I just don't get the allure of Stout's floating head images....is that in depth enough for this thread??
barneycantankerous wrote:ts;dr needs to be longer.
jjttdw wrote:I just don't get the allure of Stout's floating head images for movie posters. next poster, change colors and head position then rinse and repeat. Can someone point me a Stout non-floating head movie poster image for me to consider?? ....is that in depth enough for this thread??
ok, I fixed it.
Heh, but headed in the right direction. Are we talking strictly floating heads, or just any imagery from a movie? I think Alien
and maybe Let the Right One In
are the closest you’ll get to a non-floating head Stout movie poster. But some of them seem a lot more floating head-ish than others (for example, Civil War
is pretty much all characters / heads, whereas other posters like Star Wars
have a bit more scenery). Are there any of Stout’s posters that you like more than others? What about different artists’ floating head posters?
I like Stout’s style; I think the sharp lines and flat colors make for some really clean-looking renderings. (esp. for handbills) His posters are generally hit or miss for me because I sometimes find the arrangements crowded / difficult to read, which works against the things I appreciate in his style. When it works, I find it lends itself well to floating head posters - there’s a cohesion to it, but objects are still easily distinguishable from one another. I really like his Akira
poster because theres a nice balance created between bigger objects that are distinguishable from further away and draw my eye into the poster; and smaller objects that are then distinguishable up close. In addition to the floating heads, I find there’s a nice mix of scenery and the right variety and contrast in colors to avoid the monotony of repetition without breaking the overall cohesion of it.
But for some compositions, that cohesion can slip into certain objects blurring together and other objects seeming disjointed to me. In which case the poster ends up somewhat confusing to my eyes and feels a little crowded / messy. I find The Avengers
a little harder to look at because, for me, the blue in Thor’s costume blends together with the blue in Captain America’s costume (and sort of Black Widow’s / Agent Hill’s since Loki hides whatever boundary would be between them); the A symbol cuts through things, further confusing boundaries / creating separation between objects and making it feel disjointed; and my eyes tend to jump around the poster to the bright spots of the faces. So it starts to feel like a bunch of floating heads to me and the areas between them seem a little convoluted.
Anyway, for me, the main attraction to his posters is that when it works, it’s a great mixture of imagery tucked into a balanced and thorough composition with a nice clean style. I think some of the ones that don’t work feel similarly crowded / messy / disjointed / repetitive; often like they’re just a bunch of floating heads with a tangle of stuff in between them. In my opinion, Stout also does a pretty good job with (stylized) likenesses, but I don’t have a real fine eye for that. They’re a nice bonus, but if a composition works without them, that’s good too. I only really get hung up on them if they’re really off, or if they’re a glaring omission (like, say, a reflection on a dinosaur-themed island amusement park’s gyrosphere ride
This isn’t entirely pertinent to jjttdw's post in particular, but mainly I was hoping to see more specific reasoning for opinions and less immediate dismissal of other points of view (not that there’s tons of that around here, just that less of it is usually a good thing). And generally, the more you elaborate on the reasons for your opinions, the easier it is for other people to understand them, and that understanding can form a basis for discussing more specific aspects of a subject. It might get a little wordy, and not everything will be interesting to everyone; but you never know who might see something you’ve missed and appreciate something from a different point of view.
I think that’s worth a shot, even if most people don’t think this stuff is worth discussing or this site isn’t the place for it. Movie posters seemed like a decent starting point since the Mondo thread is the most active thread on the forum (although I understand that’s more about the weekly releases and drama than pure, unbridled passion for the art they're putting out). But take this thread wherever you want it to go - be it street art, fine art, gig posters, or whatever else. I was hoping the focus would stay on the art, but if people want to analyze sales data or release trends, or even do something shitposty like using aftermarket prices to determine the value of Ryan Gosling’s face on a poster, go for it. It doesn’t have to be a 100% serious thread, but try and treat things fairly and break them down thoroughly.
Maybe that’s overly optimistic for this site, and the entire internet in general, really, but realistically, I don’t think anyone came here expecting anything more than they got. Trolling, memes, gifs, references, and lols are always a little entertaining, too. (At most, I’m mildly disappointed that no one commented on the absolute horseshit wordplay and haiku I forced into my reply to Rambo. I really tried to beat that one to death.) If people aren’t interested beyond entertainment value, that’s the way she goes
. A little fun, and then the “in-depth” thread sinks to the bottom of the boards. Sometimes its best to just sit back, relax, and enjoy things for what they are.
The second post is admittedly entirely too long. (So is this one.) I thought it best to start the thread by contributing something rather than asking questions or trying to coax members into a discussion and placing the impetus on the collective shoulders of the members - which would absolutely make for better discussion if successful. But considering all the different interests and how quickly discussion tends to diverge around here, that option seemed like as much of a non-starter as the massive essay post. I also thought the length might slow things down, and if there’s more to be read and thought about before replying, it acts as a sort of barrier to entry, which might compensate for being a bit of a turn-off to some people. (Clearly it was too much, but I also got tired of getting logged out whenever I tried to edit / format it into 3 separate parts and make it more readable on this site.) And I needed something to justify starting a thread devoted to this, otherwise discussion would stay at about the same level as it is in the gallery / artist / art comments threads. (If it had been cut into chunks, the first parts would’ve belonged in the Rory Kurtz thread, and the last part wouldn’t have really fit in anywhere.) It’s pretty honest about what it is:
Wintermute wrote:Rory Kurtz and Composition: A Boring Personal Review
- even this TLDR is messy and overly long, but I hope this was at least somewhat amusing, and maybe even encourages other people to dive into more in-depth art discussion; it can’t possibly be worse than this, right?
Not sure I have to say it at this point, but brevity’s not my thing, duderinos. Sorry for another long post, just trying to be thorough in my replies. I’ll consider having the mods clean things up or reboot this, but it seems that there’s more interest in chirping, and I’m of the opinion that the thread can take its natural course. So I’m probably back to lurking for the time being.