Gig Posters

Posters: 161062 | Bands: 139325 | Designers: 11776                 
       RSS Feeds

Username:   Password: 

Social Networking Activity                 

 Bands  Designers  New Arrivals  Top Lists  Forums  Buy Posters  Submit  Merch Store  Advertise  Widgets  Help
The Regency
San Francisco
SquirtSend Squirt a message
2009-08-04 17:51:41
Reel Big Fish
English Beat

Reel Big Fish Poster - The Regency, San Francisco - Firehouse

Registered users can post comments.

You must be logged in to post a comment!
Click Here To Register!

deneyterrioSend deneyterrio a message :   obviously, you're not a golfer   2010-04-29 20:20:15
deneyterrioSend deneyterrio a message :   obviously, you're not a golfer   2010-04-29 18:14:48
necroSend necro a message :   obviously, you're a virgin   2010-04-29 18:10:23
deneyterrioSend deneyterrio a message :   Heaven is a truck   2010-04-29 17:17:58
MrBlonde7Send MrBlonde7 a message :   i miss the mini-tubs of ketchup   2010-04-25 14:27:23
deneyterrioSend deneyterrio a message :   Mmm, Whataburger   2010-04-25 13:36:08
8ballSend 8ball a message :   It's a poster. Get over it.   2010-04-25 03:30:41
perkinsSend perkins a message :   Jeezus Krist. I guarantee Chuck hasn't thought about this in months, and all this hoity toity art puritan BS isn't gonna cause him to lose any sleep. Whether there should have been a photog credit is obviously debatable, but I tend to agree with pretty much everything Jermaine said. I don't know where the notion came from that artists are supposed to be virtuous and have little painted halos over their heads, but it's kinda laughable. I mean for fuck's sake, why not go ahead & jump Warhol's ass while you're at it.   2010-04-05 11:18:10
MasterjonSend Masterjon a message :   nice!   2010-04-04 16:29:38
John ASend John A a message :   After further review I think I'd date the photo and then marry the poster.
I'm not wearing pants.
  2010-04-03 12:12:32
thirteenSend thirteen a message :   All kidding aside, I think people who have this in hand can see the differences a bit better. I'm also curious to see if Chuck will mention anything.   2010-04-03 10:04:48
thirteenSend thirteen a message :   This one instantly reminded me of menstruation, the original photo did not come close. The end.   2010-04-03 10:00:45
Cody PomeroySend Cody Pomeroy a message :   an adoboburger sounds awesome right about now.   2010-04-03 07:22:06
MrBlonde7Send MrBlonde7 a message :   i totally bought that guy's gordon brown art print.   2010-04-02 20:26:26
HrabovskySend Hrabovsky a message :   Incredible illustration. Ubiquitous opinions. Meanwhile in the right column 75% of the classifieds showing are 'work' by that dude from that thread about that stuff where everyone had something to say about that junk.   2010-04-02 17:08:15
philaarts.comSend a message :   rip gigposters   2010-04-02 06:07:35
phoondaddySend phoondaddy a message :   OUI was the best. THEN END.   2010-04-02 05:43:18
jojobadassholeSend jojobadasshole a message :   I prefer when Chuck steals from Juggs or OUI magazine   2010-04-02 05:19:53
soupsandwichSend soupsandwich a message :   blonde mentioned something about jacking it halfway through...   2010-04-02 00:29:14
Dan BlackSend Dan Black a message :   I'm kinda this whole thing, nobody's even mentioned the whole "Reel Big Fish in 2009" problem.   2010-04-02 00:00:49
exxxlonghairSend exxxlonghair a message :   Damn, just stumbled upon this. MFA and all I think I've got to agree with Jermaine. Sometimes you just can't get two nuns to make out for you -so you go looking for a source photo to make sure you get all the angles correct. Then you sit there for hours and meticulously redraw the disturbing scene completely transforming it in the process from photographic nun porn (one form of art) to a completely different form art. It will be really interesting to see what the Firehouse guys think. I agree with Sara that I doubt the photographer will be cool about it because he prob had to spend a shitload of time setting up the shot. But if it was my photo in this particular situation, I'd think it was cool and probably just ask for a couple of copies.   2010-04-01 23:15:22
MrBlonde7Send MrBlonde7 a message :   potato egg and cheese taquito with their picante shit on it = postmodern masterpiece   2010-04-01 23:02:04
bdixSend bdix a message :   I'm about to appropriate a Breakfast on a Bun   2010-04-01 23:00:43
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   bdix: i see what you did there. :) we all know that intellectual property is a slippery slope. comparing it with physical property is apples and oranges, simple as that.   2010-04-01 22:57:08
JermaineSend Jermaine a message :   bobby - 'the man' is never going to give us the 'adobo burger'.   2010-04-01 22:53:20
bdixSend bdix a message :   so stealing my car stereo is fine as long as you don't pawn it?   2010-04-01 22:52:05
