Metropolis 13 Dye

tranito · Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:48 am

bert wrote:It's not exactly original art..

Did you mean it's exactly the opposite of original art or did you mean it's not exactly a bootleg?

bert · Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:04 pm

tranito wrote:
bert wrote:It's not exactly original art..
Did you mean it's exactly the opposite of original art or did you mean it's not exactly a bootleg?

I meant exactly what I typed. I think of it as a good looking commercial reprint.

wonkabars7 · Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:06 pm

bert wrote:
tranito wrote:
bert wrote:It's not exactly original art..
Did you mean it's exactly the opposite of original art or did you mean it's not exactly a bootleg?
I meant exactly what I typed. I think of it as a good looking commercial reprint.

But its part of an art show and sold as an 'inspired' piece.

I don't care if the 'bootleg' bit is transcribed at the bottom...unless full rights were given, an artist/gallery shouldn't be allowed to sell it.

tranito · Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:14 pm

bert wrote:
tranito wrote:
bert wrote:It's not exactly original art..
Did you mean it's exactly the opposite of original art or did you mean it's not exactly a bootleg?
I meant exactly what I typed. I think of it as a good looking commercial reprint.

Oh you really meant ''it's not exactly original art'' as in ''it's somewhat close to or can relate to original art''

You're a funny guy.

wonkabars7 · Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:18 pm

unomasmoi wrote: Alert the authorities if you're so worried

Yeah, good idea...I will alert the local police to check this thread and hope they send a cease and desist letter to the gallery.

I'll be sure to tell them about coleslaw when I get them on the line too.

bert · Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:23 pm

tranito wrote:Oh you really meant ''it's not exactly original art'' as in ''it's somewhat close to or can relate to original art'' You're a funny guy.

Again, I meant what I typed! I don’t understand your post. Perhaps there’s some misunderstanding here with English colloquialisms. When I say “it’s not exactly original art”, it’s a humorous way of saying that it’s obviously not original art.

wonkabars7 wrote:But its part of an art show and sold as an 'inspired' piece.

I don't care if the 'bootleg' bit is transcribed at the bottom...unless full rights were given, an artist/gallery shouldn't be allowed to sell it.

Yes, calling it 'inspired' is certainly pushing things! But what about companies like allposters.com that sell reprints of thousands of original film posters including this? Does this cross the line because it's sold at a gallery?

wonkabars7 · Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:30 pm

Good point with AllPosters.

Places like AllPosters and MovieGoods pay a license fee to reproduce the EXACT image for commercial use. They make their $ in sheer volume of sales, for people who don't care about collectibility or value, but simply want an image...a housewife wants a photo of a cat in a tea cup and a Monet print for her bathroom, or a kid wants a Star Wars repop for his dorm wall.

MovieGoods was actually sued by Disney recently because they sold prints of their material unauthorized.

In the case of this Metropolis, they are adding the 'bootleg' tounge-in-cheek lingo at the bottom, which is altering an original image (as minute as it seems) without an agreement, as well as changing the medium (screen print vs. a second hand print that is mass produced) which is actually a big deal.

wonkabars7 · Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:31 pm

unomasmoi wrote:No line crossed, this is far superior to a cheap reprint. It's screened! I want both and I'm pretty sure I could sell the fudge out of them

wonkabars7 · Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:38 pm

unomasmoi wrote:
wonkabars7 wrote:
unomasmoi wrote:No line crossed, this is far superior to a cheap reprint. It's screened! I want both and I'm pretty sure I could sell the fudge out of them

Really its all those things

Someone would buy this at 2-3 times cost with a little patience I have no doubt

Good luck to ya man.

