This doesn't make sense to leave this here but oh well - everyone misses the point on Carson. His brilliance was in the fact that he had terrible photos (or none at all) and content and decided to connect with an audience through style. Perhaps in one of the boldest manners possible he made something out of nothing and managed to get a beach and surf culture jazzed about a magazine that no one gave a damn about before.
By the time he took it to Raygun it got a little weird as big time photographers and writers and illustrators were not as keen to having their images manipulated. Some of the best illustrators in thw world have never been so pissed.
The point is: many of you are working jobs without great content but the hopes of making an impact. Don't cop Carson's style but do latch on to his intent. If you are doing a crap newsletter jazz it up with your own images and illos and take visual chances. Remember that Carson's style was appropriate to his niche audience originally - it just didn't translate as well outside of the surfers. Find a style that fits what you are trying to convey and then push it.
Don't worry Zach - it is trendy to hate Carson now. It's just that everyone does it for the wrong reasons.
I made a post on the boards about this but I will do it here too. Even if Rauschenberg made a poster that was for a show I think it would still have to be appropriate to that show. If it isn't, it's still art. Like David Carson. Good artist, confused designer.
Couldn't you draw the line of fine art vs. graphic design by the intent of the art/design? To me the nature of a "Graphic Designer" is to be presented with a spatial, conceptual, colour problem and through iterations present the solution. Ideally the client and designer are both pleased with the outcome. A "Fine Artist" can start with a blank canvas and have absolutely no need to ever come up with a solution. They could simply "create." Whether it make sense graphically, solves a problem or not is inconsequential. It's what makes the artist satisfied and to hell with everyone else.
While fine art can be an element of the graphic solution I don't see how a Graphic Design can be considered in itself as traditional fine art. It may be fine and poster design in my book is certainly a form of art but not a Van Gough by any means. Rauschenberg for example is considered a fine art artist. He screen prints, lithos, etc. He has small and large editions. Are they Fine Art? I'd say yes. But what if he has a design that ultimately has "Recent works at SFMOMA April 1 - 30 sponsored by AIGA" as an element of the print? Is it still fine art or has someone, even Robert himself, taken what was fine art and created an advertisement? It's an advertisement at this point.
Jermaine's or Harry Irene's illustrations by themselves are just that. Pieces of illustrated art. If Jermaine's Schatzi Luna poster had no text then you have a picture of a cute little girl in a field. Possibly he painted it for the daughter's parents to frame and hang in the den. In actuality it was created with the intent to advertise that specific show. Thus it's a graphic design using scanned artwork and not fine art. Same with this Ryan Adams. With no info you have a very nice image of the Brooklyn Bridge. Once the info was added it's now a graphic design that advertises the show.
Makes sense to me but what do I know I started out as a ceramics major.
Hey smile- sometimes when you have a wall of very "postery" posters, the oddball stands out. I've seen the excess of empty space thing work great on the street. As the eye passes over a bunch of posters, it says "poster... poster... poster... wait, what the hell is that?" You go in for a better look and the poster-maker's mission is accomplished.
What is actually being debated here? This poster is NOT fine art. Fine art is used solely for the expression and ideas about and for the artist creating it. This poster is about Ryan Adams. We're quite flattered that fine art is being debated under the context of this poster but, c'mon, this is commmunication. It is appropriate for Ryan Adams and the necessary information (albeit small at this size) is present and accounted for. What more is there to discuss?
well duh.. of course dr j and cheeks.. i didnt want to be a homeboy. but now that i can.. fucking moses malone!
but as for fine art and gigposters. i think you can do both. some of these images. ie chavez, elrod and others were fine art, then type was used to make it a poster..
the whole point of art is to be freeform without constraints
OK, I can work with that answer, vib.
What if the intent of a fine art piece made as a limited edition IS to sell for commercial gain? Is it still not a commercial endeavor because it's not selling anything other than the print itself?
I guess what I'm trying to do is understand exactly how other people/designers define the terms.
If the intention is to communicate something outside of what the original painting intended (like the promotion of the band) it becomes an element of the design. The image then exists on two planes but the meaning is signified by its context.
Chuck Taylors and basketball? Nice one Philly! And don't forget Mo Cheeks and the good Dr.!
