It would be interesting. You know me Jermaine I rarely comment on stuff unless it's praise but to me Concept is extremely important. Top of my criteria under colour type and layout. You can have those three and have a great piece but if you go that extra bit and tie in concept you do it for me. Not to gang up on Garbo but I do see where the crit came from just won't see me starting it or rarely chiming in. This discussion just intrigued me. See my angle on the proper use of appropriated images? May be mine alone but I'm sure you get my point.
Id like to talk to that Garbo guy...if he aint terrified to come on here.
Cause this is the first time Ive EVER heard artists who do a lot of reappropriation stress the importance of 'intent'.
Id like to see what his 'intent' was.
Jamie wrote: "Can anyone tell WHY they did something, or is it 'just cuz its cool man.'"
I can honestly say for almost every one of our pieces that I can tell you why it looks like it does. Almost. Some are just trying to look cool. In talking to Aesthetic a bunch and seeing their comments I bet they can too.
I do see a difference in working Art's poster to how it turned out vs. dropping text on a famous image. Little thought seems to have gone into the Garbo piece. Art explained the correlation of this image to Dead Moon. I think that is the difference. Maybe the artist can explain why Garbo was used. Maybe it has some deeper than surface ties to the bands. Given it's Jerry Lee Lewis I doubt it but only the artist can answer that.
I think that is the argument of appropriation in this context. Hell I just copped a picture of Elvis and manipulated it. Fit the event perfect was I wrong to do so? Maybe but I can explain exactly why I choose to adapt it. Very few artists here are always 100% clean. Your pulling inspiration from somewhere and repurposing it. I would say if it has zero to do with the event or artist then you should really think about the imagery you are about to show the world here or anywhere. It may just look cool and be very successful I don't think the Garbo poster works on that level and I understand the crit.
Jsheehan, youre really right. I honestly dont know from time to time when one is joking or serious...when someone is being 'friendly' sarcastic...and one 'wants a fight' sarcastic. I know my words have been hard to interpret, too.
I really dont want to fight on here. LOTS of the folks on here know me personally. Weve talked...hung out. I really, truly dont have the time to fight. Not to sound bad...but Ive just got SO much I can be doing...and I dont have time to jack around on an internet forum board. But I like to talk...even debate, with my collegues. Im VERY direct: if I am not pleased, you wont have to guess.
That being said, I dont see the difference between this and the Garbo image. Even if its redrawn, its original concept wasnt Art's. Is that bad? NO! Im not arguing that. I think I was one of the first illustrator-geared artists on this site to openly and repeatedly embrace the 'designer' styles. Check the posts. I LOVE this stuff.
BUT, I DO think its hypocritical of Art to slag, say, the Garbo illo guy. Let me ask, if the guy took the photo and ran it through a bunch of photoshop filters- altering it, is it OK then? Is that similar to you redrawing this image?
You keep saying that I dont understand what youre talking about. Stop looking for an argument and maybe explain to me what youre talking about.
Ya know what, sarcasm or seriousness just ain't a good place for emails or chats is it? Ya can't really tell what anyone is saying. And while its all fine line between stealing, copycatting, etc why don't we all look at CONTEXT for a minute. Half the stuff on this site doesn't appear to have any. At least this does. Can anyone tell WHY they did something, or is it "just cuz its cool man." I'll start the ball rolling by adding it to the discussions. Think about it ya'll.
Uh.... Art is not helping my case with this poster. Let me say that I know he strives for not using an image directly. But I wasnt familiar with this image being so directly translated. My point remains...
And, Jermaine, plagerism is never laughable. Its never something to just accept. Thats called apathy and its shit.
No problem, Jermaine, though I dont know if I'll make it back tonight... and you may want to work on your sarcasm if this is just a discussion.
I completely understand the issue of someone hating to see their work collaged. As a photographer, I hate the idea. But there's several considerations. I believe in Art and Communication first. Straight appropriation (say, if this poster was a straight rip off of a movie poster) is pretty 'fuck you' to the originator. Collage and reworking, though, is putting imagery into a new context, giving it new meaning. There's an exciting message in these things done well. Most folks dont do that. Most folks seem to hack together 'cool' flyers (or whatever). And that's the real problem with soooo much of the work on this site. I'm publicly dissing those people and their practices. Its pathetic. On the other hand, I'm not gonna rip into each of them individually, cuz I hope that they are just beginning to explore design. That they'll grow out of it through experimentation. (Many wont.)
