Graphic Design and Mass Production of Art Pieces

The main purpose of the essay is to explore the understanding of mass reproduction of artistic pieces, their purpose, benefits and harm today to posters and art paintings. Building on this exploration, I will look at how these two fields can overlap or be distinct. The objective is not to say something that people already know but to raise new questions, introduce a debate and establish the relationship between these two fields.

I chose this topic since it addresses the numerous issues affecting graphic design and mass production of art pieces. This is for different reasons such as the freedom you can have during their creation, playing with layers of images, text and other elements in a way that I can only find similar in paintings. Furthermore, one of the things I also love doing is painting, because I feel such similar freedom of feelings as when I am designing posters. Mechanically reproduced posters may resemble the actual art work, thus making it hard for the viewer to distinguish the two types of works. However, the distinctions are clearly much more than this. This is what I will try to discover and explain through my research. All my curiosity is focused on finding out what the differences are and their definition.

One of the important characteristics of a poster is that it is made on a large piece of paper, printed or hand-made and often involves to the use of photographs, illustrations or paintings. Posters express emotions that identify with the public’s “frequently express visual ideas as well as paintings have done” (Barnicoat 1994, 183). But it is not just by the visual ideas within that poster that can be defined. Rickards (1970, p.5) argues that posters “must embody a message” to advertise or publicize something, that as we can see it is the function executed for much of the posters that are possible to find on streets, publicize books, films, companies, parties or just products, in order to sell or just to inform the public of the existence of something. The nature of the poster refers to an urban mass disclosure; Rickards argues that “it must be publicly displayed” and that “it must have been multiply produced”. (Rickards 1970, p.5)  These are features which are easy to associate and identify as the nature of a poster.

Unlike art paintings, posters can also be defined as urban mass disclosures In other words, paintings can be extremely similar to posters, and whereby the techniques used in their reproduction may sometimes be confused or compared. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, “if painting and drawing are not always clearly distinguishable from each other, both are to be distinguished from the print (or work of graphic art), in which the design is not produced directly but is transferred from another surface to that which it decorates.” (Columbia Encyclopedia 2011)  This quote clearly indicates that there is a strict distinction between paintings and posters. When properly done, paintings must be considered as a piece of fine art. They are usually represented in flat support surfaces such as canvas, paper, walls, wood and many other ones, by the application of pigment, color or paint as acrylic, oleo, watercolors, spray, gouache and similar.  Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (2011) illustrates the art and design elements incorporated in the production of movement, space, volume and light sensation. Despite the distinctions in the production of  posters and paintings, there are  notable similarity between the two in  the elements of design used with the intention of producing the same sensations. According to Cruz, paintings “silently speak to your soul through creativity, contrast, color, light, textures, movement, and lots of good taste.” And that “A painting pleases your eyes, brings joy to your spirit, and gains artistic value while it beautifies a wall, a room, a home, a building or an outdoor space” (Cruz 2012) Therefore, the main distinction between art paintings and reproduced art works is the techniques of production, which as we saw are significantly different. Indeed the purpose and function they perform and the reason why they were created is possibly a stronger distinction.

Contemporary mass reproduction of art has seen art achieving different forms and covers numerous fields such as graffiti and street-art. Graffiti and street art artists have risen to express their works of high artistic value, is changing public opinion in regards to these art forms. Artists like Shepard Fairey and Banksy, are street-artists with a vast array of works that covers up to the poster and painting.

Shepard was born in 1970 in South Carolina, U.S. He became known by the massive spread of stickers and stencils of ‘Andre The Giant’, a professional wrestler. The stickers had the message: OBEY. It was Shepard who re-created the portrait of Barack Obama, in a work called ‘Hope’ which was displayed everywhere during his election campaign in 2008. This was an illustration that during the time of the campaign, that portrait worked perfectly as an icon of hope for America. It was reproduced in thousands of posters and t-shirts. This image is now in the U.S National Portrait Gallery, and was also in the first major exhibition of Shepard in the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston.

