as an further note, the same thing is happening in reverse right now. when that big "fucked up and photocopied" book was published, there were sections on all of the great punk posters scenes. but there was no seattle. there were only a couple of seattle posters scattered around in the whole book. anybody who could see the stuff on this sight or even saw my little book could plainly see that seattle did, indeed, have a great punk poster scene and deserved to be recognized - especially in a book that had coverage of the "great punk postr scenes" in boise and portland and vancouver (washington, not bc)! but, there was no seattle represented.
my theory is that at that point in time the seattle backlash was in full effect. seattle became complete poison to hipsters for a long time, still is to a lot of real hip dorks. i think that seattle was so 'uncool' at the time that book was pout together that it was ignored as 'not REAL punk". now, that's stupid because it had as punk a scene as anybody, it just got (fairly or unfairly) famous. it's not the scene's fault and it shouldn't be penalized for it. but there was no seattle section.
and i KNOW those authors of that "fucked up" saw my book, because they subtitled it with my "instant littler" phrase. so the exclusion was intentional.
so, as a result, nowadays when they write scholarly treatises on punk graphics out there in academic circles, that "fucked up and photcopied" book is a primarly reference tool. belsito's book has been re-issued and is available. bannde in dc' is easy to pick up. last gasp has sevral books on the la scene. london and nyc are exhgaustively documented. but my little book is impossible to get, so seattle is not being included int eh official history of punk at this moment in time.
it's how history works. those who write it control it. it's not real, honest. none of it.
the influence of stuff like frank mentions is EXTREMELY important to what happened later. seattle had it's equivalent, as did (obviously) larger cities.
what i like about how this stuff developed was that it really did seem to appear all over the world almost instantaneously. like it was just dying for a spark and WHAM there it was everywhere seething and punking.
i used to think there had to have been a primarly source, that all of this stuff had emerged from one scene or one person. but the deeper i looked , the more obvious it was that there was no primarly source of all of this (there was no 'von dutch'). this whole culture kinda grew out of a general zeitgeist or one general level of disatisfaction with the staus quo all over everywhere all at once.
well, if you only concentrate on one band or artist or region, you can do that same trick with any history you want. for instance, you can easily do it with the butthole surfers' poster history.
the problem with writing history is that you direct the viewer and the shared sense of history follows automatically.
when i did my 'instant litter' book, there were other punk poster histories that were either in progress or had been done. i basically based my book on peter belsito's 'street art' about san francisco punkposters. seattles' poster history back then really didn't hold a candle to punk poster scenes in places like ny or london or detroit or los angeles or (especially) san francisco, whcih had an especially great history of the stuff way earlier than most anywhere else.
but what happened was , when people began to write about punk rock and punk art and graphics, suddenly, seattle was mentioned up there alongside the great early scenes - even though seattle didn't really have a 'great early scene'. the difference was that my book made it visible in a way that other scenes didn't have. in fact, belsito's book went out of print about the time mine made it's strongest impact on the scene. the reult was that san francisco began to get excluded from punk poster history when people began to write about it, even thoguh sf had one of the most important scenes ever. to this day, seattle is often ranked as a place where punk postering was born (at least among historians) simply because they have my book and they don't have belsito's. it's really strange, but it's how it works. i realised that i had created history by just putting the book out. now, seattle is important even though it really didn't rate it and san francisco was less important simply becaue nobody bothered to look any deeper in their "research" and found any more.
howcum dc's punk poster scene isn't considered primal? it ranks among the most intense and most important in the u.s., but it never gets mentioned. or detroit? or even boston?
so, my point is that no matter what aomr writes up, it will be deeply flawed (as any history is) and must be viewed with that sense of the reality. it will only be an introduction to this stuff - just like his first book was with the psych posters.
and yes, the lips had a great series of posters over the years, but so did sonic youth, the u-men, destroy all monsters, the cramps and the buttholes surfers. and there are many great undsicovered arenas of this stuff that no one has ever bothered to document, yet. jsut keep digging.
by the way, it was cigar smoke. during that period of time hank trotter and i really got into cigars. i was smokinbg up to 7 a day. the building management came down on our ass because the other tenants complained. mind you, this was a building that was originally a horse stable. whenever it rained it stank of old, old horses. and we STILL managed to out-stink the neighbors. heh.