Death Of The One Sheet

Well, hand painted posters was once the only way to get the job done... even the lettering is hand-painted:



However, a good photoshoped composite needs equally mastering of technique and materials-feeling, no?

"What do you think?"

I think we're getting old. lol


I think money has affected every aspect of movie making, and in some ways, creativity as a whole...and computers have enabled that to flourish.
The new posters are a reflection of the "new". Though the above two posters can be made on the computer.

Composited montages may sometimes simulate the appearance of the classic one-sheet, but they are most often soulless, lifeless imitations of the fine art that used to be illustration.

Every inch of this original painting, Paradise Found, was rendered using oil applied to canvas with a brush:



How often do you find a picture book for children ages 3 to 9 whose artwork was created solely by digital means?

Art evolves. The way we view art evolves. A hand painted movie poster is a brilliant piece of artwork to be sure, but to say that a digital artists work is without soul is unfair to the medium. Certainly we can lament the good ol' days of when sheet paper was hand laid and ink was made from lampblack and gum.

This is today. We can find joy in what we have, rather than despair what has passed.

Don't forget that in the good ol' days movies were on nitrocellulose film, and plenty a theater went up in flames before technology gave us safety film. Ever see the movie 'Cinema Paradiso'? Not many in the movie business want to go back to that time in history.

When oil paints started being sold in tubes, the 'real' artists of the day criticized the laziness of the new generation of painters who did not grind and mix their own pigments. New technologies such as paints being sold in tubes were no less valid a medium than a digital paint pallet is today.
I don't ever want to consider an artist less valid because of the medium they work in.

-YoPedro

Yes - everything has become a 'business model' - a way to make more profit, take more money, spend less, etc. Sales, %off, coupons, and discounts - it's what makes America - if not the world - keep spinning around. Advertisement art is no less part of any profit bottom line - and who cares if a 'real' artist created it - or one that uses photoshop to create a montage? Even Norman Rockwell would have a hard time making a living with magazine ad art in this day and time.

If you think that back when they were hand painting movie posters that profit wasn't a consideration, then you need to look back a little closer at the movie industry. I don't recall any movie studios producing films for arts sake. Profit is always what drives commercial art in any medium.

It's easy to point to Norman Rockwell and say he would have no chance today, that may be true. But how many starving artist were around during his day? There were thousands if not tens of thousands of brilliant artists who never made a dime back in the days before computers. Van Gough never sold a single painting and had to be supported by his brother, that ring a bell? Da Vinci had a patron and was commissioned to do great works. So he didn't starve, but plenty of artist did during his time, and the majority of them have been forgotten.

It's easy to point to the super stars in any field, but the number of those whose dreams go unfulfilled are ad infinitum.

-YoPedro

Sorry, I can't resist.

Movie Poster Floating Heads from Funny Or Die

In America - profit has ALWAYS been - the reason to be - and handpainting - and litho or photocopy wash how they were reproduced. Business today is in business to make money, they are not in business to hire people, nor are they in business to make artists money (unless it is an art business). Every detail that adds or subtracts from a business bottom line is considered - perhaps it seems more true today - but never the less - it has always been true. Some artists became "famous", household names, and that drew in people that spent money to see a movie - the ad was the bottom line. today - the poster/one sheet is seldom seen - except at the cinema - and most folks already know what movie they are going to see. Then every flick in the theater shows a trailer of what else is on or what is coming - I'm almost surprised there are poster used in advertising - and still - the 'one sheets' are still there - and there are folks even willing to spend a few bills to get one of a thriller flick - say of Batman, Superman, the Lord of the Rings, or Captain America - Star Wars.

I wasn't trying to point out 'starving' artists - only the fact that the advertising business has changed - and now - folks that can use photoshop or some other IT medium to create art for advertising has replaced the 'painter' that uses oil or acrylic. and I chose to use NR because he was one of the more famous commercial artists used in advertising - and I think that today - he would have a hard time at it.

Thanks for the Floating Heads clip, April, really enjoyed it!

Since when did this become an issue about the artist's wage?

The studios have advertising budgets attached to every film they release that eclipse the infinitesimally small amount of an illustrator's commission for a one-sheet; what's even more telling is the negligible difference between a commission paid to an illustrator - who's an artist and can draw and paint - and the wage earned by a graphic designer who's on the studio payroll - who digitally manipulates design structures for ads.

How much more or less effective is the 'floating heads' format as compared with Struzan's or Alvin's unforgettable masterpieces?

Quickly recall the poster image for Alvin's one-sheet of ET the Extraterrestrial...you know, the one in which ET's glowing, otherworldly fingertip is close to touching Elliot's human digit. The image is so iconic it's nearly a character in the film.

Now recall the poorly conceived, mugshot-style posters for The Internship; who gives a flying crap about seeing a movie whose studio ad department is so lazy it shows they don't give a crap about making a compelling - artfully rendered - one-sheet?

Patrick, your position seems more the lack of creativity in the movie industry in their digitally created posters as compared to when an artist painted and created brilliant one sheet posters? Is it not so much about the medium but the lack of creative genius?

That's pretty close, Sydne. Indeed, the quick fix approach seems to be the best solution for studios:

"Hey Mutt. How fast can you get me a one-sheet for Thor: The Dark World?"

"No problem, Jeff. I'll just use Ironman 3 as a template and have it to you by the end of my shift."

Just as computer generated imagery (that's now used almost exclusively to animate films such as Pixar's, Toy Story films) has replaced hand-drawn cell animation, so too has PhotoShop compositing replaced hand-drawn and painted illustration work, to wit: We must not let art whither and die on the vine, for it will surely be the death of us all as artists.

It's about the money! Hollywood knows no honor to anyone, whatever is fastest works for them. That's why they fail artistically.

Patrick, are you stating, the world of digital will be the death of art as we know it? That being oil and canvas and so forth?

"How often do you find a picture book for children ages 3 to 9 whose artwork was created solely by digital means?"

Interesting question . . . don't think I've ever seen one. We buy lots of books for little ones and the images are usually hand-illustrated, drawn, painted.


--Donna Proctor

To think this monetary phenomenon in art is new is a mistake. I own 4 stone lithos by very famous artists. They were done "after" their large paintings. The editions usually were about 1,000 signed by the artist and consigned to dealers mostly in Europe. This way a painter could extend his ability to charge by 1,000 albeit at a laser rate.

No, Sydne, I am definitely not stating, "...the world of digital will be the death of art as we know it;" I think digital art is wonderful and probably what I soon will be doing, or at least some hybrid form of digital painting (Cintiq).

What I am saying is that there's something lost in the crude-but-flashy compositing of photos - like those results a quick montage will get you - when creating one-sheet ads for films; they're sterile, lifeless imitations of the stuff we artists do...facsimiles, if you will.

Hello, Donna! Yes! The picture books with the highest merit - and oftentimes, the highest sales figures - are those with images that look like a child created them. Wonderful stuff!