all photos: Anna Scialli
The waves of college kids all had the same response to the splendor of visual riches before them; “I am so glad they did this” was the refrain I kept hearing. I couldn’t agree more. When John Shipman spoke to me about the show he mentioned he had been given the advice to “go out and curate a show that YOU would want to attend.” The passion he applied to culling these artists together was evident in every facet of the show. The end result is the best opportunity to view (and these screen-printed babies do need to be seen up close to be truly appreciated) the current gigposter scene that the DC area has ever experienced as well as a broader connection to art for the thousands of students in it’s midst.
Leading up to the wine drinking bonanza at the “official” opening was “Sweet Booth,” an assembly of several of the participants selling their wares. It was a brilliant move (inspired by the numerous Flatstocks put on by the American Poster Institute each year) as the attendees had a chance to meet nearly half of the artists in the show and talk to them about the process behind their creations. Let me know the next national group show where you can say that. It was my first experience with the hardcore collectors of the scene and my favorite moment was a couple showing me sequential photos of their home on their iphone. They had framed posters from the floor to the ceiling and even behind their couch where you can’t see them unless the furniture is moved. They half-joked about trying to figure a way to attach frames to the ceiling.
It was truly rewarding to soak in the passion both on the walls and in the crowd.
Sweet: The Graphic Beauty of the Contemporary Rock Poster features twenty-nine of the leading artists/groups of silk-screened contemporary rock posters, on view Wednesday, February 6 through Saturday, March 29, 2008 at the University of Maryland Art Gallery.
March 5th, John Foster (that’s me) the author of New Masters of Poster Design, will lecture at the gallery on the contemporary gigposter.
byt will continue it’s coverage of Sweet in the coming weeks with articles on artist Jesse LeDoux’s installation (and cotton candy sadnesss) as well as a unique process thread on Tim Gough’s personalized signage for the event - stay tuned!
I really want to make it up there this weekend. Any help on an actual street address so I can find a bus?
February 8, 2008 at 8:57 am[...] disregard the link I gave above–all the photos plus John Fuz’ writeup are at BrightestYoungThings: Slightly Overexposed [...]
February 8, 2008 at 9:49 amThis exhibit give makes my special spot tingle.
February 8, 2008 at 11:00 amyou can take a shuttle from the metro to campus for free and then walk to art-sociology building, it’s on the 2nd floor.
this show was great, i bought 4 prints and wish i had more cash on hand to buy more. The Herman Maril Gallery on campus is going to put on some awesome events as well this year.
February 8, 2008 at 12:01 pmI appreciate gig posters as much as the next hiptard, but can we please stop calling designers artists? If you work for anybody other than yourself, you are not an artist, you are a designer. There’s no less value assigned to that title but it’s a significant distinction. (and let’s not start some bullshit thread about patrons, benefactors, rubens, medicis, etc etc.) Also, if you design for yourself and then pat yourself on the back, you’re an abomination.
February 8, 2008 at 12:38 pmI totally agree that design is not art (at least not intended as such although it can transcend it’s beginnings) and I could go on for days in that regard. I was sort of stuck with the whole “gallery” setting and the constant referral by the show to the assembled as “meeting the artists.” Trust me when I say that I know the difference - haha.
February 8, 2008 at 3:01 pmRight, I mean, they are presenting this design work as art, event promotion is no longer the inention, and all something needs to be considered art is for the intention to be art, which it most certainly is in the case, and therefore we can call them artists.
February 8, 2008 at 3:48 pmPS. this looks like a great exhibit!
February 8, 2008 at 3:49 pmI don’t want to start a huge debate so let me clarify at least my stance on these things: Design is NOT art. It is a selfless endeavor that the designer may place a lot of “themselves” into the act of but ultimately the client forms the solution simply by being a participant. Art is entirely selfish. The artist is trying to speak to the person interacting with it and communicate a message they personally wish to relay. The lines can never truly be blurred as there has to be some problem to be visually solved to be a design. Thats what design is - visual problem-solving - and you are solving the problem with someone else in mind. Even if it is a run of 50 gigposters or a logo for your own company.
If none of this seeps in let me put it another way - a chair may be beautiful and stylish but ultimately it is meant to be comfortable to sit in. It is “designed” with the user in mind.
If you put spikes in the seat cushion it is unusable but you have made a selfish statement. If you put it on display so others can see and interact with your creation it is no longer a chair - but art.
Now someone else can view the finished design product as an artifact and place it in the “art” category but it truly isn’t. Or is it? Thats when things get interesting…
February 8, 2008 at 4:11 pmPS - it is a great exhibit either way!
February 8, 2008 at 4:12 pmAlthough, I think that even if you leave the spikes off the chair, as long as you put it on display, you’ve got art. If I put my colonoscopy result photos on display and said this is art, it’s art. Bad art, but art. And I am an artist. A colon artist.
February 8, 2008 at 4:19 pmalso, just to chime in this whole “if you work for anyone else but yourself, you’re a designer not an artist”
is the most ridiculous definition of what and artist or a designer is I’ve seen in a while.
(and I am a designer, and would never call myself an artist, so I hope to know the difference)
What is say, you are an “visual creator” comissioned to paint a portrait or do a sculpture installation that is to serve no other purpose than to be beautiful or ugly or whatever else it is?
You’re working for someone else.
Does that make you a designer?
No.
Same goes vice versa.
P.S. The exhibit looks absolutely super-sweet. And the posters shown on it are not on display for any other reason than visual enjoyment (the shows they’re promoting are gone etc etc…) so for all intents and purposes, it is art that is on display.
