I think artists and designers tend to defend everybody's art except photographers and film makers. There, I think it's taken advantage of a little bit. I've certainly been guilty of it in the past.
Poor old photography.
as a matter of fact we concluded last time that it was okay to use famous pics if its relevant to the gig and not okay if its not relevant didn't we? but hang on, who has the right to lynch people who use irrelevant famous photos when they can get away with using relevant famous photos? it doesn't make it any more "correct" in the eyes of god and the holy ego, it just makes the poster better, right? so therefore anyone who uses famous pics that aren't relevant to the band are just bad poster designers, idiots, or people who just don't give a fuck and just want to advertise some gig. so basically, posters are indeed, all about the art. yes?
okay i see the connection but, its still a famous image and i just don't see how it can be okay to use a famous image if its suitable, and not okay to use one, if its not. i'm not talking about the aesthetics of poster making i'm talking about usage of famous photo's full stop. i don't have a problem with it personally i just think there seems to be one rule for some and another rule for others, i don't mean anyone in particular im just generalizing. if this picture of johnny thunderbird were relevant to the band then it would therefore be kosha and cool, rather than heinous and lame by virtue of not having any relevance?
theres no connection between the image and the band name.
on the woofman poster there was that connection. also it contained a concise political barb...which rather eludes me as the simile is a stretch. perhaps Clintons predatory sexual nature that is his wild man image is cleverly mirrored as is his pop culture status as a loveable monster with that of the wolfman?
yea i know what u mean, i think ern considered adding fonts on a computer constitutes designing the flyer, after all it was he who found the original drawing and put it all together, its really no different from what many of us have been guilty of in the past; its only cos its a current illustrator thats been ripped off that theres been such a fuss about it, which is fair enough.
Harry - Notice that no one is listed as the designer on this poster. Somebody used an eyecatching image to draw attention to a show. Nothing wrong with that. My basic peeve about this whole thing is Ern listing himself as designer when it obviously wasn't his stuff.
p.s.
I don't really want to lynch him. It's all the peer pressure from the rednecks around Houston that make me talk that way. ;)
frumpster's comments here basically ask what i was gonna ask, is this bad because the "designer" blatantly didn't come up with this photo of troy tempest or whoever he is, they all look the same to me those puppets, but does this designer deserve to be lynched, as we've kinda decided the other guy should or is this okay, or what?
Now I gotta ask...is this appropiation or outright copyright infringment? Wheres the line drawn... this topic is soo blurred in here I kinda dunno which is which really. Any advice for when I wanna get my hands mucky on an old Stingray Puppet doing nasties with a barbie doll while ken and GI Joe film it poster while wearing spandex fluro bike shorts and bad Afro wigs?... just asking :)
Registered users can post comments.
You must be logged in to post a comment!
Click Here To Register!