My continued fascination with the successful and unsuccesful aesthetic “teases” of film posters led me recently to several new one-sheets that really caught my eyes. The first, teased further by this lead image, was a very recent “separated at birth” set of images that could spark a good discussion - an example of horror and surrealism finding fairly naturally bedfellows in one another…

Lionsgate is set to release The Descent a fairly claustrophobic horro flick about a caving / spelunking outing gone quickly awry, seemingly a pretty tense cross between films like Deliverance, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and even a bit of The Hills Have Eyes in many ways.

It was immediately clear from the marketing art that the designer / art director on this project caught a great opportunity to dust off a photographic tidbit from Surrealism and “appropriate” it (probably outright steal it to be frank) for the purposes of the film.

Here’s Lionsgate’s artwork (courtesy of the Apple trailers page):

…and here is the original 1951 photo taken by Phillipe Halsman of Salvador Dali with a grouping of models posed as the skull, an image I’d seen on a postcard at first several years ago. It’s part of at least a handful of photographic collaborations that Halsman and Dali executed, and perhaps the most recognized of them.

The images shown together leave no doubt that the one is drawn from the other, and even regarding this as an example of where graphic design swipes liberally from a fine art source, I have to see it’s an awfully seductive theft. The grouping of the women’s bodies into the implied skull captures so much of the dynamic of this film, and makes a striking poster image to boot - a step above most of the other fairly formulaic horror posters that often cover the theatre lobby walls.

This leaves me, at least, pretty divided in my reaction: on a purely visual and communicative level, this piece is a success - it conveys what it needs to convey and grabs attention provocatively. If I was a designer without any art historical knowledge, I’d simply “oooh” at it and then keep walking, but the educator and historian in me both bristle at this.

I try to discuss the differences between homage, appropriation, and outright copying / stealing in my courses, and this treads AWFULLY close to the homage / stealing line for my tastes - there’s no discussion anywhere else that I’ve found from the designers / photographers discussing the image they crafted as a reference to the Dali / Halsman work. Hopefully they’ll stumble onto this and refute my claims / accusations live for the rest of us to encounter…

So I’m left thinking this is a very successful theft that I’ll likely use as part of my homage / stealing conversations from now on, but also wanted to open up the forum to the BA crowd to see what we make of it.

Additionally, here are three other recent poster finds that caught my eyes - see what you think of them, and feel free to point out any “source material” that I simply didn’t recognize for any of them.

All four of these posters continue the trend of beautifully suggestive photographic imagery which has been just slightly manipulated to set the graphic hook of the piece. Enjoy…

Comments (17)

marc said:

i think if you plan on stealing part of a post from elsewhere you should at least give them credit:

http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002758.html

Posted on July 31, 2006

Bennett said:

Marc, Isn’t it entirely possible that two different people recognized the same appropriation of a famous Dali piece? I haven’t discussed this issue with Paul yet, but I know for a fact that he is VERY knowledgeable when it comes to art history and obviously very sensitive to the idea of “stealing”. I have little doubt that he recognized the piece on his own power and that it was just a coincidence that it happened on the same day.

I know that the Speak Up post went up first, but that does not mean that this part of the post was in fact stolen. It would be foolish to post the same material from the farther of design blogs and then post it on a different design blog and call it your own.

Just because Speak Up posts about a specific topic (lets say the Quark logo similarities) after us, doesn’t mean that they stole idea from us. Some things are just obvious and we both post about it.

We take the idea of credit very seriously at BADG and do our best to give appropriate credit.

I think that if you plan on accusing someone of stealing you should at least think things through first:

Nate Voss said:

Holy crap! Two people noticed the same thing! This has never happened before.

I… I don’t know what to do…

Anyways, the one that catches my eye (well, they all do) is the poster for Quiet, not in the desaturated-photo-with-color-overlays-Glamourshot-photo way, but in the simple manner in which the two colors integrate into the type. It’s wonderful.

I, however, have just sat through and evening of television where I’ve seen no less than 20 trailers for The Decent and can thoroughly say I am so bored with hearing about that movie I could care less who cop’ed who’s idea (the poster, not the article).

Also bonus points for the crank image. A coworker of mine spent a month working his butt off on a local anti-meth campaign, and having seen his work on that I think this poster hits the right points.

Bobby Dragulescu said:

See, my mind went directly to this Posterwire.com entry.

Not saying you stole it, but it was a very, very familiar read.

p.berkbigler said:

I’m going to have to blame the zeitgeist for the overlap of my post and the other two discussions of the “Descent” / Halsman imagery - I’ve had the images and idea for this post sitting on my hard drive for about a month and simply followed the prompting of my BA cohorts to get a new post up before the month slipped away from me. I’ll second Nate and Bennett’s sentiments that this simply demonstrates how much the design community is tuning in to similar things and leave it at that.