As far as the problem of where we get our imagery to collage, that's the real crux. I do a lot of flyer work that requires the reworking of an original image. Usually not something I've had the opportunity to photograph myself, or (frankly) can draw, etc. Maybe I am a shithole for using it. (I sure dont dare to credit the sources, however manipulated, in this age of lawsuit.) Ethically, I dont see any problems in recontextualizing an image. In true collage, etc. I think that if I saw my work used in that way somewhere else it'd bother me but it would really just be pride. Not legitimate, legal issue.
If I made the monster in Art's poster here, well, I want a copy, but it isnt the point of the poster and it isnt my work that defines the overall appeal of Art's ouvere (fancy talk...sp?). And Dead Moon dont market themselves off the image, etc... Its just an emotive, descriptive collage.
So, my short philosophy is, yes I think it does matter to you as the original image maker if its used with 40 other images in a collage. Yer probably still gonna let pride get ya a bit, but your heart (and the court) will know it isnt the selling point. The body of work you slaved over (hopefully) has been slaved over further into a new Frankenstein's monster of a peice.
...And, frankly, we'll probably see the abolishment of most copyright issues in the future. Photoshop has taken leaps in just a coupla years. We cant fathom how easy images will be manipulated (and in what sense) in coming years.
corretcion - it was not a film poster. it was an admat i clipped when i was 12 years old. i sent it to something weird and they published it in their catalog. sinister cinema published it, too. it came out of the tacoma news tribune in the mid sixties and i've always loved it. it was 2" x 3". when i say i re-drew it, i'm not kidding around. my drawing happens to look just like that ad! amazing, huh? instead of drawing a kitty cat i drew an old monster movie ad. go figger.
i repeat, jermaine -
you do not nderstand what i'm talking about, do you?
now, please explain what this poster has to do with the garbo image, the findlay image, the arbus image, the tery jones image, or the robert johnson poster? is mine the same as theirs? if so, how? do you see anything not similar? or do you only see a picture?
it's been redrawn somewhat - about 30% maybe. it's been blown out on xerox and relettered to look the part. i chose it because it was halloween with dead moon and they ARE the living intense dead. and i've always loved this image - which i believe was by ron cobb (if jermaine had ever bothered to read any of my posts on this poster). furthermore, i see this poster as a failure, because the image is so directly taken - it wasn't altered enough to fit my criteria. so, i have rejected this poster as little more than an exercise, not my 'real' work.
now, exactly how does this poster relate to that greta garbo image, that virgil findlay image. that diane arbus image or even that robert johnson poster?
My last post said:
" This is a question.
Ive gotta jet, but Ill be back at around 10:00 PM (Houston time)...please retuen here if youd like to continue this. Its a good discussion....I think."
Art, if you took this is 'I dont wanna discuss I just wanna win the 'fight'...man, WHATever.
Like I said, if you wanna discuss it, Ill be back at 10pm CST.
If not dude, hugs & kisses.
This particular image wasn't a collage was it Art? It's pretty much intact the way it originaly appeared? I'm just asking. Not attacking. I really am not sure. I just thought I had seen it looking pretty much like this somewhere else.
jermaine - after reading your last post, i guess you just want to 'win the fight' and not discuss anything. you think that pointing out a percieved (alas, misunderstood) hypocrisy on my part makes you the moral superior righteous dude you always strive to be. well, forget it. the point here is to talk openy about the crap on this site, not me. but if you want i can easily turn the discussion into an attack on you if you want. it's easy. is that what you want. martyrdom?
I was only offering an opinion. Clearly it has been mistook for a gloved-slap to the face.
This is discussion. Right? Very calm, pleasant and friendly.
I will say this Jacob...if I was the artist/photographer that created/took the image that art used with 40 others in a collage...should I be any less upset? 'Collage' makes it different? If Im the creator of a certain image, I see the collage and ZOOM in on MY image. Art's 'intent' doesnt matter to me...if it's MY work.