February 8, 2008 at 4:32 pmWell - if you take the chair out of it’s intended context than you (the artist) are making a statement and transforming the object (see dada.) However, posters on the wall are a grey area as is any form of advertising displayed (because it is meant to be displayed silly.) If you set a chair in the gallery in the corner and someone sat on it and you tried to call that art I would call you on it. Take this as an example. If you set out wine and cheese at a table in the front of the gallery it remains wine and cheese. If you put it in a glass case so no one could get to it and placed it in the middle of the room until it rotted - well - thats art and I would give you a pass.
To address Svetlana’s commission question - I hire people all the time to do this. They are illustrators. I know I am opening up a huge can o’ worms but I would argue that a lot of what we historically consider art isn’t truly so but has become art by being out of it’s initial context and now considered for it’s visual contribution to society.
February 8, 2008 at 4:43 pmWe are probably all re-considering our relationship now - Cale and Svetlana for letting me write on the site and picking little arguments with their art views and me for having seen Cale’s colonoscopy photo…
February 8, 2008 at 4:46 pmHas’nt anyone heard of commercial artists? The difference between the commercial arts and the Artist is the commercial artist works on someones else’s idea and the artIIIIIIIIIst works on their own. Art’s all about the IDEA, and the artist who comes up with his own idea is likely to receive more critical acclaim. But its useless to get hung up on this. Personally, I don,t care if they are referrred to as artists any more than I mind terms like tattoo artists, cullinary artists or con artists. The definition of artist used in this way refers to one who is especially “skilled” at something (anything?).So, anyway, try to get over it and enjoy comparing your artistic idea to those skilled at working on someone else’s.
Incidently, if the colon guy hired the doctor to conduct the procedure with the sole purpose of producing photos to the artist’s specifications as representative of the “artist’s” idea then it would qualify - except for one thing - Its not an origional idea! unless… blah! blah! blah!
February 8, 2008 at 5:50 pmJohn, your arguments are spot on.
If somebody wants to take design and view it as art for themself it does not change the object itself. I think it’s interesting that one can jump to the conclusion that the statement if you’re working for somebody else you’re a designer was meant as the ultimate definition of artist/designer. Clearly this was meant in the context of the article it was commenting on. Since the definition of art changed mid-19th century, we have the luxury of looking at it as a selfish practice, meaning commissions with restrictions on the artist lay in a gray area. So say, Lucien Freud painted the Queen of England FOR the Queen. That’s still art, but one could reasonably argue that if he only painted portraits for other people he would be a professional portraitist or painter. His work would have substantially less significance. I think this society deifies artists too much anyway. I don’t understand why everyone would clamor for the title.
Sorry if I made this feel like a freshman-level art school discussion. Let’s all go have a stiff drink and ask Monsieur Marcel.
February 8, 2008 at 5:52 pmI would join you on the drink but I remain a little queasy from the colon view - seriously questionable tubing going on there Cale.
I have this discussion in a broader context all the time with students and it really is the most important thing you can impart to a young designer. In a professional sense starting out you treat the work as “precious” and someone “co-opting” your concept when that really is impossible in true design. You realize when you are a designer or illustrator that an unsatisfied client means you have failed to solve their problem and your “precious” design is worthless. If you don’t catch on then you will be out of the business quickly. How nervous do you think those painting the royal portrait were about pleasing their client?
To make a final analogy (I know I know) how could you be nervous about how a piece of art will be received before you have even begun to create it? You can’t. Only after you have poured some of yourself into the process can you begin that painful consternation.
In design, you worry immediately upon receiving the job about what the viewer will think well before you have started “making” something. Thats because the process starts at the initial connection between client and designer which is the defining element.
I can only speak from my side of the fence though. I had a drawing scholarship that I turned down because I knew I couldn’t make it as a fine artist and it wasn’t what I was really good at (many would argue about how good I am at design as well - haha.)
Maybe I will have that drink now…
February 8, 2008 at 6:19 pmuh oh, am I Gay 80’s Colon Guy now?
February 8, 2008 at 6:53 pmSorry to come in at the tail end (no pun intended) of this discussion, but what about graffiti? Can you call it art? Can it be elevated in the gallery context?
February 10, 2008 at 1:13 amGraffiti certainly falls into my own narrow interpretation of art. Debasing someone’s property with a personal message intended to be seen by as many as is possible fits the bill (and is insanely selfish.) One of my top five artists (Basquiat) built his reputation as a graffiti artist.
I actually think graffiti suffers in a gallery setting as it loses it’s purity - BUT it becomes a commodity that can be sold which keeps the artist fed and lays on a thick layer of irony.
February 10, 2008 at 2:04 pmBy the way - in a strange case of unintended beauty, entire portions of Mexico City are covered top to bottom in graffiti. It makes all of the buildings merge into a pulsing whole and you can not keep track of the changing economic environs from neighborhood to neighborhood. Beautiful (and melancholy.)
February 10, 2008 at 2:09 pmGuess I’m coming to this discussion a bit late. I highly recommend seeing the exhibit no matter how you define art or design. The posters took skill/talent/hard work/imagination to create. Events like this more typically happen in Seattle or Austin with SXSW, so this is special to the DC area.
“I appreciate gig posters as much as the next hiptard”
Aw, shucks. You don’t need to be a hiptard to enjoy gig posters. :D
Personally, I’m more inclined to say “designer” than “artist”. Partly because people will think I’m full of shit if we call ourselves artists or let others call us that. But mostly because if a band is paying me a commission for -an advertisement- for their show, I have a client, I have copy, and I have a deadline. So it’s a bit o’ business. Poster buyers and curators are more likely to use “poster artists”.
February 11, 2008 at 11:41 amThe exhibit looks really terrific. I wish I could be there to see it in person.
Way to go Jack - your work looks great!
Horray Anna!
February 7, 2008 at 10:27 pm