i disagree with you a little bit, there che - i DISlike this poster for all of the reason i listed.
this poster represents everything i hate about the wonderful world of rock posters. it's an obsessive badly executed psuedo artprint masquerading as a legitimate alt-punk poster. it's attitude is cheezy and childish and elitist and speaks to no one but other cheezy elitist rock poster nerds. it ISN'T more artistic because the illustrator did what he wanted. he's not a strong enough editorialist or artist to pull off what he attempted. if anything it speaks to no one but himself and that is NOT a functioning definition of anything - especially not ART or DESIGN.
the problem here is that everybody on this site seem to think it's so important to be considered and artist - to the point of excluding "people who don't draw" as if cartooning is a superior form of creativity or something. it's ok to do this and not be an artist. in fact i think it's better when non-artists do it. this is first and formost a form of language/communication among the disenfranchised socio/economic groups that live in this subculture of alt-rock. what you say to EVERYONE and HOW YOU SAY IT is EVERYTHING!!!. expressing yer personal antagonism at fellow "artists" is nothing.
the bottom line is that THIS IS NOT ART. this is a design/language that pre-dates art - even pre-dates the written word. if you need to say something in this medium, say it. don't expect anybody to give a shit unless it speaks to them on a cultural level. this poster doesn't cut on that level.
besides - it was made to sell. that makes it an print, not aposter.
i think everyone would benefit from a rabid discussion on what it is everyone is actually doing. what the hell is this stuff - once and for all.
then kick some butt. we could do some amazing things...
well... the point i'd like to make here is that this runs smack dab into the whole conundrum of rocl posters. is this an ad? an art print? an editorial cartoon? a doodle blown up and presented as advertising? does that make it clip art? is a cartoon panel disquised as a poster? is it for sale (first) and for advetrtising (second)? does that make it an artprint? or a poster? does the band or the promoter have legal rights to the money? the image? just what the hell is this thing.
for my money it's a bad and obscure editorial cartoon blown up like clip art with a whole lotta color dumped on it (to make it look commercial) to be sold as a souvenir at rock shows like an art print. i doubt i'll ever see one of these with a staple hole in it. therefore, it's not a poster (by my definition of a poster), but an art print. a poster is an ad that has actual short term function as advertising. the fact that it is sold aftermarket as an artifact shoul have no bearing on it's definition.
rock posters a a huge grey area legally, culturally, aesthetically, socially, and philosphically. they are a corruption of the punk ethos - they make all of us hacks in the worst sense of the term. the only true posters on this sight - the only posters with any integrity as posters are the old b&w punk items that had actual function of communication among a subculture i might include the other early psych/boxing/concert posters as well. since the advent of kozik these things are a perversion.