Collecting Posters From Movies You Haven't Seen

[eatbrie]

Yes, I'm a snob.  No issue whatsoever.  1. I said fine art vs movie posters.  Movie posters are not fine art.  Sorry to disappoint you.  If you believe you're collecting fine art, go to a museum and show them your gambling collection.  I'm sure they'll be impressed.  2. Movie posters are not art.  They are mass reproductions.  The original art by Struzan is art, not its 10,000 copies.  Art is the unique vision of an artist, regardless of the medium.  It cannot be reproduced.  If it is, it loses its cachet of authenticity.  This is all in my humble opinion, of course, and I'm sure many of you will disagree.  To each his own.  A Lautrec print is not art, it is a reproduction.  It can be signed by the artist or by the artist foundation, it is still not art.  The original is art.  One and one, the artist and its creation.  I will only consider movie posters to be art when the poster is unique, as in "London After Midnight."  If the original painting cannot be found, and its reproduction is so rare that it becomes unique, then it becomes art, because there is no alternative.

T

[eatbrie]

And to go back to what we were saying earlier, movie posters are the interpretation of a unique work of art, the movie itself.  They do not exist without the movie, while the movie exists without its poster.  Which is why one should attempt to see the movie to truly appreciate its interpretation.  If it is not possible, as often the case, then the interpretation stands alone and becomes the original.

T

[CSM]

I am sure very few have seen the movie and I am also fairly certain very, very few of those who have would put it in their top 10 list but this poster is highly desirable for some reason.  All other paper on the title gets results that are miniscule by comparison.  What could all the titillation be about if not many have seen it and even less would consider it's value as a movie commensurate to the sales results it has achieved as a poster?  Hmmmm...?

[CSM]

One more thing:
I find people who go out of their way to tick off the "cool" items, the ones that make other members jealous or are titles/formats that are for whatever reason holy grails (**pulp fiction LS, downhill racer, BAT, cool hand luke, um, you know what I mean)
Rather than ones they personally LOVE, surely not everyone has the same taste? seem to burn out fast.

Indeed

[Crazy Vick]

I love having that poster from the early 50s, could have come from Berlin after the war, or a theatre in Manhattan but in this case it comes from North Bay, Ontario.  The movie itself could have starred Eric Portman, Grace Kelly, could be its a decent film, maybe not.  It doesn’t change what I do know, which is that the poster is awesome, as art, as artefact.  Was it printed ten thousand times?  Maybe.  Will it look awesome framed on my wall?  I think we all know the answer to that. 

[Ari]

I agree with that.
I would probably keep a shitty daybill for a shitty film if it had "Orana Drive In" hand written on the top or something, as thats where I cut my chops in watching films.

[Crazy Vick]

"movie posters are the interpretation of a unique work of art, the movie itself.  They do not exist without the movie, while the movie exists without its poster.  "
usually yes, but not with a lot of the 50's exploitation, like the famous BEAST WITH A MILLION EYES, where the title came first, then the poster, THEN some sucker had to write a script based on the poster. Damn chicken coming before the egg

this is why it can be hard for me to attribute aura status to films and actors.  Take the good, the bad, and the ugly...(DONT GO THERE) great scenes but overall, kind of all over the place, portions are hard to understand (OH NO YOU DIDNT) How does it end, well there's that part where that Eastwood guy turns out to be a racist bigot. So what gives with the poster?  There is a version of it I would be all over (someone who makes more money than me had it backed and framed, I remember seeing pics on a thread somewhere) because its mindboggling (careful ari i recall some purple!) I'd get one as an investment too, but seeing the movie certainly doesn't make it any more appealing. So from where I stand things look very different, is all.  

[Crazy Vick]

I am sure very few have seen the movie and I am also fairly certain very, very few of those who have would put it in their top 10 list but this poster is highly desirable for some reason.  All other paper on the title gets results that are miniscule by comparison.  What could all the titillation be about if not many have seen it and even less would consider it's value as a movie commensurate to the sales results it has achieved as a poster?  Hmmmm...?

haha

[Ari]

this is why it can be hard for me to attribute aura status to films and actors.  Take the good, the bad, and the ugly...(DONT GO THERE) great scenes but overall, kind of all over the place, portions are hard to understand (OH NO YOU DIDNT) How does it end, well there's that part where that Eastwood guy turns out to be a racist bigot. So what gives with the poster?  There is a version of it I would be all over (someone who makes more money than me had it backed and framed, I remember seeing pics on a thread somewhere) because its mindboggling (careful ari i recall some purple!) I'd get one as an investment too, but seeing the movie certainly doesn't make it any more appealing. So from where I stand things look very different, is all.  

See I like the film, but I wouldn't own a poster, or I would but I don't and don't plan on it (for resale yes, for MY collection, I doubt it - could lead to a whole nother can o worms).

[eatbrie]

I agree, though saying that, I dont care, if someone doesnt like film, like steve 50's said he didnt really watch movies, but loved the posters, well its OK. I dont get it. But its OK. For me, then you could buy any advertising art that looks nice. But I guess people do that huh?

I agree with you, Ari.  I don't care either.  I'm just saying what works for me and how I feel about posters.  I don't hang my posters, I do not think they're art, they're just posters, but I still like them.  People feel differently, I have no problem with it.  You know the saying... Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one.

And this is how forums are born and thrive.

T

[Ari]

I have the hole, but nothing to put it in. hmm, that sounds wrong.

[Zorba]

Yes it does but its okay it is you. 

I love movies and I love posters. I do like it better when they intersect but they sure as hell dont have to.

Movie posters are great on their own. They dont need added help.

