Metropolis 13 Dye

New topics are added by clicking the "Add Comment" link on an art entry. Off-topic posts may be purged.
Forum rules
• Posts in this forum should directly relate to the artist, art, or artwork.
• Do not post ISOs or FS/Ts in this forum section. Please use the Open Market section of the EB forums for all secondary (resale) market activity.
• Do not post details of your order process, shipping status, or condition upon arrival in this forum section. Please use the item's Release Discussion thread for this activity.
User avatar
tranito
Art Expert
Posts: 7989
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Canada

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?
Kramerica wrote:There are a ton of really nice people who come across as complete dickheads on EB.
User avatar
bert
Art Expert
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:36 pm

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.
User avatar
wonkabars7
Art Expert
Posts: 6964
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:13 pm

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.
User avatar
tranito
Art Expert
Posts: 7989
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Canada

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'' :lol:
You're a funny guy.
Kramerica wrote:There are a ton of really nice people who come across as complete dickheads on EB.
User avatar
wonkabars7
Art Expert
Posts: 6964
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:13 pm

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.
User avatar
bert
Art Expert
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:36 pm

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'' :lol: 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?
User avatar
wonkabars7
Art Expert
Posts: 6964
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:13 pm

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.
User avatar
wonkabars7
Art Expert
Posts: 6964
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:13 pm

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
:lame: :spam: :help: :imwifstupid:
User avatar
wonkabars7
Art Expert
Posts: 6964
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 2:13 pm

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
:lame: :spam: :help: :imwifstupid:

Really its all those things :lol:

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...
User avatar
dylansdad
Art Expert
Posts: 7043
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 11:21 am

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
LORD KINGSHIT
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:00 am

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...
User avatar
dylansdad
Art Expert
Posts: 7043
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 11:21 am

Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:52 pm

Image
User avatar
maddoghoek100
Art Expert
Posts: 2893
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:03 am
Location: NYC

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
LORD KINGSHIT
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:00 am

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.
User avatar
maddoghoek100
Art Expert
Posts: 2893
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:03 am
Location: NYC

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.
Post Reply