All Poster Forum
Movie Posters => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bruce on March 20, 2014, 11:16:46 AM
-
Should/could movie posters ever be hung in museums?
-
I know what Thierry is going to say, but I think maybe not the posters themselves, but possibly the original artwork.
-
I say no. Absolutely not. The Academy of Motion Pictures is building a museum not far from my house here in LA, so I imagine they will put up some movie posters, but in a regular museum, nope.
Is that the answer you were expecting, Paul?
:)
T
-
Do museums not house cultural artifacts?
-
Pretty much T, but what about the original artwork the posters were copied/printed from? That is still a one off piece of art.
-
Posters in museums - why not?
Chris said it all.
There are car museums that contain cars from a run of 200 for instance, so what's the difference with that and a possibly unique or very, very rare poster? In many cases the original artwork has been lost or destroyed.
-
I have often seen lithographs in museums. Don't see much difference there.
Cindy had started working on putting together an exhibition of movie posters to be toured through smaller museums. It kind of fell apart when she got sick.
I think the key is that the artwork has to stand on its own merits, and it shouldn't be something that is common and easily obtained.
-
Pretty much T, but what about the original artwork the posters were copied/printed from? That is still a one off piece of art.
Yeah, I don't know. Mass produced advertizement doesn't belong in a museum, imo. Original pieces, maybe, but I really think it has to be a specific museum. Would the freak in me love to see a room full of Ballesters? Most definitely. Would anyone else care is the question. I tend to think it would have an extremely limited audience.
T
-
There are already some hanging in the Smithsonian.... So yeah.
Museum of American History - Price of Freedom, Hollywood Goes to War...
http://amhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/exhibition/flash.html
-
I think the right question is, will there ever be a permanent movie poster museum? I think that depends greatly on whether or not a person will donate the money to start one...
-
There sure are a lot of ubiquitous pottery examples in museums as well so I don't think rarity or uniqueness should be a prerequisite.
If it's an artifact representative of a culture it has a right to be in a museum (but this does not mean IT HAS TO BE).
-
Museum art fare is mostly a snooze. I walked through the National Gallery of Art the other day and didn't see much of interest, although some of the paintings there INDIVIDUALLY are worth more than the annual sales of movie posters in the entire world.
Many movie posters are more than "just" advertising IMO. In the right place I think a movie poster museum would be very popular. My office posters are great conversation starters and most people seem very interested in them. I frequently give them as gifts and the recipients hang 'em up.
-
I frequently give them as gifts and the recipients hang 'em up.
On a wire with pegs at a shooting range?
-
And before anyone asks or comments-- this is an interesting topic that should be in the "General Poster" section for those to discuss. It is now knowingly and with permission, ad-free.
-
Are books in a museum? I don't know, I never go.
-
Are books in a museum? I don't know, I never go.
Those are called libraries. ;D
-
Beautiful things are beautiful things and deserve to be seen. If the only place that can happen is in a museum then that's where they should be. I can't imagine walking into a room full of Ballesters and NOT being impressed, peasant and prince alike.
--Peter
-
While, posters are mass produced,that doesn't discount the fact that the image on the poster is art,created by an actual artist.If the poster is worthy of a museum stay...I don't see the problem.
As mentioned on the other tread...movie posters,and all kinds of posters, have been hanging in museums for years.
Anthony
-
Not a movie poster exhibit but a "pop art prints" exhibit will be here in DC:
http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2014/pop/
As editioned multiples, prints were more widely available and affordable than unique works of art, and pop art imagery was readily reproduced in the popular press.
-
Those are called libraries. ;D
:D
-
Well, even though I enjoy collecting movie posters, I do not think they are museum worthy. Personal preference. In a museum dedicated to movies, sure, but not otherwise. It probably stems from the fact that I don't like to display my posters either. I enjoy other things and I expect different art in museums. But hey, that's me and I certainly do not expect anyone on this forum to agree.
T
-
I do think times change, and the art people like to see now-a-days could include Cinematic art.
