sorry if i pissed you off (again), jeff. accusing you of theft was never my intention. i was (we were) trying to figure it out. i had my thoughts on it and others had other thoughts on it. i thought it was a nice discussion.
i know you'd never rip off anything or anybody, jeff. you've pointed that out to me that many times...
one of the things that the early surrealists used was the idea that if you put strange and disparate images together into one frame, then the human mind will want to create a relationship between them (they call them 'dream images'). it's part of human nature - we want to build meaning into what we see.
the truth behind this poster image is - like mike said - two squares with some type. however, we want to build in "mouseholes" (modest MOUSE) and 'la puerta' (the seattle experience) etc. etc. in reality it's two squares.
it's the secret strength on sooooo much design. jsut find a vague relationship bewteen image and subject and slop them together and our own minds will build all the meaning desired INTO it.
i've actually experimented directly with this idea - intentionally juxtaposing meaningless images together just to see what folks read into them. quite surprisingly, i've discovered that the reason i CHOSE those supposedly unrelated images was that my own mind was attempting to read meaning into the selection process. it was fascinating - some of my most famous work emerged form that experiment (no i won't tell you which).
in a way it's frank's great strength. he's a closet surrealist...
i don't think that's true. for instance, i was commenting on the factor 27 "bag" poster before this. i don't think i comment on jeff's work all that often.
it's also an area (seattle in general and jeff in particular) that is my personal experience. so, it's what i know. i would be happy to comment on your work, but i don't know it at all. i can comment on my work, but who cares? it ends up sounding stupid. i work best when i can challenge and question other thinkers. it forces mw to use my head and i 'm able to relate my knowledge better. i tend to forget (intentionally) my work (it bores me). jeff's gets commented on a lot, so i once in a while chip in..
now, if you spent more time talking about hank trotter or franko or dennis white or any other 'non-illustrator' stylist, i'd happily chip in, ya know? i know the context there.
again, i think it would be disengenuous (sp) to attempt to analyze that without more information. otherwise it would be idle speculation and even gossip. we would need a stsement of intent to get to the heart.
like, i need to find a la puerta matchbook and scan it and show you. then, we could compare and look at the elements "in dialogue" as opposed to an "echo". i know, for instance that he added that white inline. i thought it was smart. it separates it from the field nicely and completely. interesting.
and to be totally honest - until you pointed it out, the "mousehole" idea never hit me. i've looked at this poster for years and years and it never occured to me that this was a moushole. being from seattle and having interatced with modest mouse (quite a story, there) and the seattle scene and bsk and jeff and 'la puerta' - it just said "look, i copped the la puerta logo. pretty funny, huh?" and that was it. the idea that it represented a cute little mousehole, i never saw it.
besides, i thought mouseholes were curved at the top. at least all the mouseholes in every cartoon i've ever seen. this may be my very first 'squared' mousehole i've ever seen.
over the years, i had the opportunity to jury different design shows (ca, aiga, regionals, etc.) and that's precisely one of the biggest flaws with trying to understand this kind of work. in a jury situation, the context is COMPLETELY removed. all you have is you first impression in total isolation. the result is that the judges constantly go for pretty, pleasing, color, shock value, cleverness, etc. etc. and the work selected is shockingly shallow (we ALL have that complaint). in other words, all the surface value and none of the depth. that's a huge reason why punk graphics were ignored by mainstream design for decades - imagine a punk poster in a design competition - no chance. it may have been brilliant in the extreme, but who could tell?
that's what i've always hoped this forum could rectify. it's a rare place for work to be taken into some larger context - simply because people could actually DISCUSS a piece. unfortunately, this medium is subject to banal surface reactions as well, and such discussion devolve into "i like this and you suck".
so, i wish we would make more of an effort.
and in all honesty, plastk, i don't really care WHAT you LIKE. i want to know what you THINK (and i'm not talking about your OPINION).