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   re: shephard fairey, i think that he should have known better, first and foremost. he's certainly famous enough to know that directly re-appropriating a photograph would not go unnoticed. as i'd mentioned before, it all comes down to who's benefitting financially from whom. if this poster were done for no money, for a small show, that would be one thing. but this is reel big fish in san francisco. i see it as an unfair usage. though the image is redrawn, it is unchanged, aside from digital textures/colors. the gesture, facial expression, all of the things that make the image so striking, are absolutely unchanged.   2010-04-01 22:47:43
bdixSend bdix a message :   Jermaine, shouldn't you be contacting Whataburger about that adobo burger?   2010-04-01 22:46:55
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   jermaine! please forgive my mistyping! i of course was confusing you with john a (because of a small comment you'd made referring to art theory books and professors), but you are calling my folly correctly.   2010-04-01 22:42:25
JermaineSend Jermaine a message :   wow anyone else reading this? i have said nothing negative about academia!
i understand your points. theyre GOOD points. and trust me, i have very strong feelings about art-stealing: ive been ripped off myself a whole bunch. trust me. im just saying that i do not believe that, in this case, the artists are ethically bound to give credit to the original photo. in my opinion, the act of beautifully re-drawing this has systematically altered it's original presentation. Its also noteworthy to remember that 'parody' not only involves the technical aspects of re-appropriating, but also the aesthetics involved. the image is being used in a way that is blatantly different from the purpose for which it was originally intended/crafted. im curious: how do you feel about the Shep Fairey 'Obama' poster? was he wrong/liable/guilty...or is it 'fair use'?
  2010-04-01 22:34:21
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   part of me is just waiting for the firehouse folks to pipe up and say, "hey, i got in touch with the photographer, and he was really stoked about me using his image in this way."
not sure how likely that is, however.
  2010-04-01 22:33:30
JermaineSend Jermaine a message :   jimct...
i wasnt belittling your credentials: as you said, i dont know what they are. i only mentioned that i wanted to know what you really thought about it...your 'laymans' opinion, so to speak. and my potter stewart reference was mentioned as an aside: my question to you reminded me of his remarks. slow down, fella: im not trying to pick a fight. honest.
i do think there was something telling in your response though. you began with, 'I think''s your opinion. and thats great: its the very essence of these artistic debates. EVERYTHING in art (aside from some concrete physical technical aspects) is subjective. the original argument here was whether there was some categorical ethic that dictates that the firehouse guys needed to give a credit for this. i think you make very good points, and yet you wander into deep waters when you address the 'ethics' of an artists decision in a circumstance like this. and again, who determines what is 'generally famous'? i mentioned basil gogos in another poster comment today. do you know who he is? you might. i can introduce you to several professional artists who have no idea who he is. who determines whether an image is famous enough to be fair game. thats my question.
  2010-04-01 22:27:15
JimctSend Jimct a message :   And in order to be "altered enough", the work should introduce a new concept or creativity. I don't think this drawing does, it merely introduces a new medium for the original concept. This is perfectly fine and common, but most artists do give credit when they do this.   2010-04-01 22:24:34
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   i don't think that this has one tiny little thing to do with art academia (which jermaine seems to have a curious and unwavering disdain for). it's about business. firehouse made money off of this design, i presume. have you no respect for your own field (i.e. freelance art/design)? by protecting other artists, photographers included, you protect yourselves. pardon me while i go trace a design that i see on this very site and add a couple of my own textures and a few new colors. you know... really make it "my own." then i'll sell it for money and benefit from someone else's creative abilities. gotta love the internet, huh?   2010-04-01 22:23:47
JimctSend Jimct a message :   And in order to be "altered enough", the work should introduce a new concept or creativity. I don't think this drawing does, it merely introduces a new medium for the original concept. This is perfectly fine and common, but most artists do give credit when they do this.   2010-04-01 22:20:54
JimctSend Jimct a message :   And in order to be "altered enough", the work should introduce a new concept or creativity. I don't think this drawing does, it merely introduces a new medium for the original concept. This is perfectly fine and common, but most artists do give credit when they do this.   2010-04-01 22:19:18
JimctSend Jimct a message :   I think an image has to be generally known as "famous" (your word I believe) for such a straightforward replication to be plausibly defensible. In this case, I don't think that claim can be made, since no one here even realized the "reference" until Sara's friend saw the Vogue issue.