Look at Harry Caul, he had an exhibition of his Eastern Block Posters, and it went very well. So well I was borderline asking our local Museum if they fancied doing an exhibition also. It was only time constraints that stopped me; but I haven't ruled it out, and I think it will be quite popular, bringing in "new" people who wouldn't normally go to Art-galleries, or Museum's.
There's space for all I think, move over Monet, the Movie people are here.... ;)
-
sure, they are part of history
-
I agree with CSM and Mel, that a lot of people could relate to historical stuff such as movie posters, more than some abstract splatter paint, pottery, etc. Of all the museums I went to around the country, one of the most impressive pieces that I saw was the Hungarian The Golem poster, and a lot of the stills and other stuff for the movie and other movies are also really cool, at the LACMA. However, I think that the only ones really "worthy" of museum space would be the uncommon ones and/or special exhibits.
Although not movie posters, similar items that I ran into, such as the lithographs at the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody, WY, and at the San Diego Museum of Art special exhibit "Women, War, and Industry", women models on various Military recruiting posters, many of those lithographs and posters were exceptional, and in several cases better than a lot of paintings, IMO.
The American Motion Pictures Museum sounds rad. cool1
-
Museum art fare is mostly a snooze. I walked through the National Gallery of Art the other day and didn't see much of interest, although some of the paintings there INDIVIDUALLY are worth more than the annual sales of movie posters in the entire world.
:o
I respectfully disagree with your view Mel. It is of course a matter of taste and opinion but let's give them a chance. Museums are just not there to amuse. They have a ‘duty’ to educate and preserve art, history and/or art history altogether.
Thanks to them you can see the Victory of Samothrace (El Louvre), or the Knight with his hand on his breast (Greco, Prado, Madrid). Outstanding pieces. To name just a few. Is this not wonderful?
And yes, I do think some posters could be in museums. And I will gladly pay to see them.
-
Museum art fare is mostly a snooze. I walked through the National Gallery of Art the other day and didn't see much of interest, although some of the paintings there INDIVIDUALLY are worth more than the annual sales of movie posters in the entire world.
Many movie posters are more than "just" advertising IMO. In the right place I think a movie poster museum would be very popular. My office posters are great conversation starters and most people seem very interested in them. I frequently give them as gifts and the recipients hang 'em up.
Different strokes for different folks, as they say. One's view of museum displayed junk (snooze) is another's viewed treasure and grail. So there's something for everyone, usually.
And film posters could certainly be displayed in museums, too, imo. Rotate the collection, based on genre, country, theme, decade, artist etc. And acquire or borrow some of the original art, if still around or available, to accompany and be displayed with the posters they were the basis for.
I think it would be a popular room of any museum, to wander into and peruse a while.
-
I can see this hanging up next to a Van Gogh some day.... :P
(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj561/bddavis81/17684_zps86af2fb1.jpg) (http://s1268.photobucket.com/user/bddavis81/media/17684_zps86af2fb1.jpg.html)
-
Yikes, I'm siding up with T now...
-
I rather look at Gere than a Van Gogh. Not my cup of tea.
-
If that Poster was hung in a Museum, I would get in my Van and Gogh...
-
That was good Paul laugh1
-
I can see this hanging up next to a Van Gogh some day.... :P
(http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj561/bddavis81/17684_zps86af2fb1.jpg) (http://s1268.photobucket.com/user/bddavis81/media/17684_zps86af2fb1.jpg.html)
Or next to the Mona Lisa... the smiles are similar. mesmrized
And some may be trying to sell it for a Mona-esque kind of figure some day , too. :P
-
^
She looks more like Lisa than Mona (= pretty in Spanish) to me
:)
-
maybe the Pretty Museum would like that poster.
Mel, how you can walk around the National Gallery and not be impressed with art by the Peale family, Remington, John Singer Sargent, Winslow Homer (my fave Homer painting hangs at the Metropolitan in NYC - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Winslow_Homer_004.jpg ), Thomas Moran.. and the scores of other great American artists of the 18th-20th centuries is beyond me.
if you look in the other thread.. there are loads of museums around the world that exhibit movie posters. I've been linking them as I find them.