PM. yer on the right track. The difference as Gooch is pointing out, civily, is intent. Fine Art has no commercial intent, it can be co-opted after the fact and be utilized to 'sell' something. AND in turn Graphic Design can be taken out of context and hung in a museum. but the difference isn't the hows, it's intent.
there HAS to be a difference, in terms of intelligent conversation about the history of both, the current trends of both and the future of both.
to respond to the chuck taylors.
nah... what you thinkin!! i think of larry bird, magic johnson.. converse to me is basketball..
but thank god we have explanations with posters
just pullin yer chain! :lol:
Thanks for the civil answer, Gooch... :-)
I do consider it graphic design. But a fine art piece can be used as an element of graphic design, right? That is possible by adding type or other components... am I thinking in the right direction here?
PM, would the band name be part of the fine art piece? Or would the band name be in context to something--say, an album cover or a poster?
If you can answer that you, you already know the answer to your first question.
I agree with AA. And by knowing their catalogue very well It's obvious they put a lot of thought into their work. To me thought and concept are the same thing. Whether the design is highly complex or very simple. I hate to keep dragging our Breeders poster into this but it is an extremely simple poster. However that doesn't mean no thought or conceptualization went into it. on the contrary. Everyone who is familiar with the Breeders knows those girls are slobs. Chuck Taylor's , to me , are the epitome of slacker shoe wear. In fact odds are in favor of catching Kim or Kelly with a pair on. So simple concept but thought out to relay what the band is about. Picture the same print with a pair of red pumps. Total failure is what that would be.
okay,thats fine.of course thought goes a long way.i agree with you on that point and i don't have a problem with conceptual art,i just have a bit of trouble figuring out where the boundaries between "design" and "art" exist,it seems to me that some guys like to make things more complicated than they really are,(and i don't necessarily mean you chachi,i'm just speaking generally)like the PM has said,design is art;the two are only seperated by pedantry! :lol:
"You know? A little thought goes a long way..." sorry if theres a misunderstanding here,i just took what u said about concept and thought as saying that people who aren't conceptualising aren't putting any thought into their work.
chachi i agree with you,but why is there so much of an assumption that artists who aren't "designers" as such,don't think about what they're doing? theres only a finite amount of space on the paper ur working on and those of us who aren't consciously looking for a concept before we start the poster,still have to fill the same piece of paper.how do u think that happens if we don't think about it?!
cool. i love ryan adams.
just by reading other posts people are huge on concept-getting paid-so this seemed to contradict.
thanks for the response. i was directing the pissed answer to the dude who thinks you cant speak for yourself. ;-)
yes.i was responding to the other guy who implied that since i dont have posters on this site, then i shouldnt ask questions.
my main thought was that there is alot of neg space and the type is so small-how can it help. and you answered that.
whats the concept of the poster?
also the whole "have to get paid thing" i dont agree. sometimes an artist might be alot better off selling and not getting a fee.
ex. you get 500 for a show. the end.
you do a print run of 200, sell at 20 bux each, thats 4,000 bux. i think that is SMART.
i dont know if its helping your portfolio or not. i have read earlier posts and werent you one of the people saying you had to get paid-and if not-its hurting the industry?
as for noticing it-i saw it because it was under "Ryan adams" who i like.
next time i wont bother asking a question. i was sincere. buh bye. i dont want to hurt feelings. :cry:
Well, just like our breeders poster, a nice image can draw a viewer in from a distance so that they read smaller type upon coming closer, but since you don't design this concept might just be over your head
oh and also reading older posts-they are big on concept. so i was asking a question. i was sincere and said no disrespect to the artist in my first post. so i was asking why so much unused space and why so small type to ADVERTISE.
first off. reading the posts aa and others made a point that they do get paid and not to get paid hurts the industry of designers. if im wrong about that im sorry.
second. i didnt know i had to do gigposters to make comments. hmmm. i should follow the rules. my bad. great advertising poster! genius. what do i know :lol:
Smile - I know the factor27 group does posters for FREE and I believe the AA guys do too. And, if the client and audience of he band likes it that is a succesful poster. You don't have to understand it for it to be a good poster. By the way, where are your posters? Being the simple critique I would love to check what you have to offer.
AA - it is another one of my favs that you have done. You and I both know we do posters because it is a thrill and we will never make our money back from the cost of doing them. Thank god for web design *big smile*
so this is a gigposter?
has the date-i can squint it out.
but 80% negative space? a bridge and a name?
being objective here no disrespect-but how does this really help anyone except your own portfolio and wallet?
oh - c'mon, stop already. this is the best poster i've seen in the last 6 months. one of my favorite things is white ink on colored stock... (i hope i'm right about that) again i have no idea who ryan adams is (i'm 30 going on 68 - and the furthest thing from 'hip' or 'groovy' or whatever you kids say these days...) but you gotta love it.