So would it be possible for me to say that this is a crappy design (personally to me) while you can say that this is one of the best designed gigposters on this site and we're both right? Is this the same 'discussion' or dilemma that goes on when one discusses good art versus bad art?
i don't think that if ur affected by a poster it necessarily means its good. u might just think its a piece of shit so how does that make it good?? however i think this poster's great, the drawing on the face is as close to real art as it gets.
It's about craft vs. sponteneity, hard edges vs. soft curves, art vs. life and how each of these affects the other. Combining, clashing, and building on each other. Open your mind just a little bit and you may find that the striking image that you don't "like" may be the best design you've ever seen. This poster got to you against your will--that's GREAT design!
yeah, yeah so it looks a bit like bjork's vesptertine album. i'm sure it looks like somethng sagmeister swiped from somewhere too. big deal. i love when anonymous people post shit like that on the day they registered.
i like the cropped edge, its like the calm amongst the storm, take klimt's paintings for example, where u've got a whole canvas of swirly patterns and shapes and in amongst it are perfectly rendered faces and people; i like that juxtaposition (man) and the words on this poster aren't difficult to read in the slightest. i agree with mr piemel in that i don't like scribbles either, but those aren't scribbles, they look more like spontaneous doodles with an evolving plan of action, thumbs up.
I haven't read the whole thread, but the first thing I thought when I stopped by the site today was..."What a cool fucking poster!" Wish I had done it. Then I saw Art Chantry also likes it and I thought, "Fucker, now people are gonna think I'm just echoing what he's saying." But, I'm not. This poster is super cool. The only beef I have is with the hard rectangular edge to the foto. Tits up on this one!
the photo isn't complicated. the linework is. especially in it's relation to the photo. the relationships help create dynamics in this design. you don't have to be a designer to experience that. personally, i don't think that this poster is unearthly, but it is well done. i like it better than any of the other stuff i've seen poster children do which look a lot like ft. thunder stuff (to me at least). your opinions are valid. there's nothing wrong with not liking it.
I'll try to think about it :)
I have never been a great fan of posters where I can barely read the who what where and why. Unless it is done with great 'art' skill like SOME of the old fillmore style posters. The way I perceive this poster is a nice picture with very sloppy and not interesting scribbles over it with little thought of what to put where. I don't 'get' the design in this one, except perhaps the section with the eyes and nose. Even then I would have preferred a more delicate design or perhaps more variety in line thickness. Maybe some big fat lines and section completely covered in red?? I dont like the fact that the picture is square and cropped but the graphics are plastered on it/over it. If the idea behind a good designed poster is to create a 'what the hell??' reaction I guess this poster works but I just dont like it. I 'get' that the type/style of drawing is related to the topic/person of the picture but again I would have preferred somemore skillfull drawing. I dont think that the linedrawing is enhancing the picture as is; its a great B&W picture.I wouldnt call it 'complicated' as gunsho did. Again, I can see the CLASH but that is just not interesting to me nor do I (personally) think that gigposters should have a clash to make them a great gigposter. In my mind some 'clash' style posters work and some don't. This just doesnt do it for me. Again I am not a designer so perhaps I just dont understand the boldness or creativity behind this design.
in my opinion, this poster is good because it combines simplicity (black, red, and white) with a complicated visual-style (the lettering and drawing), and manages to do so very sucessfully. the black and white photo adds depth to to composition and the flatness of the red lines both define and manage to draw the image behind it back towards the eye. it creates a good tension that is interesting to look at. additionally, from a historical persective, i think the illustrative-style matches the context of the time period that the photo seems to be taken from while at the same time creating more tension because of it's modern simplicity.
piemel - don't look at it as a picture or an image or a drawing. look at it as a design. look at it as a printing process with attitude. think of the immediacy of it's statement and impact. think of it's attitude. think of it's clash.
maybe you shouldn't think about it at all - just respond. the fact you don't like it is an enormous clue as to what's going on with this poster. think about it for awhile.
Hmmmmm, I really dont like this poster. Nice black & white picture with RED crappy drawing over it. As I said earlier I don't get it (not that I need to). I am not a designer or artist but there a loads of people here screaming that this is a great poster. WHY? Dammit, someone explain me why this print is so good in their opinion.
If this were a perfect world, this would be printed offset onto a large sheet of natural textured cover-weight, image size 16" or so high with at least 6 or 7" of negative space. It rules even if it's a color copy from the Ye Olde Kopy Shacke.