“Fairey’s large-scale; mixed-media stenciled collage was the central portrait image for the Obama campaign and was previously distributed as a limited-edition print and as a free download” (BBC 2009). How this work should be considered? It is possible to consider it as a painting. Due to the fact that it was made directly on the final surface, and through techniques as spray and stencils. Or on the other hand the fact that it was been reproduced thousands of times, for use in an election campaign, made this work is just a poster?                                                      

The Obama portrait found in the U.S. National Portrait Gallery can be considered as a fine art piece. Once that was just produced three times (by the same stencils) and all the three has small differences between them, becoming unique pieces. Thus, all the other reproductions of this piece can be considered as posters by the intention of advertise and massive reproduced. However this is a hard piece to classify and we can not just look at the techniques, in order to do it.

Clearly the techniques used in the creation of this portrait go against the definitions of it, since the original intentions of the artist were different. What I am trying to say is that, Shepard' original intention was to support the Obama campaign. Therefore he hoped his work would be reproduced and disseminated, hundreds or thousands of times as in this case. Thus since the beginning, this work has had the aim of poster. Shepard states that, “An artist can be multidimensional. They can fuse a lot of things, they care. It is not necessary to paint yourself into a corner with categories”.                                                                                                                                                                   

In this quote Shepard was talking about his work where he tried to reinforce the idea of multidimensional and wide definition that he himself gives and is possible to find on his work. However is clearly a work that can be considered between artistic definitions or as the artist said multidimensional. But the fact that this three pieces, including the one in the National Portrait Gallery be originals and unique, make them pieces of fine art. With much more value than every copy that can be made from them. Because the more unique a piece of work it is the more valuable it will get. This is supported by “The fact that painting is so well known and copied endlessly just adds to the individuality of having the original” (Somberville 2010); therefore, raising the value and the price of the original.

According to Chute, “the line between advertising and art is blurring. Advertisers routinely co-opt the gestures of street art, not just to appeal to younger consumers but often to make a point to a mainstream audience” (Chute 2010) This quote explains how evident the mixture of different artistic styles into one another is. This increases the difficulty to make distinctions between different types of work and evaluate them. Mark Bradford's work is a good example to support this idea. In fact, he combines painting techniques with elements from advertising and with this particular approach he opens new doors to the rise of new art forms.

The artist was born, lives and work in Los Angeles. Crossing techniques from collage, paintings, sculpture, videos and installations, Bradford gained many prestigious of awards as the Louis Comfort Tiffany Foundation Award and the more recent one a MacArthur “Genius” Grant.  Mark Bradford's "Untitled (shoe)" of 2003 exhibited at the ICA Boston, represents the way contemporary art increasingly covers various definitions and fits into several applied arts.                                                    

In order to classify this work into an existing art discipline, we should perhaps abandon the consideration of those, previously mentioned, characteristics. Or should we instead take into account all the features visually expressed by the work, and list them as keys of a completely new art form? Once again we are forced to consider this multidimensional piece of work in a middle of different definitions.

Therefore this work can be considered a fine art piece. Especially because was not reproduced massively or displayed on a street wall, made use of cut and collage and was done on final surface possible through techniques of pigment application. Can also be considered a poster because incorporates a message, on this case the brand logo ‘Reebok’.

In this case, the artist’s intention when creating this work must be evaluated and taken into account when evaluating this work. Certainly his work was made with the intentions to be a fine art piece into a gallery, in this case The Institute of Contemporary Art / Boston.

Benjamin (1936) believes “The history of every art form shows critical epochs in which a certain art form aspires to effects which could be fully obtained only with a changed technical standard, that is to say, in a new art form”. This quote illustrates Bradford's work well. But must we consider as new forms of art all the works that are covered by several definitions, all the works that are not concrete on the art form that they represent? Or will be that some of the work that can be found in museums and galleries as The Institute of Contemporary Art / Boston should not be classify as art?

His work has appeared in various parts of London and around the world, though he keeps his identity secret, his work is well known by all. His signature work involves various techniques of stencil with the aim of promoting political and social criticism. Banksy ever had his works exhibited in the most distinguished museums and galleries, such as London’s Tate Modern, The New York Museum of Modern Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Brooklyn Museum and The American Museum of Natural History.

