ART DAY - Movie Poster original paintings! 1 1

[The Shoveler]

Coffy for me.

 

I like the colors of Bob Peak's Star Trek:TMP poster...its composition was even adapted for an X-Men Fatal Attractions trading card. But the Coffy poster is just over-the-top.

 

[artdealer]

I sold the "Coffy" painting years ago.

And if anyone with deep pockets is interested in the Star Trek : The Motion Picture original painting by Bob Peak, contact me.

MI

[Bronty]

[Terry Doyle]

New in today, marking my fourth and final update of this current batch of movie poster artwork purchases:

 

 

GALAXY HORROR (Italian release of the British 1969 movie, THE BODY STEALERS)

“Produced by Britain's Trigon Pictures, The Body Stealers (1969) stars Patrick Allen as Bob Megan, an investigator called in to solve a bizarre mystery: During training courses, British parachutists are disappearing in a strange red mist, leaving no trace. Even more mysterious is the fact that they later turn up, with their bodies filled with lethal doses of radiation. Megan, aided by Jim Radford (Neil Connery, brother of Sean Connery), begins an investigation, which uncovers an unearthly beauty Lorna Wilde who somehow is incapable of being photographed. Eventually, Megan and Radford discover that the parachutists are being kidnapped by aliens from the planet Mygon, who use the men to try to impregnate Mygonian women, thereby saving their dying civilization. Unfortunately, a side effect of this plan seems to be the irradiation of the earthlings. Megan exposes and foils the alien plan, but he also decides to lead an effort to discover a way of saving their race from extinction.”

With an image size of approximately 17” x 13”, this was an Italian re-designed poster artwork that differs significantly to the (rather sedate) original UK quad poster version:

 

 

British quad poster of THE BODY STEALERS (1969)

Re-named GALAXY HORROR for its Italian release, the resulting advertising art dramatically enlivened what is basically a low-budget British science-fiction thriller that is both short on excitement and special effects. As such, the movie short-changed cinema-going audiences captivated by a poster image that is basically a cheat and had very little to do with the movie it was seeking to promote!

 

Not entirely sure who the artist is on this one (possibly Franco Picchioni?), but the artwork (which has a nice retro-feel to it) instantly appealed to me when I saw it up for sale on Mitch Itkowitz’s Graphic Collectibles web-site. Bought entirely for the artwork itself and not for the hopelessly dull-as-dishwater movie it represented. As such, a really nice example of the science-fiction genre.

 

Here are some examples of how the artwork was used for the Italian movie poster advertising campaigns:

 

 

Thanks again, Mitch!

 

 

[Bronty]

Cool piece

[rotembk]

This seems like a good place to ask: what does a "color comprehensive" mean in the process of coming up with the artwork for a movie poster?

[Bronty]

This seems like a good place to ask: what does a "color comprehensive" mean in the process of coming up with the artwork for a movie poster?

 

Its a generic term for a color (rather than pencil) study prior to a full (usually painted) illustration.

 

It can be three inches long (I have some like that) or three feet long, or any dimension in between.

 

They can be the roughest of rough attempts at laying down color, or practically finished pieces, but in all cases, they are the artist laying down some paint to see how those colors are working together prior to making the big time investment of doing the full painting.

 

 

[artdealer]

A color comprehensive, or "Comp" is really no more than a detailed color or b/w idea sketch.

MI

[Bronty]

rotembk

 

You have to imagine the process is typically this:

 

artist and art director for the client discuss the job.

 

artist walks away and comes up with a number (let's say five) drawings (usually fairly quick/rough) to give the client an idea of what different approaches to the illustration might look like. Imagine these are six inch drawings.

 

Client picks one.

 

Artist does a quick color study ("color comprehensive") - this step optional, could be zero, one, two, studies, every job different based on artist preferences. Imagine this is an 8 inch painting.

 

Artist does big final time intensive painting. Imagine this is a 30 inch painting.

 

Here's a picture of a studio with some color comps in yellow and some finals in red. The row of finals on top are 30", the row of finals at bottom are 20", and the comps are various but much smaller sizes:

 

[vodou]

well now you're talking my language. I was thinking about this Noriyoshi Ohrai as my selection:

 

My exact pick as well but it could be something different every day. Too many to pick just one and be good with that!

 

Some of the great classic movie poster images were created as stone lithos...which in another thread we all agreed (except me) isn't "real" art because it was made as a printmaking form, no "original" in the typical and frameable sense exist. Not that the etched stones exist any longer for that matter either!

[Bronty]

well now you're talking my language. I was thinking about this Noriyoshi Ohrai as my selection:

 

My exact pick as well but it could be something different every day. Too many to pick just one and be good with that!

 

Some of the great classic movie poster images were created as stone lithos...which in another thread we all agreed (except me) isn't "real" art because it was made as a printmaking form, no "original" in the typical and frameable sense exist. Not that the etched stones exist any longer for that matter either!

