interesting point art, regarding the 'used' condition of posters. i know i always try to obtain my posters off the street... for me it has to do with the poster fulfilling it's function, the regionalism, and the pleasure i get from trying to rip them down without totally obliterating it, while people give me dirty looks (it's not common here to rip posters down to collect).
i heard von dutch 'trucker' caps cost like $70 up here. that is sooo fuct on so many levels. mainstream fashion is such a goofy pursuit... it's so watered down by the time it hits the cover of rolling stone it SHOULD be embarrassing, but i think those folks are beyond that...
the bulk or rare punk poster art exists only as photocopy. so, how to you assess value and rarity if any photocopy is as legit as an original photocopy?
this thought turns upsidedown the notion that pristine condition is desirable, because th eonly way one can ever discern the "originalness" of the piece is by whether is was actually used at the time. - aka - beat up (they call it "danced" in the museum biz). otherwise, there's no way to tell whether it's a rewal original or not.
that's why i like my old posters to be used posters. beat up posters with tape and pinholes and creosote stains be worth MORE eventually, because they were real posters, not contemporary photocopies.
leave it to the punks to fuck things up...
i meant ones made back when a batch were physically made to promote the gig... i have seen knockoffs, and to be honest, im going by the cred of the person who makes sense he would have access to it... as he has had authentic ones in the past.
i know basic ways to tell if something is vintage, but the more specific markers i dont have enough knowledge to make a real accurate statement.
also, newer bootlegs are out there.. if you just want the image, go cheap... im a stupid collector.
so, no one has answered my questions regarding the collectibility of photocopied flyers. **philarts -- when you say you are trying to track down 'vintage' stuff... is this old photocopies, or new photocopies made from originals? are they worth anything? and how can you tell if something is 'original'?
i think his wishes to keep this stuff unpublished should stand... but we have (a fraction of) it up here to peruse. the von dutch debacle horrifies me...
well his 'old crap' was actually interesting and had context in a vital if short lived cultural 'scene' of importance (sort of).
his new 'art' is pretty crappy...and ONLY sells because of his previous contextually important work.
so hes full of shit if he thinks his old stuff is unimportant.
I went to see this one pettibone show where all he did was draw on baseball cards and glue em on the wall.
i love pettibones stuff.. im working on getting some vintage stuff myself.
but even if his wishes arent what we want as a fan, they should be respected.
id like to see a book too.. but is fucking lame to do something against his wishes when he croaks.
Seriously, just because he hatesthis stuff doesn't mean that it isn't fucking awesome and
why shouldn't future generations
have a chance to be inspired by seeing them all in one place, although looking at the drawings in the gatefold of Double Nickles while listening gives me the ultimate viewing (and listening) pleasure.
to be honest, if he doesnt want it now.. i would actually hope that it never gets done. alive or dead.
heck art you have mentioned how von dutch would roll over in his grave if he saw what was happening now with his stuff.
reid miles absolutley HATED his covers for blue note. we had to wait until he died before anybody attempted to put together a decent published collection. yet, it was probably one of the best and most powerful design campaignes of the last half of the century. profoundly impactful stuff.
i think pettibon(e)'s work fits the same bill. i hope we don't have to wait as lon as we did wirth miles.
boy, that would be MY arguement - in spades!
why hasn't there been a book of his flyer work put together? it would be so easy because they are so many posters and they all exist in b&w photocopy, anyway. i'd pay good money for a publsihed collection of his punk flyers...
fuckin' yanks is right!
i was pointing it out because the name on the flyer is different from the name the flyer's listed under. we do the same for incorrect band names, no? if this is to be the ultimate gigposter archive, we'll need some order around here dammit!
pettibon(e) is a really big name in the art world now, doing images remarkable similar, but more obtuse then, these posters. he's had one-man exhibits in major museums and has been shown in the whitney and the museum of modern art. i assume he's in the collections of all of the big institutions. very high level career. he's doing extremely well.
and, yup, he's greg ginn's brother (or something), so far as i know. and i think "pettibon(e)" is some sort of family name.
but he totally dismisses these posters as crap.
i've read in interviews that pettibon(e) has pretty much disowned this era of his work. in fact, he claims to have not kept samples or made even mental note of how many he did or for who.
so, maybe he spells his name different now as well? i know it's not his real name, so who am i to challenge the spelling listed on the site list?
i just went along with the standard already set in this case.
sorry if you think it makes me look, well, i guess i really don't know why you are pointing any of this out. am i an asshole for not spelling his name the way you think i should?
I held one of these once-- not this one, but a Pettibon...
Some aging punker had given a stack of old xeroxed fliers to a high school friend of mine because he "looked the part" (he was actually an obnoxious rich snot). I went to school the next day, and he'd pasted it to the cover of his fucking notebook.
I still haven't gotten over it. This is why I am such a tremendous dork.
well, they are signed 'pettibone' so they should probably be posted under that, no?
weren't the originals photocopies as well? i had always thought they were... what's the deal with that anyway? if you have an old 'vintage' flyer that was photocopied, and 15 years later photocopy it again, does that copy retain the 'value' of the 'original'?? any thoughts?
that's the way his name is already listed here. i just added my samples to the pile.
somebody told me that he dropped the "e". i don't know what the hell is going on. i always thought it was "pettibone", too.
anybody know what the situation really is?
oh, and these were too small to add to the jermaine/chantry project. they're only 8 1/2 x 11. besides they're only photocopies of the originals. the owner wouldn't part with them.