I would recommend both getting outside and doing some laundry, when your paper hawking schedule permits...

dylansdad · Mon Feb 18, 2013 12:41 pm

Let's get a bootleg of Fairey's Obama poster. The AP won't know who to sue first.

danieldanger · Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:48 pm

wonkabars7 wrote: The Han Solo card is maybe more ridiculous as there is no way Lucas/Disney (or even Topps) approved it.

see, the Han Solo print actually makes some sense to me. it violates copyrights like WOAH but on an "Art" level, the intent (keeping in mind the secret to 'what is art?' is 'intent') was to take something that specifically was not art (an old crumbled trading card), and printing it with a traditional printmaking method into a piece that you would hang on your wall. its re-contextualizing the items original purpose into a new visual/aesthetical purpose. its a little Lichtenstein'ian, its a little Sucklord'ian, its a little beat into the ground. but i get it.

however, its not recontextualizing in an artistic sense if youre taking the art of a beautiful and historic movie poster you cant sell, and making a lesser version of that poster that you can sell. sure, it clearly says "this is a bootleg", but if its a bootleg, it was made to be merchandise and it belongs in spencer gifts or on collegedormposters.com and not in a gallery show of creative works.

unomasmoi wrote:No line crossed, this is far superior to a cheap reprint. It's screened!

is it? i havent seen this print in person, nor have i seen how it was separated for screenprinting, but the original poster is a lithograph. that is to say it was printed with a method capable of much fuller tonal ranges with very specific and organic gradients of the era. screenprinting does not print full tonal, it prints in a very binary manner: all ink or no ink, nothing in-between, and in a resolution not nearly as good as lithography is capable of. in order to print a full tonal lithograph as a screenprint, you have to simplify the tonality and detail of the image to meet the limitations of screenprinting, via halftones, mezzotinting, layering, etc etc. ie: modifying the original image, losing and altering tonal information. combine all that with the probable notion that the source image used for this bootleg was probably a medium res jpg downloaded off google, already subject to third party changes and image degradation, what you end up with is something thats no longer fully represents the craft of the original piece. youre not actually looking at Schulz-Neudamm's tones and lines, youre looking at a jpg of those tones and lines run through a photoshop filter to make them simpler for a simpler printing method. so... superior?

ART TALK, everyone...

dylansdad · Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:52 pm

maddoghoek100 · Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:57 pm

not to thread jack, but ISO dan danger screen printing class in brooklyn this summer

may 11th???

danieldanger wrote: is it? i havent seen this print in person, nor have i seen how it was separated for screenprinting, but the original poster is a lithograph. that is to say it was printed with a method capable of much fuller tonal ranges with very specific and organic gradients of the era. screenprinting does not print full tonal, it prints in a very binary manner: all ink or no ink, nothing in-between, and in a resolution not nearly as good as lithography is capable of. in order to print a full tonal lithograph as a screenprint, you have to simplify the tonality and detail of the image to meet the limitations of screenprinting, via halftones, mezzotinting, layering, etc etc. ie: modifying the original image, losing and altering tonal information. combine all that with the probable notion that the source image used for this bootleg was probably a medium res jpg downloaded off google, already subject to third party changes and image degradation, what you end up with is something thats no longer fully represents the craft of the original piece. youre not actually looking at Schulz-Neudamm's tones and lines, youre looking at a jpg of those tones and lines run through a photoshop filter to make them simpler for a simpler printing method. so... superior?

ART TALK, everyone...

danieldanger · Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:27 pm

a 3 hour lecture where i just bitch about something i saw on the internet that day, take occasional breaks to text jensen about friday night lights, and in the last 15 minutes try and explain proper trapping.

maddoghoek100 · Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:38 pm

so your saying there is a chance
-option 2 you could take us through the process on one of the prints for the CCM show, but i would sign up for either i suppose.

On the Metropolis topic, i would agree that this doesn't feel like it has brought anything new to the table that justifies the price or makes this new or interesting.

danieldanger wrote:a 3 hour lecture where i just bitch about something i saw on the internet that day, take occasional breaks to text jensen about friday night lights, and in the last 15 minutes try and explain proper trapping.