ART PRINT:
MOVIE POSTER:
Another great poster year.
Art o' the Year 2015
-
BackToTheFutureFan
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:00 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
this!ClaytonHopper wrote:Why not? It's a Cinema poster. Only difference between galleries and Priavte commissions is sometimes galliers actually have official licenses rights. Besides that it's no different. A private commisision approaches an artist just like Mondo would and pays them similar if not more actually. Doesn't matter how you get there, at the end of the day it's a 'Cinema' poster.bubbie wrote:^ I really do not understand why they are even included in the cinema category.
Thats why I picked only prints that I've seen in person. For me, commissioning is not about geting something, everybody else hasn't (like it is with every limited product by the way) but more about geting something, you really want to be created and being part of the process and communication with the artist. And of course commissioned work adds to the artist's fame ... look how Hanuka, Greg Ruth or Ise Ananphada display their commissioned work at twitter next to their "official" work. It's not as exclusive, as you think. There are a lot commission groups who look for members all the time. There are just a few you don't have a chance to enter like Elite 10 and though I'd really like to have some of their commissioned prints, I respect, that they commissioned some amazing pieces of popcultural art.1000steps wrote:Now imagine never having seen many of the 2015 commissions in person, and trying to compare jpegs of the commissions to the awesome stuff you have seen.Libertine wrote:I can say that I have seen all of them in person and they were the best in their categories in my opinion.
I understand how fun it is to have something no one else has, and to try to milk it for whatever treasure you can.
But the tiny commissions are good for the owners, not the artists. Those images could have added a great deal to an artist's fame - if only more people could own them and see them in person.
But I'm butt hurt. That's all.
th Circle * 
-
brettlv5506
- Art Connoisseur
- Posts: 912
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:52 pm
- Location: Texas
Movie:
Gig:
Art:
Gig:
Art:
Eh, I defend the whole private commission thing, but they REALLY ought not be compared. It's not fair to compare the circumstances for a private commission based on, say, Terminator or Back to the Future, with actual licensed work for it...where likeness rights and studio approval are always going to create limitations with which a private commission doesn't have to deal. I'd argue that how you get there matters in these circumstances...I mean, a screenprint and a giclee are, at the end of the day, just pieces of paper with ink on them, but clearly a bunch of us care about how that ink is laid down...Libertine wrote:this!ClaytonHopper wrote:Why not? It's a Cinema poster. Only difference between galleries and Priavte commissions is sometimes galliers actually have official licenses rights. Besides that it's no different. A private commisision approaches an artist just like Mondo would and pays them similar if not more actually. Doesn't matter how you get there, at the end of the day it's a 'Cinema' poster.bubbie wrote:^ I really do not understand why they are even included in the cinema category.
Last edited by jkw3000 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
35mmpaul wrote:We are addicted to things that hurt our butts.
-
63schoeffling
- Art Expert
- Posts: 8253
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:52 am
Eh, a poster is a poster. If it's good, it's good. If it sucks ass, it sucks ass. Private or not.
Exactly this. Those under license are working with one arm tied in many circumstances (at least it is safe to assume so). Clearly it is not fair.jkw3000 wrote:Eh, I defend the whole private commission thing, but they REALLY ought not be compared. It's not fair to compare the circumstances for a private commission based on, say, Terminator or Back to the Future, with actual licensed work for it...where likeness rights and studio approval are always going to create limitations with which a private commission doesn't have to deal.Libertine wrote:this!ClaytonHopper wrote:Why not? It's a Cinema poster. Only difference between galleries and Priavte commissions is sometimes galliers actually have official licenses rights. Besides that it's no different. A private commisision approaches an artist just like Mondo would and pays them similar if not more actually. Doesn't matter how you get there, at the end of the day it's a 'Cinema' poster.bubbie wrote:^ I really do not understand why they are even included in the cinema category.
There is a reason that in racing, for example, they have specific restrictions for every division/category; and sometimes, there is a division where no such restrictions exist. They all compete in their appropriate divisions, in spite of operating essentially the same vehicles.63schoeffling wrote:Eh, a poster is a poster. If it's good, it's good. If it sucks ass, it sucks ass. Private or not.
-
ClaytonHopper
- Art Expert
- Posts: 1533
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:57 pm
Good points made on how we judge and rate art based on Likeness rights and the "official" tag. It shouldn't be that way here but that discussion is a weekly occurrence when something new is released. Maybe it is time for EB to evolve next year and have a Private Commission category as they happen just as much as gallery releases nowadays. Then people could vote on what they commissioned in that category instead of everyone doing it in all the other category's. 
-
bloodthrust
- Art Expert
- Posts: 2280
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: The OC brah.
turnJBup wrote:Nah, EB has evolved enough.
Time for non-Movie Geeks to start their own site?
Perkins wrote:Hmm. Art with rules. Doesn't sound like all that great of an idea to me.
mistersmith wrote:It's Pearl Jam. You could poop on a piece of French Paper and write "Pearl Jam" in it with your finger and have a decent shot at AoTW.