-
Remington=John Ford=Glorious
You are sooooooo right Rich
-
Remington=John Ford=Glorious
You are sooooooo right Rich
as a young artist and later, student of art, I spent countless hours at the Met. My favorite wing is American Artists of the 17th-19th century
I don't know how anyone could not be impressed by these folks.
-
Mel, how you can walk around the National Gallery and not be impressed with art by the Peale family, Remington, John Singer Sargent, Winslow Homer (my fave Homer painting hangs at the Metropolitan in NYC - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Winslow_Homer_004.jpg ), Thomas Moran.. and the scores of other great American artists of the 18th-20th centuries is beyond me.
Meh. I did like the Lichtenstein exhibit last year, although Roy generally just "borrowed" other artists' work. I love the Roman/Greek/Egyptian sculpture/artifacts, although it's not their specialty. (The Brits permanently "borrowed" all that stuff for the British Museum.)
-
Lichtenstein didn't "borrow".
he used the comic book panels as icons much the same as anyone else would use any other item as an icon or subject matter.
he used throw-away art (comic books) as his muse
-
Lichtenstein didn't "borrow".
he used the comic book panels as icons much the same as anyone else would use any other item as an icon or subject matter.
he used throw-away art (comic books) as his muse
Not even a close case Rich:
http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/b_globe/2006-10-18_bglobe_art_or_copy.pdf
The question is not whether it was copyright infringement but "why people who clearly had a right to sue
chose not to"?
-
that's only one opinion Mel. the reality is that if Lichtenstein was stealing, almost the whole of the art world is stealing something
moreover, Lichtenstein changed them all - none are the perfect "copies" people like to say they are and of all commercial art fields, comic art is the most derivative form.
-
The links don't work on Mel's response, but can easily be found. Make up your own mind:
http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html
http://comicsalliance.com/deconstructing-lichtenstein-source-comics-revealed-and-credited/
http://www.jeremyriad.com/blog/editorials/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/
and others...
I am a bit torn on this. He obviously was plagiarizing copyrighted works when adapting his own themes, but the style is uniquely his.
-
iconography, not plagerism.
as to why he wasn't sued at the time ..
comic books were still "trash media"
30 years ago when I spoke to Russ Heath about it, he thought it was great that some real artist saw artistic value in copying from his work.
30 years later Russ feels he was totally ripped off because he didn't get any money
-
iconography, not plagerism.
as to why he wasn't sued at the time ..
comic books were still "trash media"
30 years ago when I spoke to Russ Heath about it, he thought it was great that some real artist saw artistic value in copying from his work.
30 years later Russ feels he was totally ripped off because he didn't get any money
There are a fair number of precedents in the music industry. Most famous is probably George harrison being sued over 'My Sweet Lord' being plagiarized fro "She's so fine".
Pete Seeger once said: "Yeah, he stole that from me, but I steal from everybody" Folk music has a long tradition.
Finally, Spider Robinson wrote a short story called Melancholy Elephants that had an interesting take. He has it online here: http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
-
Pete Seeger once said: "Yeah, he stole that from me, but I steal from everybody"
exactly
I love comic artists who today revile Lichtenstein, but themselves swipe from Jack Kirby freely without any credit
or the large number whom have used the Pieta as source for their covers and have never said "I swiped the Pieta"
artists usually craft their works after artists they are influenced by. Does Marck Schultz pay the Frazetta estate for every line he places on paper?
Did Frazetta ever send a check to the estates of Rockwell Kent or Alex Raymond?
How many checks did Andy Warhol send Campbell's Soup?
art influences art.
it always has and it always will
-
Going to agree on that point.
Most engineering is baby steps where we (hopefully) add a bit of innovation on top of established art. Or said in common terms "You can't railroad until the tracks are laid"
Seems that the art world is very similar in that we tend to go through evolutions in style. You look at the impressionists, post-modernists, etc and you see an awful lot of commonality in style and even in content.