Thus he can have illegally, his work displayed in various museums. Works like this, which used well executed techniques of painting and find themselves in museums, can be considered pieces of fine art? Works of this genre, should just be considered as interventional / vandalism or side of street-art, by the daring and violent way that they are disclosed? Artits are yet to accept a standard way of defining art since “It is impossible to define what is art, but only, perhaps, its function” (Giappone 2010). This suggests that the function of Banksy’ work stealthily placed in museums, it is possible to consider that lies between art painting and other forms of art since it acts as a painting and interventional art form simultaneously. Art is considered as a “rare, the more expensive, and hard to find artifacts” (Paul 2011). The fact of to be a unique piece from one known and dignified artist, just by itself gives high valued to that work. Also here is important to analyze the importance that places as galleries and museums has on the work that is there exposed. Some people believe that once one work placed inside of a museum become a piece of art.

However, is the importance of the museum big enough to turn every piece placed in inside into a fine art work? Are the aims or the context which determines these values? On time of constant change and high demands from the public. We find museums trying to follow these changes, through decorative media and other types of aid. “The building of painting and sculpture into the decorative media, the adulteration of styles, the mixing of genres in order to create an environment for the spectator have completed the erosion of values”( Benjamin 1936, 242). Certainly is possible find, contemporary works with an artistic value not determined, in the same space that works of high artistic value? It appears that like sometimes the museums forget their purpose, of educate, inform and maintain a raised artistic level of the pieces that places inside. “The museum wishes to segregate life as art. But when painting and sculpture are made equal to other forms of visual experience... that excellence in art be subordinated to the notions of relevance” (Benjamin 1936, 238). So this is a major problem that arises in relation to museums, or the works that are placed in it.

There appears to be a great effort on the part of museums to come up to the public through works of art, or trying turn into art all simple aspects of life. As a result that often ends up showing works that are not very artistic or not considered for all as a great piece of art. Therefore a case of misunderstanding from public in regards to existent works into the museums thus raising the question as to their relevance. What is the importance of certain works within museums? The museum eventually ends by confusing the public, artistic definitions and reducing the credibility of their own.

There is a view that “The museum of today is sensitive to the poverty of painting as compared with the infinite forms of nature and the man-made” (Steinberg 1972, 240). There is here the existence of a poor selection of pieces by museums, in an area where the existence of art works are vast, man-made. Through that poor selection of some museums (we are talking about small museums). It is possible generalize and say that; the physical space, galleries or museums, just for itself do not add most value artistic or intention, to a work that is done and so their aim has already established.

Not much might be added in the assessment of a work by the fact that it is within an art gallery. Might guarantee an already existing value, such as a painting come to be recognized and admired as such, but will never become an object in another, as one poster going to be a painting. So it is the aim that determines the value of the piece and not the context.

If works can be found there, must be considered as fine art piece. Some of them with a bigger poverty of concept and execution compared to others, but all of them pieces of art.

According to Benjamin (1936), the legitimacy of a piece of work cannot be lost simply because the work has been reproduced and transmitted to other sources since the original work remains intact. Therefore, a piece of artwork retains its unique background even if the work of art is made available to the masses. Although the monetary value is largely diminished, the economic value of the art work never diminishes as it grows the popularity of the original painting, as more people can understand it and take it in higher regard. For example the popularity of Mona Lisa is valued as highly as it is today due to it familiarity among many people. The popularity has been fanned by the availability of the painting in many form of mass reproduction such as prints in books and posters. Nevertheless, control of the mass productions is necessary to respect copyright. 

The magnificence of a visual work of art lies in the intrinsic aptitude to reveal special qualities to the target audience. The artwork must at the very first view from the viewer give a blast of artistic quality, emotional feel, or craftiness so as to generate greater curiosity from the viewer to elicit criticism and comments. Enlargement of art pieces distorts physical dimensions disfigure special effects such that the public grows curious to analyze the original painting by impressive proportions. The leap in the perception of the original view of the painting has been shown to increase the qualitative value of the original artwork in magnitudes that far exceed the physical expansion of the original painting. The intriguing comparison of a high quality reproduction of a popular art work with the less imposing original has been shown to generate greater regard in the original artwork, making the work indisputably appear to be a mysterious work of genius.           

A few elements of design are affected by mass production. Common opinion on the art discipline articulated for ages, and with little dissenting points of view, that art could only attain mass appeal through mass reproduction, through which the work could fly high and soar in the glory of ‘beautiful semblance’. However, critics appreciate the significant effect mass production of art works creates for their perception among the masses (Benjamin1936). The mass reproductions change the public attitudes towards art virtually overnight whereby different aspects of the art become a common to be discussed on a global scale. Therefore, most researchers wish how the art world that art can still flourish in absence of mass production benefits. 