Moreover, I’m also willing to promote this thread as something neither of the others are pushing the discussion as: a place to hash out our feelings about what this sort of “appropriation” does to design’s reputation.

I’ve had several discussions with friends who paint, sculpt, photograph, and in one way or another practice art consistently and many express at least the slight bias that designers more often than not simply steal from the other arts passing off imagery, ideas, and insights as original to the designs they create. Some of this theft is litigated, and some of it really does pass under the radar of homage / reference.

Mountains of discussion about the postmodern “art” of appropriation exists freely for the browsing, and there is a certain truth to the notion of “standing of the shoulders of others” when it comes to artistic practice - innovation and creative expansion both offer rich futures to art. The fact remains, however, that I strongly believe that any one of us who has ever made anything gets at least a little stirred by the moments when we see someone else generate a “knock-off,” and there’s no denying this poster as exactly that.

Artists get hot and bothered when they see their creative work coopted for the purposes of selling the next flavor of film, beverage, or widget alike (not least of which when they don’t see any recompense for their original efforts included in that coopting) - so where do we stand on the matter?

…And frankly, here’s another gauntlet to toss out - I’d freely invite any of the designers who worked on these posters to jump into the discussion. I’m actually more than a little bothered by the fact that it’s nigh unto impossible to actually find artist / designer credits for these posters - I would be deeply pleased to publish the names of the photographers, designers, digital retouchers, etc. who were involved in bringing these posters to the public, but don’t find the studios or many other on-line sources very willing to divulge that information…

Feel free to prove me greatly wrong in this matter.

The whole design stealing from art subject is such a touchy one. There is something to be said for finding an appropriate place in design or advertising for something from another field or study. I have seen some great advertising that has used a very common joke in a new and unique way. It takes work to get to that point. You could almost look at it like you would found art and sculpture. The designer takes pieces and uses them in an innovative way. I’m not sure if the Dali appropriation is a good example of this, but it did take some work and thought to get to where they did on the Descent poster.

Posted on August 1, 2006

Tony said:

I believe the same Dali skull was used for the movie poster “Silence of the Lambs”.

Borrow, Borrow, it reminds us we’re only half as good as those before us.

Thanks for pointing out “Silence” as well - I’d seen another comment about that image appearing on the “Silence” poster as well but hadn’t remembered that was the case. It turns out I’d simply never seen a version of the poster image large enough to realize the skull on the death’s head moth actually was composed of bodies…

Here’s a link to a larger version of the “Silence” poster that allows you to see it very clearly.

Realizing this telling detail on the “Silence” poster also bumps up my respect for it as a poster design - it, much like the “Descent” use of it, really adds a lot of rich suggestion to the already powerful image combination of the faces made mute by the wings of the moth.

Posted on August 2, 2006

Google decided not to really play well with Moveable Type, so in place of the non-functioning link above, here’s a copy of the poster courtesy of Russia’s Kinomania site.

Ididnotwritethis said:

Question - According to artnet.com, “avant-garde artist Piotr Uklanski did his own version of the human-bodies-as-skull motif in 1999, placing himself at the center surrounded by naked women, a work that set a record for the artist at a Philips Contemporary auction earlier this year”

artwork here: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artnetnews/artnetnews7-25-06-5.asp

It sold for over $400,000.

To me, that’s even a more blatant rip-off of the original - did the person who shelled out $400K get duped? Why didn’t anyone cry out plagirism here?

I had no idea that the skull in the Silence of the Lambs poster was composed of bodies. Very interesting. So, it has been used in two art photographs and two movie posters. Unless Uklanski was making a statement about the Halsman/Dali photograph, I think his is the biggest rip off. Does anyone have any more background on the Uklanski photograph?

Here is one more link to the Silence poster.

Ah…and the magic word finally appears in reference to both “Descent” and the Uklanski image - taken from artnet itself:

“HALSMAN HOMAGE IN HOLLYWOOD

It’s not that Hollywood has a sense of art history, it’s just that it knows a good skull image when it sees one. The poster for the soon-to-be-released movie The Descent, a horror film about six young women stalked by monsters while spelunking, is a note-for-note retread of a famous 1951 Philippe Halsman portrait of Salvador Dalí — with slightly bigger hair and more dramatic lighting, of course. And, the movie poster isn’t the only recent homage to Halsman’s portrait — avant-garde artist Piotr Uklanski did his own version of the human-bodies-as-skull motif in 1999, placing himself at the center surrounded by naked women, a work that set a record for the artist at a Philips Contemporary auction earlier this year.”

Dear, sweet “homage” - it’s such a pretty word, really…It allows a copyist to acknowledge their awareness of some original work and to “state” that acknowledgement as a faithful reproduction of the entirety (or at least some significant portion) of that source work. It looks like Piotr Uklanski had a pretty enjoyable time placing himself within the “assemblage” that Halsman and Dali originally concocted, and has found buyers and patrons willing to pick up his “homage” for their own collections to boot.