Lichtenstein, Warhol and Peter Maxx all took material that was in common distribution and adapted it to the fine art world. At some level this feels more honest.
-
Most engineering is baby steps where we (hopefully) add a bit of innovation on top of established art. Or said in common terms "You can't railroad until the tracks are laid"
I doubt we would have skyscrapers had the Egyptians not built giant pyramids.
Knowledge is not something that magically appears. Where we are today as a genus is built on 4 million years of learning.
Art is no different
-
Knowledge is not something that magically appears. Where we are today as a genus is built on 4 million years of learning.
Art is no different
That is pure genus
-
Well, even though I enjoy collecting movie posters, I do not think they are museum worthy. Personal preference. In a museum dedicated to movies, sure, but not otherwise. It probably stems from the fact that I don't like to display my posters either. I enjoy other things and I expect different art in museums. But hey, that's me and I certainly do not expect anyone on this forum to agree.
T
This failure-to-display requires appropriate punishment for T:
(http://www.posternirvana.com/0DNE2/2014-03/article-0-1C5E4BDA00000578-25_634x550.jpg)
-
This is truly one of the most disturbing pictures I have seen in my entire life. Years of nightmares ahead. Thanks Mel.
T
-
This is truly one of the most disturbing pictures I have seen in my entire life. Years of nightmares ahead. Thanks Mel.
T
Well your dream girl Cameron Diaz isn't willing to display either, so y'all got that in common ;)
-
Thank God!!!
-
^
She looks more like Lisa than Mona (= pretty in Spanish) to me
:)
Oh, I'd bet she's a Mona... and a quite loud one at that...
-
Set those puppies free
-
I love comic artists who today revile Lichtenstein, but themselves swipe from Jack Kirby freely without any credit
AMEN!
-
maybe the Pretty Museum would like that poster.
Mel, how you can walk around the National Gallery and not be impressed with art by the Peale family, Remington, John Singer Sargent, Winslow Homer (my fave Homer painting hangs at the Metropolitan in NYC - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Winslow_Homer_004.jpg ), Thomas Moran.. and the scores of other great American artists of the 18th-20th centuries is beyond me.
if you look in the other thread.. there are loads of museums around the world that exhibit movie posters. I've been linking them as I find them.
I agree..... and on a side not...Titian Peale was a field artist/naturalist on the Wilkes Expedition (1838-1842) and then became arguably one of the foremost early American West genre artists...that expedition "discovered" and charted part of Antarctica, razed a Fijian island and paved the way for volcanology....the artifacts they brought back became the foundation for the Smithsonian Institute and the botanical specimens became the National Botanical Gardens....
-
Yes, movie posters can be in museums! Two of my good friends took me today to the Booth Western Art Museum in Cartersville, Georgia. Along with incredible Western art by Charles Russell, Frederic Remington, Tom Lovell, Robert McGinnis, and Thomas Hart Benton, there were also several really nice Western movie posters. Here I am pictured with a very close friend of mine in front of the 24 sheet for The Glorious Trail (1928).
-
Here's another poster from the Booth Western Art Museum: a banner for Arizona Sweepstakes (1926). Okie
-
A couple more posters from the Booth Western Art Museum:
Paradise Canyon 6 sht (1935)
Custer's Last Fight 6 sht (1912)
-
Who are these fine folks? Is that Rich?
T
-
Who are these fine folks? Is that Rich?
T
Hi T, That's me in the gray shirt and my close friend, Richard Garrison, who's an expert on several artists/illustrators, especially Roy Krenkel, Al Williamson and others, and owned Heritage Press back in the day. Okie
-
Yes, movie posters can be in museums! Two of my good friends took me today to the Booth Western Art Museum in Cartersville, Georgia. Along with incredible Western art by Charles Russell, Frederic Remington, Tom Lovell, Robert McGinnis, and Thomas Hart Benton, there were also several really nice Western movie posters. Here I am pictured with a very close friend of mine in front of the 24 sheet for The Glorious Trail (1928).
Agree with you 100%, Okie.
