again, i dislike the idea of 'grades' as we conventionally think of them. i see much more potential in a 'scale' complete with basic areas of concern to all of us (concept and craft).
it also allows people a basic foothold into the activity of ANALYSIS. when we have to split away concept from craft and vice versa, we have basepoints from which we can look at things and begin to explore our reactions and opinions.
reactions and opinions are BASED on stuff. what is the STUFF?
i wish i hadn't used a 'grade' in there. that's really unfair in the long run. i put that A- as a way for the reader to relate a familiar 'level'. what i really wanted to propose is a sliding numeric scale split into two major areas of concern.
dspring - i agree with you on the simple fact that this is intentionally disposable art. that is the nature of "commercial art" as we defined in our culture.
but that is EXACTLY what fascinates me about this stuff - the realization that AFTER it's function is over (i.e. the show has happened, the product is sold, many years have gone by and it's initial meaning is lost), it still EXISTS in front of you. it's no longer a functial piece,and it's technically not art 9as we ahve decided to define 'art' in our culture), so what IS it? it's THAT basic concept that is the underlying thread in everything i do.
my personal solution is to view these things as "cultural artifacts" (keep in mind i wanted to be an archaeologist when i was a kid). these posters are the artistis remains of our civilization. i hope that 100 years from now, my work id institutionaized in a museum as a piece of this era. it's a remnant of another lost culture.
a lot of my work has already reached that territory (remember 'grunge').
i don't do 'art" , i do 'artifacts'. at least that's my view on this.
fair enough. but. please note, i'm not talking about "right and wrong" here. i'm trying to asses fairly what turned out to be a difficult discussion about a poster that seemed to challenge a lot of us. obviously there is no 'right and wrong' to any of it.
do you think my "scale" is a fair way to asses posters? would it be possible to use (expanded or otherwise) the scale in order to have some sort of conversational way to analyze posters for our discussions?
the thing that keeps dragging me back to this site is the opportunity to have thoughtful discussions with my peers - something that i used to have in seattle and no longer have in st. louis.
unfortunately, this site has a long history of clever one-liners and smartass remarks substituting for discussion (as do all websites to some degree). basically, poster designers seem to have lousy manners. ok, but let's try to look past that and develop a dialog. let's actually TALK about these poster things we make and discuss different ideas about them. resorting to name-calling is very very small-minded. it's also addicting.