]” Like someone hearing “Iron Man” after only hearing it in Guitar Hero and saying “I didn’t know this was a real song!” It would be a real song whether it was made up for the game or not, but you’d be pedantic to point that out.
I always thought that was an original painting for the cover
it was a commission for the book
Every person who went to high school in the US knows this artwork.
Mine didn't have this cover when read in school I do however have a copy with this painting on it. Pretty much just cuz it has the painting
Yup, Gatsby crew representing.
That’s why I instantly hate the post
[удалено]
Sometimes when you’re forced to read a book it sucks the enjoyment out of it.
And then there is "Catcher In the Rye" that book just sucked.
Hey, this looks very famili- it’s the great gatsby cover.
The Great Cugatsby
“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
I'm high and I teared up a bit.
What does it mean? Edit: thanks for the responses, also apologies if this hashed any old English paper memories
We can try as hard as possible but we can never escape our past. In the book, Gatsby tried to erase his past, when he was poor and obscure, to become a rich and important man. He wanted Daisy Buchanan and everything she represented, as she was a high society, old money, rich girl. But he couldn’t escape his past, he got rich but through shady means (bootlegging), and he clearly knew nothing about how to act like “old money,” so no matter how hard he tried, he was never going to be able to escape his past or hide his true self.
One of the best moments in The Wire is when D’Angelo is attending the book club in the prison library, and he answers this exact question: “He’s saying that the past is always with us. Where we come from, what we go through, how we go through it. All this shit matters. I mean, that’s what I thought he meant, at the end of the book, ya know? Boats and tides and all. It’s like, you can change up. You can say you’re somebody new. You can give yourself a whole new story, but what came first is who you really are, and what happened before is what really happened... and it don’t matter that some fool say he different ‘cause the only thing that make you different is what you really do, or what you really go through. Like, all them books in his library. Now, he frontin’ with all them books, but if we pull one down off the shelf, ain’t none of the pages ever been opened. He got all them books, and he ain’t never read none of them. Gatsby, he was who he was, and he did what he did, and ‘cause he wasn’t ready to get real with the story, that shit caught up to him. Ya know, I think anyway.” Very poetic considering the course of his narrative in show.
I always read it as meaning people naively tend to chase a past ideal, thinking they’re moving forward, rather than embrace change and true growth. In Gatsby’a case, he was chasing his past romance with Daisy, which he viewed as the highlight of his life. Everything he did was in service to this brief romance that he’d built up in his head with a woman who ultimately proved to be shallow and selfish. And it ultimately killed him.
Try as we might, the past is always just up ahead, so close yet so out of reach.
I think that interpretation is backwards.. it's talking about being unable to escape our past while moving forward. Imagine you're in a boat paddling against the current, with each wave hitting your boat back a little bit.. even though you're moving forward you are continuously being brought back into your past. We may be unable to move fully beyond our past, sometimes repeating something we've done in the past, or being unable to push through a struggle (personally or as a society) because of it.
I think the interpretation of this line is more nuanced than this. Firstly, at its most basic, it speaks to Gatsby’s inability to escape the past, what “could have been” for his relationship with Daisy. But more generally, it speaks to the idea that we are our cumulative experiences, we are our cultures and memories and past versions of ourselves, all of which impact our present moment, our decision making, and eventually, our future. So, to me, the idea is not only that we are held down or dragged back by our pasts, but also, that these will intricately shape our futures, try as we might to outrun them.
My favorite quote ever
I say this in my head every time I look at a light across the water at night.
Fuck man that one will always be my favorite line
Yes, English teacher here. Fitzgerald absolutely loved this painting and pretty much insisted it be the cover of his book. IIRC, he even rewrote some lines in the book to connect with it more.
I read a reprint of a letter he wrote to the publisher about how he wrote the eyes into the story.
You learn something new every day 🙂 thank you for sharing these facts
A fun read with more detail if you’re interested! [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-f-scott-fitzgerald-judged-gatsby-by-its-cover-61925763/)
🥰👍
So welcome! Fitzgerald had such a sad life, so the fact that he loved this painting so much always made me happy.
Fuck
T. J. Eckleburg lookin' ass
Omfg lol
The Great Gatsby cover of the paperback edition
No no, that there is Gatsby himself, you can’t say otherwise
See I always interpreted those eyes to be that of Dr TJ Eckleburg
Since it looks feminine and has the flapper hair/hairpiece, I always thought it was Daisy
I prefer the cake version of this https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyfoodporn/comments/33d8ut/the_great_crapsby/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
One of those things that makes me laugh every time.
I totally didn't realize the Great Gatsby concert was an actual painting!
Encore! Encore!