Stone lithography is a beautiful print process, which requires a skilled artist to create the various stones or plates from which the posters were printed.
Etchings and lithographs from old world masters and contemporary artists live in museums, and more than one print exists in those mediums, so why not these kinds of artistic works, especially for those films where only a few known poster examples still exist?
Of course the photographic and digital stuff that's churned out today is another story altogether....
-
Who are these fine folks? Is that Rich?
T
Wow, you're a big guy! Did you play rugby or football in college? I would not mess with you. And the other dude, I'm still convinced it's Rich and nothing you say will change that. Sorry you had to hang out with him.
T
-
Wow, you're a big guy! Did you play rugby or football in college? I would not mess with you. And the other dude, I'm still convinced it's Rich and nothing you say will change that. Sorry you had to hang out with him.
T
That's funny, T! We played some rugby for fun from 4th grade up. Played some baseball, though probably chopped more firewood, hunted and fished than anything. Okie
-
One of my very good friends is from Northern Michigan and that was pretty much his life. He built himself a wood cabin by the water. Emphasis on Himself. He's getting married now to a big Hollywood agent (goes to Premieres all the time and hangs out with A listers), and moving to LA was, to say the least, a culture shock.
He actually kinda looks like you.
T
-
One of my very good friends is from Northern Michigan and that was pretty much his life. He built himself a wood cabin by the water. Emphasis on Himself. He's getting married now to a big Hollywood agent (goes to Premieres all the time and hangs out with A listers), and moving to LA was, to say the least, a culture shock.
He actually kinda looks like you.
T
T, I sure hope your friend still gets to sit outside his cabin by the lake sometimes while he eats good ole Michigan deer sausage with his California avocado toast. Okie
-
T, I sure hope your friend still gets to sit outside his cabin by the lake sometimes while he eats good ole Michigan deer sausage with his California avocado toast. Okie
Hahaha... Love it. Awesome. He wants me to buy him a Deliverance quad for his wedding, but the wife is 150% against it. Go figure.
T
-
Hahaha... Love it. Awesome. He wants me to buy him a Deliverance quad for his wedding, but the wife is 150% against it. Go figure.
T
Did he keep the cabin? A Deliverance quad would be great to see when guests first walk into the cabin! I think you have to do it. Okie
-
No, I think he wants it at home here in LA. In the foyer. Which is part of the problem I’m having with his wife to be. Plus, if I have to spend $800 on a quad, plus another gift for the couple, plus traveling over there with the whole family, plus organizing the bachelorette in Vegas (my wife is maid of honor), plus going to his bachelor in Austin, we’re talking about a $5k+ wedding. Maybe I can skip the quad ;)
T
-
A couple more posters from the Booth Western Art Museum:
Paradise Canyon 6 sht (1935)
Custer's Last Fight 6 sht (1912)
Thats one great looking 6 sheet, Okie. Certainly museum worthy. Maybe one day (unless there already is somewhere), a museum may dedicate a section or area to just these kinds of true artistic works.
(http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7878.0;attach=9534;image)
-
Thats one great looking 6 sheet, Okie. Certainly museum worthy. Maybe one day (unless there already is somewhere), a museum may dedicate a section or area to just these kinds of true artistic works.
(http://www.allposterforum.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7878.0;attach=9534;image)
I sure would enjoy a museum like that, Jeff! The Booth Western Art Museum did have a dozen or so one sheet and larger sized posters on exhibit when we were there on Sunday. Okie
-
Are they kept on permanent display, do you know?
-
Of course movie posters could be (and have been) hung in museums. I don't see why the fact that they are mass-produced should make them any less relevant or worthy of inclusion in a museum than say books (be they a fine copy of Guttenberg's Bible or rare first editions), prints (aside from a few surviving paintings and drawings, everything Durer ever did was mass-produced through different printmaking mediums such as woodcuts, engravings, silver-point, etc...) or photography. Cultural context is key here, as always when it comes to the selection of what artifact should be part of a public collection or a museum, and movie posters are no different.