And how can you say my response reminds you of Potter Stewart's before I even gave one? Methinks you doth protest too much.
Also, please don't belittle my credentials/education if you know nothing about them, it just comes across as defensive and nasty.
  2010-04-01 22:16:22
JermaineSend Jermaine a message :   Jimct: 'Acceptable' to whom? And at what point is the image altered 'enough'? Reminds me of Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: 'hard to describe, but I know it when I see it'.
And just how famous does an image have to be for it to be 'fair game' for re-appropriation in this manner. Forget the art-theory that you're learning from your school books and professors: tell me what YOU think.
  2010-04-01 22:08:23
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   i'm certainly no photonerd. i'm a creativity nerd, if anything. whippersnappers and their gatdang love for creativity! we should just rip off others and recycle, recycle, recycle!   2010-04-01 22:00:26
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   i'm certainly no photonerd. i'm a creativity nerd, if anything. whippersnappers and their gatdang love for creativity! we should just rip off others and recycle, recycle, recycle!   2010-04-01 21:57:50
bathroom monkeySend bathroom monkey a message :   young photonerds vs old gigposternerds. this one will be one for the ages.   2010-04-01 21:54:22
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   wow...i have to be honest, i didn't expect your collective feathers to be ruffled in this particular way. i just love fresh ideas. unique ideas, translated into image. is this beautiful? of course it is! is it original? goodness, no. there are some new patterns and textures going on, but the composition, emotion, and overall imagery are taken.
i can understand if you guys are ok with this. i'll just keep it in mind for future experiences on this site. no worries. i wanted to share that i'm not ok with it. silly of me to expect some to be similarly concerned!
john: the imagery is fucktastical, yes. i'm sure that mr. meisel would thank you for the compliment.
  2010-04-01 21:52:42
JimctSend Jimct a message :   Jon A: Yes, us pesky art students and our silly ethical ideas. What does being a student have to do with anything?
Jermaine: This image is not "famous" enough for the "swipe" to be acceptable as you are implying, nor is the image altered enough.
The original photo is someone's art. The conent, content, and composition are unchanged from the original artists rendition, and the only contribution by the "designer" here is the technical skill of drawing, which in my mind is not enough to stand on its own without credit to the photographer. If I were to re-draw a non-famous editorial illustration, and change only the colors and type, that simply would not fly, so why does this?
  2010-04-01 21:49:59
ricv64Send ricv64 a message :   Sara Smile ?   2010-04-01 18:41:32
Young MonsterSend Young Monster a message :   you draw good   2010-04-01 17:08:49
SashSend Sash a message :   this is what they call a "swipe", not a literal trace imo.
cool lookin poster, though
  2010-04-01 16:07:38
John ASend John A a message :   Oh Sara, art student perhaps?
this poster is fucktastical beyond question.
  2010-04-01 15:43:24
john seaburySend john seabury a message :   Tracing is cool.   2010-04-01 15:15:56
bdixSend bdix a message :   just got off the phone with my parole officer from Good Housekeeping   2010-04-01 15:06:19
altieriSend altieri a message :   whoa.   2010-04-01 15:06:02
philaarts.comSend a message :   sup bobby!   2010-04-01 15:04:45
bdixSend bdix a message :   busted by the Vogue police   2010-04-01 15:02:36
philaarts.comSend a message :   (oh)   2010-04-01 14:59:42
MrBlonde7Send MrBlonde7 a message :   SF!   2010-04-01 14:37:21
JermaineSend Jermaine a message :   heh...colorado is beautiful man. but we are moving very soon. we could end up in one of 3 places: staying in colorado is one of those choices.   2010-04-01 14:35:30
MrBlonde7Send MrBlonde7 a message :   You make some good points. I'm glad you're back here posting.
are you moving out of CO yet? that place sucks.
  2010-04-01 14:32:45
JermaineSend Jermaine a message :   Blonde, it is interesting. the difference with Peveto, imo, is that im guessing he wasn't 'illustrating' the image. i think many designers use photographs in a much more explicit way...leaving much of the core elements of an image intact but then manipulating elements to produce an entirely different atmosphere...which takes real smarts. these designer people on this site consistently blow me away and ive come to respect them more and more over the years for the sheer grey-matter that they possess to reinterpret given visual language into something new. for an illustrator not sure the credit is necessary. as i said, the act of illustrating imagery from a photo...adding technical line-style to it...screwing with the colors, etc. is, in itself, very adoptive. i think its up to an illustrator as to whether he wants to give cred to a photo inspiration...but it's not something that he is ethically obliged to do.   2010-04-01 14:28:54
