Jump to content
IGNORED

Update from iBot: Drew Struzan and Navigating History


Deleted12

Recommended Posts

I’ve received a lot of comments, emails, and at last week’s NCFIC conference, lots of questions about the DVD cover for Navigating History. Lots of you have wanted to know who did it, how it was done, why it was done, and if I realized that it was copying Indiana Jones. In short, I painted this poster in an effort to communicate the vision of the first season of the Navigating History show, and I did my best to copy Drew Struzan’s style, partly because he set so many of the visual precedents that we associate with adventure, and partly as a tribute to him.

NHEcoverBig.jpg

Drew Struzan, now retired, was in many ways the most successful movie poster artist in the history of film. His technical ability was unmatched, and his aesthetic style was incredibly appealing, but his greatest skill was capturing the best elements of a film and making them stronger. He made adventures more adventurous, dramas more dramatic, and the posters were almost always better than the movies. When I became a man I put away childish things (and then watched as George Lucas made them into stupid, infantile things), but even so… I’ve got to admit that looking at the posters makes me want to watch Star Wars again.

Even though his work only involved creating advertising materials for films that were already complete, I believe that he had a significant influence on the direction of Hollywood in the 80s. Films with Struzan posters did well financially, and sequels, spinoffs, and imitations seem to follow the essence of the posters as much as the plots of the films. Also, in the same way that John Williams brought film scoring back to a symphonic and orchestral base after the improvisational synth soundtrack trends of the 70s, Struzan brought more of a fine-art sensibility of portraiture back to advertisements that were becoming crude and intangible.

His posters are yet another example of commercial illustration, which socialists and auteurs denigrate as being low-brow populist drek, really being some of the best art of its time. John Sargent, Norman Rockwell, and Drew Struzan, within the constraints and supports of the free market, have created some of the most technically superior art of the last century, while their contemporaries in the subsidized or “proper†art world were generally lost in the ugly and abstract.

http://www.outside-hollywood.com/2011/1 ... nghistory/

This whole article is worth reading for an insight into their worldview.

The poster is actually pretty impressive. His signature is a bit fey, though, and also I think you're supposed to erase the guiding lines on the faces.

The statement that they don't watch Star Wars in that house is bullshit. Seriously, all of the people I know who are really into film watch LOTS of movies, and if you assume that the Botkins only watch PG-rated movies, that makes the pickings pretty slim, especially if they shun "childish" movies.

The line "commercial illustration, which socialists and auteurs denigrate as being low-brow populist drek" is baffling to me. Commercial illustration typically isn't very good art not because it's populist, but because it's usually about selling someone else's idea. How many TV ads are remembered for being great art? There are some, but usually the medium is banal at best and obnoxious at worst.

The best ad is an ad that makes someone want to buy the product, and insofar as getting people to go see Spielberg's movies went, Struzan was one of the best. However, his art is as powerful as the product that it's advertising. If we had never seen the Star Wars movies, the posters might be fun to look at for a few minutes, but I don't think they would be worth framing and hanging on the wall. Asking what the artist is selling is as important as the art itself.

As far as the stuff that copyright law prevents me from posting here, how can he say that Spielberg's early work and success was due to the glory of the free market but his later work was the product of "unlimited budgets and... name recognition with an army of yes-men supporting [him]?" So some of his last few films have been turkeys, but seriously, as a whole the man has had a brilliant career that shows no signs of stopping. (It's ironic to me that he denigrates so-called auteurs, but then launches into a discussion of the bodies of work of several famous directors. Unless their films are THEIR creative visions, discussing their films as a body is meaningless.)

Indie filmmakers are not a new thing, but of course they have constraints and rules! Having, like, no budget is a major constraint. Isaac, you can't say that films with massive budgets suck in one paragraph and then say that films with no budgets suck in the next paragraph. Furthermore, you can't praise the wisdom of the free market in one paragraph then say that people who make films for selfish reasons suck in the next paragraph. Serious logic fails, bro.

As far as "active rebellion against created order" goes, where would film be without fantasy? The characters in Star Wars aren't real, but does that mean that we can't learn from them powerful moral lessons that transcend space and time?

Finally, I never noticed the positioning of the holster in the original Indiana Jones poster.

15yyqmf.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three of the four men on the poster are staring off into the distance with, what I assume is, a sense of purpose. The man on the right who is staring directly at the viewer looks like he has smelled bad gas LOL

John Sargent, Norman Rockwell, and Drew Struzan, within the constraints and supports of the free market, have created some of the most technically superior art of the last century, while their contemporaries in the subsidized or “proper†art world were generally lost in the ugly and abstract

Interesting that he doesn't provide the names of the artists that he finds too ugly. He seems to believe that his tastes in art should be the rule for everyone else. If you disagree with him, you are being too highbrow or intellictual.

I also agree that he has a mixed up view of what the free market is.

In fact, as Christian observers, we can go further. We can see active rebellion against created order in the works of many artists, particularly those artists who desire only self-expression and self-satisfaction

Wow. If I understand him correctly he is saying that artists should be motivated by the free market. However, he doesn't believe that artists should create art to express themselves? Am I reading that correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three of the four men on the poster are staring off into the distance with, what I assume is, a sense of purpose. The man on the right who is staring directly at the viewer looks like he has smelled bad gas LOL

Wow. If I understand him correctly he is saying that artists should be motivated by the free market. However, he doesn't believe that artists should create art to express themselves? Am I reading that correctly?

It's Chris Harper, iBot, David Noor, and Steven Bowman in the picture.

And yes, I think you're reading that correctly. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do all these guys sound so....pompous?

Because they are self-important pompous gas bags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.