This is a question.
Ive gotta jet, but Ill be back at around 10:00 PM (Houston time)...please retuen here if youd like to continue this. Its a good discussion....I think.
jermain, my love -
what i'm doing with these comments on various posters (and on my own thanks to your little attck) is simply to kick start a discussion. there is a lot of copyright violation, a lot of theft, a lot of fraud, a lot of plagarism, a lot of styleistic copycatting, a lot of prifiteering, a lot of truly bad stuff on this site masquerading as "art" by "artists". i think it's time we all discuss this. like i said, i ofetn look at this site and start laughing at the ludicrousness of it. and many of you have told me the same thing. many of you have privately told me that they think there's a lot of ripping going on here on many many levels. and i mean a LOT of you have privately told me these same things, but don't have the guts to say it on site.
so, i guess i get to be the asshole again and force a talk? or can you folks start to be honest here?
I dont like stepping up to a useless argument, but you really do have to be kidding. The difference between appropriation and collage vs theft has been covered extensively by every armchair artist, University, and court in the land. Everyone who knows Art's work knows he collages shit you wouldnt even imagine was collaged. The monster's face may be 12 different monster faces. It sure as hell aint just one big (famous) photo with type dropped over it.
Art is surly, Art can be a bit much. But put yourself in his place as a man who is treated like he's Godhead. Its fucked up. But he's also a flat-out trailblazer who's survived shit none of us have begun to encounter. That aint just a cliche, its true. And he'll say that others came before him in the same way. So criticize the work with a fair approach... even if he comes with barrels blasting. Call him on his shit, but not on his work. If it were no 'difference' he'd be long in jail.
Me? This isnt my favorite poster. My only real complaint is that the white is so glaring on the band names that it detracts from the smooth and elaborate composition.
Just pointing out that the poster practices that you seemed to be crucifying are first cousins of your own. Like this one: Dead Moon.
Wonder what poor, schlock ad cat who designed this movie movie poster would think of your 'appropriation'?
Im sure in the small print at the bottom you DID give the guy credit...
But, you mentioned that you realize this. Just ironic, dontcha think?
s my comments are offen only 'thi is cool'
it's cuz i really like the poster in question and i'm not very smart. :-(
hope the sp posters don't make anyone laught too hard.
ifeel really shy havin' em up.
man this is all so bleh
back to printing in tears.
i admit it and discuss it and ultimately reject my own work. i'm not trying to trick anybody. and what i choose to take is altered and adapted and editorially chosen "approriately" as in 'appropriation'. it's a process of discovery which this only remains as an artifact.
do you even understand anything that i'm trying to point out here, jermaine? do youy? don't you get a little annoyed at all the fraud and lies and crap being tossed around this site while eveybody ignorantly goes "good work, mate" and "wow, that is sooo cool, dude"? sometimes i look at this site and start laughing.
i LOVE famous monsters. harry chester (the original art director and crazed letter of monster type) is one of my all-time favorite art directors. when i started mining fm for images, nobody in the music world knew shit about it. you could get copies of the early issues for $1 (now they're in the hundreds) and james warren came back from the dead and suing everybody. he doesn't own the rights to most of that stuff, but he sues anyway. luckily, i didn't do any direct lifting. i followed my 'rules of appropriation" and did well. estrus and i introduced the monster aestheic into the label and before you know it, everybody was on board. it looked really cool out there for awhile, but then it got all tired and burned out (like all these little fad things). i still treasure my collection of old monster mags, though. i still look and learn from ol' harry chester.
i'll bet house industries doesn't even know who harry chester is. they sell these 'monster fonts' and yet, they don't even know the source material.
Man. I bought an old Monster magazine off of Ebay a couple months ago and there were sooooo many cool images in it. I was scared to use any of them because they all looked so familiar...more than like because of Mr.Chantry.
this seems to be what so many other people TRY to do but fail at coz it gets laid out with emulator fonts on a computer. man that art looks so degraded...and are those photos of the band squeezed in above the tombstone?
I like the tagline at the top...Dead Moon is old as hell!