[jayn_j]

Yes, I'm a snob.  No issue whatsoever.  1. I said fine art vs movie posters.  Movie posters are not fine art.  Sorry to disappoint you.  If you believe you're collecting fine art, go to a museum and show them your gambling collection.  I'm sure they'll be impressed.  

With all due respect, a fast web search will turn up many instances like these, where art museums have hosted shows featuring movie posters:
http://www.denverartmuseum.org/exhibitions/rebranded-polish-film-posters-american-western-0
http://www.vcstar.com/entertainment/art-galleries-and-museums_20140307103838164
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186368-d6510862-i121571084-Shrewsbury_Museum_and_Art_Gallery-Shrewsbury_Shropshire_England.html


Frankly, I do not see how posters advertising early 20th century wine and soap can be considered art, while posters aren't.  Now, I will admit that 90% of posters are NOT art, but I think that is true in general.  Those early French advertising posters are probably 90% lost and forgotten with only the best saved and cherished.

Are Norman Rockwell paintings less a work of art because they graced the covers of the Saturday Evening Post.  How about Hirschfeld drawings.  Are you saying that the ones he drew for restaurant openings are art, but the ones he created for movie posters aren't?

As long as we consider the art print as a legitimate form, I think we have to consider the movie poster in the same light.

[110x75]

Reasons for collecting posters are highly personal.
Are they art? I think not (original paintings for posters are)
But, I believe they are historical artifacts and for that I love them. Posters can tell us not only about the film they advertise, but about the place and time they were produced, the people who made them, etc.

[110x75]

Indeed

Indeed indeed.

[Ari]

But, I believe they are historical artifacts and for that I love them. Posters can tell us not only about the film they advertise, but about the place and time they were produced, the people who made them, etc.

shit yeah

[Roughoutline]

This thread has become very philosophical, what is art?

I don't think its snobby to think that art is what you see in museums or galleries, its definitely not snobbery, its stupidity.

Its funny that such a subjective medium has rules slammed onto it, prescriptivism is the enemy of art.

Another point, I find it crazy that people collect film posters for films they've never seen. I've only just started but I'm only looking to have a small collection of posters of films I really like, that have original film posters worth having. I'm getting an original Manhunter poster, because I love the film and the artwork, but I wouldn't get an Exorcist poster, even though I think the artwork is great.

[Crazy Vick]

Its funny that such a subjective medium has rules slammed onto it
...
Another point, I find it crazy that people collect film posters for films they've never seen.

I find it crazy when people contradict themselves in the same post.

[Roughoutline]

I find it crazy when people contradict themselves in the same post.

Trying a tad too hard there, no contradiction, its was my personal opinion, never said it was wrong.

[jayn_j]

Well, in the end I feel no need to justify myself.  I collect, and I display a rotating subset of what I collect. The stuff I collect and especially the stuff I display pleases me.  Beyond that, I really don't care if it is "art" or just my self indulgence.  It pleases me, and I don't ask others to admire it or to pass judgement.

[Crazy Vick]

Well, in the end I feel no need to justify myself. 

I feel the same way, but my collecting posters having nothing to do with having seen the movie, has so far been labelled "ridiculous" and "crazy" so you can imagine my efforts to explain further. 

I also think the IMO defence is thrown around rather loosely. 

In the end, its all good.  I still love you APF.

[Roughoutline]

I feel the same way, but my collecting posters having nothing to do with having seen the movie, has so far been labelled "ridiculous" and "crazy" so you can imagine my efforts to explain further. 

I also think the IMO defence is thrown around rather loosely. 

In the end, its all good.  I still love you APF.

Apologies if was offensive, didn't mean to be harsh.

I didn't mean it literally by the way, I wouldn't do it personally but not saying its wrong.

[Charlie]

I find it crazy when people contradict themselves in the same post.

 

[MoviePosterBid.com]

With all due respect, a fast web search will turn up many instances like these, where art museums have hosted shows featuring movie posters:
http://www.denverartmuseum.org/exhibitions/rebranded-polish-film-posters-american-western-0
http://www.vcstar.com/entertainment/art-galleries-and-museums_20140307103838164
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g186368-d6510862-i121571084-Shrewsbury_Museum_and_Art_Gallery-Shrewsbury_Shropshire_England.html


Frankly, I do not see how posters advertising early 20th century wine and soap can be considered art, while posters aren't.  Now, I will admit that 90% of posters are NOT art, but I think that is true in general.  Those early French advertising posters are probably 90% lost and forgotten with only the best saved and cherished.

Are Norman Rockwell paintings less a work of art because they graced the covers of the Saturday Evening Post.  How about Hirschfeld drawings.  Are you saying that the ones he drew for restaurant openings are art, but the ones he created for movie posters aren't?

As long as we consider the art print as a legitimate form, I think we have to consider the movie poster in the same light.

T is just a snob Jay. Objet's de Art encompasses a huge variety of material, snobbery aside.

[Ari]

I can't be bothered rereading but I think it was said by our illustrious leader, Movie posters aren't FINE art.
Rather than applied art or commercial art, which is what Movie posters are (dare I say IMHO).

Thats OK isn't it?

An original painting might be fine art, but whack a title and credits and tagline to it and print it off for use in theatres, surely everyone agrees it then becomes a whole 'nother beast... right?

And no snobbery, I love commercial art, as with anything, when its done well its great.
my Mother was a commercial artist, my sister and I both do it when we can to help pay the bills.

I'm getting an original Manhunter poster, because I love the film and the artwork, but I wouldn't get an Exorcist poster, even though I think the artwork is great.

See how subjective it is?
I would LOVE an Exorcist poster, because I love the film, but I think the artwork STINKS