To illustrate my point, I'm posting some pics I took of several movie posters (and even a PB) from various Frankenstein films that were recently exhibited at the venerable Morgan Library Museum in NYC.
-
I Agree with you, too, Ben. thumbsup.gif
Many vintage posters, (those done in the early decades) are true works of art, created by artists. That multiple copies were run off is irrelevant, imo. And many do deserve a place where the public can go and view them, in a museum. thumbsup.gif
-
Are they kept on permanent display, do you know?
It looked like it to me, Jeff. Also, some friends who went a few years ago said posters were up. Okie
-
I Agree with you, too, Ben. thumbsup.gif
Many vintage posters, (those done in the early decades) are true works of art, created by artists. That multiple copies were run off is irrelevant, imo. And many do deserve a place where the public can go and view them, in a museum. thumbsup.gif
Stone lithography makes a big difference to me as well on falling into the art/museum display realm. Of course, there are movie posters that are not stone litho that are beautiful, too. Okie
-
While not a traditional museum, I went to Geppi's Entertainment Museum several times before it closed a year or so ago because it's walls were covered with movie posters. Apparently the owner donated a lot of items to the Library of Congress.
-
While not a traditional museum, I went to Geppi's Entertainment Museum several times before it closed a year or so ago because it's walls were covered with movie posters. Apparently the owner donated a lot of items to the Library of Congress.
And the fact that the LOC accepted his movie posters shows the place that many have in Cinema, movie and entertainment history. thumbsup.gif
-
Exactly
-
would a museum for movie posters have linen-backed posters ??? ;D
-
Well, I was at LACMA last year to view some the Mike Kaplan collection of movie posters and they were all linen-backed. But then again, like 95% of high-end posters are.
-
would a museum for movie posters have linen-backed posters ??? ;D
Of course.
If a museum had acquired a rare poster or one that was in need of conservation or some type of restoration, then it's likely that poster would be a backed copy (linen, paper or maybe even gel backed).
And if that was the case, there certainly would be no issue with that.
Many museums have paintings and other works on paper that have had restoration and or other conservation methods applied. And those are displayed with pride, on museum walls. thumbsup.gif
-
Well, I was at LACMA last year to view some the Mike Kaplan collection of movie posters and they were all linen-backed. But then again, like 95% of high-end posters are.
Except of course some of the single most expensive one-sheets - the nicest two Mummy one-sheets are unbacked, the Bride teaser, London After Midnight, the Style B Black Cat, the original Style A Dracula, etc.
As always, if you don't have to - don't.
-
Except of course some of the single most expensive one-sheets - the nicest two Mummy one-sheets are unbacked, the Bride teaser, London After Midnight, the Style B Black Cat, the original Style A Dracula, etc.
As always, if you don't have to - don't.
Exactly. IMO, posters shouldnt be backed either, jus because they have been folded (as issued from the printer), but are in otherwise outstanding condition. (But to each his own, as well a know).
My point was that IF a rare or compromised poster was in need of conservation prior to it being displayed, that any museum would take those steps to assure its survival and ability to be put on display.
Old world master paintings that have suffered (tiny or larger) areas of paint loss or flaking have been touched up by expert restorers. The same would be done to a poster, if need be.
But as you said, Sean, if NOT needed, don't do it. And Im sure museums follow this strict ideology, too.
-
Except of course some of the single most expensive one-sheets - the nicest two Mummy one-sheets are unbacked, the Bride teaser, London After Midnight, the Style B Black Cat, the original Style A Dracula, etc.
As always, if you don't have to - don't.
Yeah, that's why I said 95% and not 100%. Look at any HA auction and the vast majority of posters over 5k are linen-backed.
-
^ the reason i asked the question (tongue in cheek) is that i have read that museums don't consider the linen-backing process to be archival and they don't do it. from what i can make out, the only people who do linen-backing are collectors and auction houses. i can imagine people doing it just to try and make more money and this will make people who work in museums tear their hair out
i guess the head of my imaginary museum for movie posters would be all for paper-backing, european style of course ;D