i didnt say it was authoritative nor do i agree with much of it, just seemed relevant. Or maybe interesting was a better word. I think there's very little thats authoritative in terms of arguments on art and design, i guess thats why so much is referred to as theory. I find Wiki pages interesting though, the way opinions on them shift, the way they are constructed.
well, i find some details i disagree with in the wiki-def.
as for for the "art" , it reminds me of keith herzick (drunk, maybe). actually, it doesn't look like keith's work at all.
but, if this was printed up and posted like benc sez, then, whoa! good'n, dood. it's one twisted poster you got there.
I found this quote on Wikipedia that seemed relevant. ‘A poster is any piece of printed paper designed to be attached to a wall or vertical surface. Typically posters include both textual and graphic elements, although they may be either wholly graphical or wholly textual. Posters are designed to be eye-catching and convey information. They are a frequent tool of advertisers, propagandists, protestors and other groups trying to communicate a message. Posters are also used for reproductions of artwork. They may be about a particular subject for educational purposes. Posters may be any dimension.’ (Accessed June ’08). Tis edited down to the bits i liked.
Not sure i agree with the vertically hung bit mind...
well, i gotta question whether this is a poster at all or is it a scribble on a napkin scanned and submitted as if it was a legit poster.
can anybody tell me whether this was a real poster?
is any image a poster if you just say it's a poster? or does it have to be "posted" in multiples? where is the line?