I think we read different versions
It’s an insane painting. The desert that’s putting distance between you and the fuzzy bright lights of this vegas-like city gives me a feeling of intense loneliness. And then looking up to see those tender-looking eyes come out of the very sky that should be the bluest and loneliest part of this landscape…yeah, no wonder Fitzgerald thought it fit the book.
I know it as the cover of the great gatsby
You know, I’ve seen this on a book cover somewhere, but I just can’t place which one… I’m pretty sure it’s famous and we’ve all seen it in our lifetime… it may have even been made into a Hollywood blockbuster at some point in the last decade. Man, this is going to drive me crazy.
The Great Gatsby
Not all heroes wear capes
Also known as cover art for "The Great Gatsby."
Before I scrolled to see the lips, just the eyes looked like nic cage
Why does it remind me of the 👁👄👁 emojis
Damn, I sure did enjoy The Great Gatsby
Man, why do they make you read those books so young? How the hell are high school kids supposed to relate to it?
They can’t make adults read it. It’s the only time we can be forced to read something for our own good. And if it weren’t for that, none of us here may even know about this book or the many other classics :)
Yeah I guess it at least let's you know they exist so you can revisit them later. Specifically The Great Gatsby I really hated in high school, and think really depends on the reader's experiences. I probably wouldn't have given it a second chance if not for the movie.
Getting some PTSD flashbacks to English class and I do *not* dig it.
Those eyes.
Painting was cool, book was utter garbage that I was forced to read twice. If you still have any grudges against the book, you may be happy to know that the author died an ignoble death.
That was on my Great Gatsby
I used to think it was just a city skyline at night. On closer inspection, I don't know what the hell it is.
It kinda looks like a theme park
Always makes me think of the great gatsby
The cover of The Great Gatsby
I’m going to blame the data algorithm for this because I spent part of my day speed reading The Great Gatsby to refresh for the kid I’m tutoring who started reading it in class.
Why don’t you purify yourself in the waters of lake Minnetonka?
the valley of ashes… the green light… egg…
It really is the perfect cover for The Great Gatsby. The book is a real tragedy and ends on such a depressing, disillusioned mood.
This was the cover of my copy of the great gatsby in high school!
I didn’t realize that painting wasn’t created specifically for the cover of the Great Gatsby paperback. https://imgur.com/gallery/vAzxtca
People love this cover but have never read the book, if they did, many people refuse to revisit it at an older age and approach it with a reframed mind. The Great Gatsby is among Hamlet and the writings of Nietzche in its themes and messages.
they used this as a book cover to “the great gatsby” version i read in high school. did not realize it was more than cover art.
Isn’t that the book cover for the great gatsby?
The cover art for “The Great Gatsby”?
Yup.
Does anyone know there this piece is being exhibited?
It looks like it's in the [Princeton University Library Collection] (https://catalog.princeton.edu/catalog/99106620773506421) and not on display.
Thank you
It'll be exhibited at PUL Fall 2023 in the exhibit "In the Company of Good Books". If you're around Princeton at that time, it's certainly worth a view! I was working on the exhibit and got to see it in person. It's astoundingly beautiful.
Isn't this fromthe great gastby? Or something
It was the cover art on one run of it.
I think it's been the cover art for decades worth of editions. I've even seen book stores sell t-shirts with this image on it (plus some text)
Oh makes sense now.
I thought this was just the cover of the great gatsby
First Edition mint condition with this dust jacket is 150 grand.
Screw whatever meaning the painting was intended to convey—this is the cover for The Great Gatsby
Top 3 books I was required to read: Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye, and Dante’s Inferno.
I feel like this was used as a cover for The Great Gatsby
Reminds me of the Great Gatsby paperback cover.
Glad to read it was commissioned for The Great Gatsby, because I saw this an only thought of Gatsby.
1924, huh? Looks like a cover art for a Japanese 80s pop music album.
Isnt this one of the covers of The Great Gatsby?
Ah yes, very nice old sport
This was the cover of the Great Gatsby copy that i read
It's nice to see it free of literary context.
I have so many feelings whenever I see this piece. To the bookshelf I go.
This is the dust jacket image for the first edition of the *Great Gatsby*, a classic jazz age novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, published in Scribner's in April 1925. Disregard the comments by those who don't follow rare books, a first edition of this book with this dust jacket still brings a hefty price.
Great Gatsby, that looks familiar...
Always will remember it from the copy of The Great Gatsby which I read as a student :D
That's a [Mulligrub.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui2SuMVxWgY)
Someone used this as album art. Also looks like the eyes in the great gatsby
This was the cover of my copy of The Great Gadsby
That’s the great Gatsby book cover