And yet, I know I feel myself bristling at this sort of nudge-nudge-wink-wink copycat work - sure, it’s a way for art past and present to meet and eat one another’s tails…sure, it’s a chance to pay “loving respect” to an original work while also making something of your own out of it…sure, it’s simply post-modern variation on a theme…

Bennett nails the loophole inherent in “homage” with a single phrase: “unless Uklanski was making a statement about the Halsman/Dali photograph” putting the whole discussion on the poetically slippery slope of an artist’s intent and messaging purpose…

I’m just deeply curious how the Halsman Family / Foundation chooses to weigh in on these cases - there seem to be so many cease-and-desist orders flying around on the web about duplicates, look-alikes, forgeries, direct copies, etc. and yet here are no less than three unmistakable “homages” to Halsman’s original without any mention of ceasing being made.

So, did the Halsman Family simply turn a blind eye? Did they permit it? Are they simply taking this as one more chance for Halsman’s original to be discussed, appreciated, and acknowledged as the superior source?

Eric Wicks said:

Figured I’d jump in on the conversation too. Seeing as how I haven’t read every single post, I can’t be responsible for any “similar” thoughts as those which have come before me. First of all wasn’t this Descent movie just released recently? Secondly. I find it funny that there are so many ripoffs of art, illustration, and other design that happen in this fast paced modern medium we call advertising and design. Is it that we aren’t as smart as people who have come before us? No, we’re smarter. Ok, maybe not. All I want to say is many of us have turned art into money and in doing so have created a backwards way of creating what was such a free means of expression and ideation in the past. We aren’t lazy we’re just expected to do three times as much in the time people used to have to do one (somewhat hard to judge as far as the projects scope is concerned) and we can. We can push buttons and move things around. It is much easier, but just as difficult, if not more difficult than before. I approve the Descent’s website… they use ligatures on their flash website. I don’t know of anybody doing that right now. Also, who cares obviously they didn’t do it as well as Dali or even the Silence of the Lambs for that matter. WE can just rest assured that if something better does come out of some “inspiration” one has then it is actually better. I agree with ethics and values and shit, but I don’t think they were trying to recreate it without siting the source.

I’m entirely a proponent of the powers of inspiration, influence, and adding to the accomplishments of those that came before us, but I’m not a proponent of smug-faced “borrowing” in the name of commercialism. Despite the fact that opportunities to execute designs have broadened considerably, the speed with which those designs can be accomplished has been increased, and the demand for both quickness and ingenuity has been heightened, a rip-off in the name of getting a project done rapidly simply demonstrates a lack of discipline combined with blatant disregard for intellectual property.

But besides that, it’s fine, right?

It’s not the quality of the “homage” that I’m debating, Eric, it’s whether there should be solidly held lines drawn on swiping imagery from EXTREMELY recognizable sources and known artists. When it comes to critiquing work with my students, I would have been hard pressed to encourage them to finalize this design approach on the “Descent” poster because of the exactitude of copying the source…

EmilyN said:

I agree that one should try to be original at all times when designing, but there are times when an homage/borrowing/stealing is necessary. Case in point, the movie poster (and eventual book jacket) for The Girl with a Pearl Earring. I don’t have a handy link available, but it’s basically a photographic reconstruction of the Vermeer painting of the same title, but with Scarlet Johansen as the “Girl”. This example is more of a given because the movie directly references the artist and the original painting.

However, when doing an homage one would hope that those involved would take the artist and the original work into consideration. Not just the image, in the “Oooh, that’s a hot skull!” kinda way, but in the “what was the artist’s intention?” or “what kind of impact did this image have for Art (with a big A)and its time?” and “how does this in turn relate to the subject matter of our motion picture gem?” But that’s probably giving too much credit to Hollywood…

Posted on August 3, 2006

Yeah, The Vermeer reference in the “Girl with a Pearl Earing” was the obvious (and maybe the only option) for that movie poster. As a side note, the original cover of the book had the original Vermeer painting and it wasn’t until the movie came out that the Johansen cover hit bookstores.

Be A Design Group

Be A Design Group

BE A DESIGN GROUP is an invitation to all people to participate in design. It is a place where designers can test new ideas, share observations, and comment on cultural trends. Our definition of design is intentionally broad so that the subject matter of our posts can be diverse and unlimited.

Notable One-sheets

by Paul Berkbigler, (17 comments)

Sponsored by:

Comments (17)

marc said:

Bennett said:

Nate Voss said:

Bobby Dragulescu said:

p.berkbigler said:

p.berkbigler said:

Bennett said:

Tony said:

p.berkbigler said:

p.berkbigler said:

Ididnotwritethis said:

Bennett said:

p.berkbigler said:

Eric Wicks said:

p.berkbigler said:

EmilyN said:

Bennett said:

Post a comment