i think it would be really wonderful if these were nailed to telephone poles as is. try to imagine what it would look like - books nailed to telephone poles, a big ol' spike sticking out of the midle of it. hilarious.
clay's definition of what is an eligible gigposter is that it has to have a band, a date, and a place. a lot of posters (like political posters or ornametal posters) don't even have that. clay's definition gets to be pretty vague in application. there are some posters here that were completely illegible. many were not intended to advertise anything, but be sold at the event as a souvenir. many were done as a one-off or 'retroactively' or as 'art prints'or paintings even total frauds. they are all within his working definition of a gigposter.
now, i've always operated with a definition of what a poster 'is' (i never realized it until i looked at this book/thing). one rule is that it has to be a legitimate advert or political commentary of some sort (even as a joke or decorative poster). that's the only way to seperate it from a painting.
another rule for me is: it has to be used in some form (or 'danced' as the art matrons say) as a real poster (aka - "posted" somewhere). that means it has to be something that can be hung on a wall (and actually has been). these are two rules i discovered i worked with. however, every poster i do is an attempt to test and challenge rules, but these rules for me have become unbreakable and still be what i consider a poster.
now, these books things are a direct challenge to those rules i made for myself. so, i need to ask - is this a poster? or is it a novelty advertising object (like a frisbee or a pen?) now, i've done a poster that was printed on a t-shirt and it generally failed as a poster because the rules of what posters are (at that time) would nopt allow the users (the public) to understand it was not a tshirt. even when it was hung on a telephone pole, it was a tshirt, not a poster. it was just too impossible to see it as anything else. people took them off and wore them. they said "hey, cool tshirt!" is this book thing the same situation?
also, i have to point out that living within clay's rules of gigposter definition, i literally COULD write the band/date/place on the palm of my hand and call it a gigposter and it would be allowable.
all very confusing and i thank stinkbait for bringing up the challenge. i live for this stuff.
that's not very fair. i love these things - i'd love to own one, in fact. i think stinkbait is a brilliant designer all around. but, part of the intention , part of the point of the novelty of this thing is to provoke the boundaries of what constitutes a poster.
stinkbait brought the challenge to the table when he did this thing. to ignore it would disappoint the intention of the piece. i say, he insists we discuss it. why do this otherwise?
i dunno. there is a point where gimmicky ideas destroy the point of the piece. i felt the same way about that flaming lips "header card package" thing factor 27 did a while back. a lot of emeck's novelty printing ideas really push the edge as well. i suppose if i put a sticket on a table, it's automatically a brilliant poster, simply because i declare it a poster? or, what? duchamp's efforts aside, where does this idea reach the point of pointlessness? when you silkscreen a poster image on a car (for a band like, say, the cars?)???
now, i know i've pushed these definitions in my own work rather religiously. once, when i had entered a copy of my metal bullethole teengenerate poster and my plastic vacuum-formed nirvana poster in a poster exhibit, the judge (in this case paula scher) declared them "not posters" and eliminated them from judging (but not the show). so, the responses are definitely mixed all a round.
these are beautiful objects, but whether or not they are posters anymore is an open question for discussion.
by the way, that photo is by rex rystedt. he was one of the really great early photographers at the rocket. later he went pro and even did stuff for big corporate accounts like rolling stone. but, when he took these photos he was a ticket taker at the old paramount theater when it was still a rock club. he got great backstage photos of patti smith and bryan ferry and blondie and the pretenders an even a young bruce speringsteen (before he hit it big). so, he has a really incredible portfolio to exploit. sadly, he never has. it's just all buried in his files somewhere.
people always brag up the austin scene and how intense and "rockin" it was. just beacuse seattle later got famous, everybody tends to dismiss the early years. but shows like this were going on ALL THE TIME. it was pretty fucking great. the 80's in seattle were claustrophoibic and nowhere, but it had some of the greatest shows i've ever seen.