MrBlonde7Send MrBlonde7 a message :   I don't think it was traced. It doesn't look like it.
Still, the idea of crediting the photographer is interesting. Peveto brought up in that plagiarism thread that he found a source image for a poster of his, and rather than jack it, he contacted the photographer - because it wasn't free use - and bought the rights or whatnot. Could have skipped the process, but didn't. but I assume that was a direct incorporation of the photographic image.
If this photo doesn't fall into fair use, then is the illustrator obligated to at least acknowledge the source photo for their drawing/inspiration?
I don't know either. but it would certainly complicate things.
  2010-04-01 14:22:53
JermaineSend Jermaine a message :   btw, 'parody' is an encompassing term...and doesn't have to be poking fun or trivializing the original image. One literary essay says that parody 'is imitation, not always at the expense of the parodied text'. Some have claimed 'parody' in shepard's Obama print that he built off of that photo. the question is did Shepard literally change the original product ENOUGH to really call it that. Here, to me its very clear that enough 'changing' occurred. The very act of re-drawing an image is very intensive in an argument of 're-appropriation'.   2010-04-01 14:21:26
JermaineSend Jermaine a message :   Yea, looked at the photo again...paterns in the sheets and stuff is even different. the entire mood of the imagery is changed in the illo. do you know the technical talent it takes to render the line work just in those legs?
Beautiful drawing.
  2010-04-01 14:14:05
MrBlonde7Send MrBlonde7 a message :   source image and this don't differ a whole heck of a lot.
and this is not "parody."
  2010-04-01 14:12:27
JermaineSend Jermaine a message :   Sara, is this 'traced' or is it DRAWN? Because you're going to find a huge amount of prints here that are re-drawings of a famous image. 'Tracing' is a debasing term...and i dont know, you may be right. But it doesnt look 'traced' to me. 'Parody' allows for intellectual re-appropriation of an image for a different purpose than the original. As far as crediting the photographer...i dont know about that. A big part of me feels that it is not ethically necessary. Still, the older I get the more I realize that Im not sure about many things that the younger, impulsive 'me' was positive about.
Just didnt like that word...'tracing'.
  2010-04-01 14:10:27
MrBlonde7Send MrBlonde7 a message :   ruh roh   2010-04-01 13:29:42
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   hey guys! i was tipped off about this particular image... it sure is great, but it's not original! there should definitely be a credit to the photographer stephen meisel, because he shot this image for vogue:
tracing isn't coooooool everyone!
  2010-04-01 13:16:26
Sara WoodSend Sara Wood a message :   hey guys! i was tipped off about this particular image... it sure is great, but it's not original! there should definitely be a credit to the photographer stephen meisel, because he shot this image for vogue:
tracing isn't coooooool everyone!
  2010-04-01 12:33:49
MEGULASend MEGULA a message :   Nice!   2010-01-10 09:01:41
soupsandwichSend soupsandwich a message :   wow....   2009-11-25 16:12:19
necroSend necro a message :   damn this is nice   2009-11-12 11:29:07
thirteenSend thirteen a message :   All of your stuff from the past 4-5 months would look killer hung up together.   2009-10-16 18:12:43
fredoSend fredo a message :   Keep the kiomono, kid. You earned it. This poster is unreal.   2009-08-31 14:17:37
el JefeSend el Jefe a message :   got mine in the mail yesterday. truly stunning   2009-08-28 07:23:23
VIRAL_graphicsSend VIRAL_graphics a message :   wow.   2009-08-19 17:39:50
marshhouseSend marshhouse a message :   Whoa.
What a beauty.
  2009-08-15 03:55:32
Barry ObamaSend Barry Obama a message :   menses rampant   2009-08-07 15:12:33
Steve ChanksSend Steve Chanks a message :   oh lord   2009-08-07 12:48:00
ken taylorSend ken taylor a message :   wow - thats beautiful!   2009-08-05 18:47:11
ricv64Send ricv64 a message :   the guy from the english beat said ," the thing with san francisco is posters , it was those orange and purple ones ......"   2009-08-05 18:15:26
talibanSend taliban a message :   gorgeous - I love all of the patterns and the colors are amazing!   2009-08-05 17:51:57
john seaburySend john seabury a message :   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   2009-08-05 16:00:10
DirkStainlySend DirkStainly a message :   So beautiful...should be here in a few days.   2009-08-05 15:37:27
ZOMICSend ZOMIC a message :   reminds me of Gustav Klimt's "The Kiss"...least the color pattern....very unique   2009-08-05 15:33:51
MrBlonde7Send MrBlonde7 a message :   YES.   2009-08-05 15:30:01
jjwebsteSend jjwebste a message :   awesome   2009-08-05 15:17:21
getoutoftheleftlaneSend getoutoftheleftlane a message :   good stuff   2009-08-05 14:29:13
 0         0                  
BB Code for forums:
  HTML for websites:


Who's Online

 MaxillusSend Maxillus a message, mikeageSend mikeage a message, and 168 guests.