 

Interesting, I was always wondering how they got the original image transferred onto the stones, but you are saying the stones themselves were the medium, directly. Did not know that!

[Bronty]

. Not that the etched stones exist any longer for that matter either!

 

I'm sure artists got tired of their wives asking them about the giant rocks in the closet Just not a practical item to keep at the scale they must have been produced at.

[vodou]

Not necessarily huge Bronty!

 

 

Of course all relative to the size of the final printed image. So eight and twelve sheets...

[Bronty]

Not necessarily huge Bronty!

 

 

Of course all relative to the size of the final printed image. So eight and twelve sheets...

 

thanks for sharing that. Cool to get an idea of what they would have looked like.

 

Yes, that's what I was thinking, that the stone would be the exact size of the printed image, yes?

 

Meaning... even ten of those things at one sheet scale would take up a ton of space, yeah? Looking at your example it looks 1.5 inches thick. Can't see many people keeping those in the 1930s and 1940s, especially given that homes typically had, what, 1/2 the storage space back then, if lucky, as compared to modern homes? Have any come up for sale from that period?

[vodou]

They were (are?) purely held to be the means of production. I'm not aware of the stones ever being collected or even saved, though surely some were. IIRC the stones can be smoothed down for reuse also, so a working artist would view the stone as more of a pencil that one keeps sharpening until it's to a nub, then just grab a new pencil. The "art" was the print, as intended by the artist, not the stone (e.g. pencil). I consider the opinion of the board on this subject, broadly, to be rather narrow-minded. But as a comic art collector too, I also understand it. I even would have agreed in the past. Then I sort of opened my mind and did the research...and ultimately found the many original printmaking forms interesting, compelling and collectible. Again, if there's any confusion, I'm talking about artist pulled prints, not mechanical mass production "prints" (aka posters, giclees, etc).

[Bronty]

They were (are?) purely held to be the means of production. I'm not aware of the stones ever being collected or even saved, though surely some were. IIRC the stones can be smoothed down for reuse also, so a working artist would view the stone as more of a pencil that one keeps sharpening until it's to a nub, then just grab a new pencil. .

 

ah.

[Terry Doyle]

. Not that the etched stones exist any longer for that matter either!

 

I'm sure artists got tired of their wives asking them about the giant rocks in the closet Just not a practical item to keep at the scale they must have been produced at.

 

No shipping available, collection only . . .

[Terry Doyle]

They were (are?) purely held to be the means of production. I'm not aware of the stones ever being collected or even saved, though surely some were. IIRC the stones can be smoothed down for reuse also, so a working artist would view the stone as more of a pencil that one keeps sharpening until it's to a nub, then just grab a new pencil. The "art" was the print, as intended by the artist, not the stone (e.g. pencil). I consider the opinion of the board on this subject, broadly, to be rather narrow-minded. But as a comic art collector too, I also understand it. I even would have agreed in the past. Then I sort of opened my mind and did the research...and ultimately found the many original printmaking forms interesting, compelling and collectible. Again, if there's any confusion, I'm talking about artist pulled prints, not mechanical mass production "prints" (aka posters, giclees, etc).

 

Fascinating stuff, Michael. Can you list any of the 'classic movie' examples this process was used for?

[Bronty]

Pretty much the entire 'golden age of cinema' Terry.

 

 

 

 

I found an interesting article on process http://www.posterclassics.com/StoneLithograph.html

[Bronty]

From icollectmovieposters.com :

 

"One sheet posters. The most popular poster size is arguably the one sheet. One sheets are 41 inches high by 27 inches wide. They are printed on paper stocks which can vary widely in quality from beautiful enamel stocks to the cheapest newspulp. One sheets can utilize art or photographic elements. One sheets are printed now by offset photolithography, a process by which original art which is used to make the poster is photographed and a printing plate is made from the film. But in the first half of this century, older posters may have been printed by lithographic techniques utilizing stone or zinc plates. These posters are referred to as stone lithographs and this printing technique, now largely confined to fine art editions, was once used commercially to produce all types of posters. Stone lithography stopped altogether in the early 1950s, as photo offset printing, being cheaper and faster, dominated. But stone lithographic one sheets (as well as three and six and even twenty four sheets) have become the rosetta stones of many collections. Ask a collector or dealer to show you the difference between these two kinds of printing methods and you will understand why collectors ooh and aah over stone lithos. The one sheet is, for the most part, the smallest poster which can be a stone lithograph. This, as much as anything else, has accounted for its popularity. But it also must be said this has been historically the poster which, through the decades, has been used by the exhibitors more than any other poster. It is virtually the only size used today by all exhibitors in all parts of the country. It's importance in recent times in the minds of collectors has been shaped by it's preeminence as the favored size for inclusion in auctions. Great posters are not defined by their dimensions alone but rather by their design overall. There are wonderful designs in every size. "