yeah, I can dig that....I have these three silkscreened posters for a play in Wellington. They were pretty sloppily thrown together and one of them was rained on, so the ink is running down the front of it. Though inintentional, I find this to be quite a nice effect. So much so that I've had these on my wall since moving back to the states. Meanwhile I have a couple of coop prints gathering dust in my closet..so yeah, I see what you mean.
i used to have one for a 1970's talking heads show (grushkin published it in 'art of rock vol. 1" - it's the one with the wheelchair kids shooting guns) and i had a beauty for an old cramps london show (gave it to a mad cramps collector). both were some of the coolest posters i've ever owned. so, i might disagree with a couple of the things you stated, cody. i tend to really like things that were intended for use that have accidently asthetic qualities much more than things that are intended as artistic relections of individual muse.
I agree Art, It was kinda the same way when I was in New Zealand. Huge posters wheatpasted on everything that wasn't covered with something else. Not really collectible, nor editioned. They served a purpose and if you wanted one you either had to;
a. ask the guy pasting them to give you one.
b. carefully peel the poster off the wall.
I have a few ripped wheatpasted posters that I tried to pull off a wall while more than a little drunk. Point is, over there they're more for advertisement purposes than to be pinned to a wall. Hoinestly, if I saw this in hot pink and 6 feet wide on the wall of a building it would catch my attention. Though I don't think it would make me want to go to the show.
since we're both here this morning, i think i want to take a moment to clarify what i said (and you seem to have misunderstood). i said that what they europeans do is very interesting and cool looking and it's something we could learn from. i've always felt that the way they use posters is closer to the original source of intent on HOW they were to be used and is something we all should be interested in.
as for making money, rest assured they make money with posters. designers who do posters in europe are very respected as artists and are actually PAID a LOT of $$ to simply design them (not print, distribute and physically hawk door to door via the internet or at shows or whatever). being a bad printer and a VERY bad salesman, but a damn good designer, i think their approach to this stuff sounds pretty good. i would much prefer to paid well to do what i do best (my time and labor and experience really should be worth something) and not reimbursed for what i can hustle selling my output after the fact for what i can get folks to pay.
there's nothing inherently wrong with the gigposter approach, but it's a lot of work that i'm not good at. if i wanted to sell art prints, i would have become a printmaker.
So is Art saying that our way is wrong since we have to catch up to them by doing bad design, really big?
I think big, dumb, and cheap already IS the American way.
I also think doing anything creative in exchange for cash beats cleaning toilets for cash.
i posted all of these lame looking things because i thought you folks might be interested in them. back in 1980 i moved to london (it didn't last long - they wised up and kickd my ass out). this is what postering looked like in london in the immediate post-punk era. imagine these things blown up HUGE (5-6 feet wide, 3-4 feet tall) printed on dayglo paper (orange, pink, green, yellow) and wheatpasted on any free surface in multiples. there were entire sections of london that were literally blanketed with them. the design looked terrible (i assume these were all done by some hack house ad agency) but the way they were used was awesome.
that's the difference between postering in europe (the birthplace of the modern poster) and the u.s. we do these little things and sell them as art. over there they knock out these HUGE crappy things and wallpaper the town. always been that way. we got some catching up yo do...