The social significance of an artwork drowns adverse opinion of the artwork in the public spheres. the damning viewpoints slowly begin to emerge as the social significance of the artwork wears off. The greater the decline in social significance, the sharper the criticisms become, and the past glory of the artwork is sometimes overshadowed entirely. Consequently, as long the social significance of a piece of art retains or grows in value, otherwise, the same essence is irreparably damaged with an adversarial opinion. Painting is limited in its ability to relinquish itself in the public eye on an ongoing basis, as is possible with contemporary art forms such as motion arts. 

Commercial reproduction of a painting considerably alters arts essence by altering the artistic elements that are brought out by the materials used in the frame work (Daniel 1971). The overriding theme in posters and commercial productions is to give a message. If an art is used as a poster with alterations to communicate a different message, then automatically, the painting loses it value. Posters disregard the artistic value within a painting since usually the message overshadows the painting obstructing the artistic value before the viewers of the posters. The only goal the advertisers aim to achieve is to evoke emotions and sentiments of social significance of the painting and associate it with a wildly different message to induce passion for the product on offer. Consequently, use of a painting as a retail object or promotional artwork makes it more of a poster than an art; and the weight considerably shifts to the commercial implication of the artwork and not the artistic genius behind the painting used in the commercial production (Henshaw 2002). Modern advertisers have studied the psychology behind consumer decisions, and have come to the remarkable observation of the effects of emotional stirring to the decision for buying decision. Paintings provoke insatiable human desires that ingeniously merged information on the commercial product to invoke the buyer’s desires to possess the product on offer. Therefore, the use of paintings in commercial and retail situations is manipulative use of artistic essence of the artwork to drive commercial deceptive agendas for the marketers of products in question. Commercial use of art work ignores elements that comprise the painting (Henshaw 2002). Political information is especially dishonorable with the use of socially appealing arts to perpetuate political motives. No campaign poster is complete without the explicit use of the national flag color combinations suggestive of the candidate’s sense of patriotism and appropriateness for the position for which they are vying. As with many original productions, issues of property ownership have arisen (Daniel 1971). At the moment, the art world and the advertising world are exchanging counteraccusations, each accusing the other from stealing from the other. The highly charged feuds are show little signs of faltering, considering the trend by advertisers to rely on works of arts to design their commercial posters. On the whole, the commercial reproduction of an art work makes it a poster, an enlarged piece of work intended to drive a purely non-artistic agenda. We are living in the age where art forms are drifting towards mass availability. The suggestion of this trend is that the perspectives on art that hold to the opinion that art remains in the confines of the art museum needs to change as well. Reproductions of art should be seen as art, unless in exceptional cases where the artistic works are combined with overpowering forms of media to drive motives that lack creativity. Therefore, art work produced in mass media with careful presentation of art elements is still art but political campaigns and commercial advertisements that interfere with the authenticity of painting render any art work useless (Henshaw 2002). Even these exceptions are slowly becoming harder to define; we are in the new age of advertising where art is a central part of the commercial activity. It is fairly common to find advertisement that offer essentially no information on the product, and place appreciable emphasis on the magnificence of the artwork instead traditional inclination to highlight textual advertising content.

Mass production of artworks draws varied opinions from the masses about artworks in general (Benjamin 1936). The overriding consensus is that mass production of artworks results in more favourable impacts than sorry effects. Its inevitability in our modern world may appear disturbingly definitive to contrary opinions on what true art works should exhibit, but studies generally show that there is little call for concern and radical opinions on the issue. Mass production of art works embeds the social significance of the same, and does not drain it, as some people seem to believe. Mass reproduction has helped art get to the next level in social significance by gaining identity within social space. Nothing forges the social appeal of a subject than the subtle infiltration into the positive social perceptions of the same. Mass production amplifies the substance of the original piece creating a desire for those with the ability to check on the original art to embark on the artistic journey (Henshaw 2002). The reaction and social perceptions towards art are perpetuated through the use of mass reproduction of art. In the modern world, art is becoming more an element of the daily routine, a channel through which culture and personal expressions are propagated. Art is in the best position to forge cultural and group identities. Such perspectives are clearly visible, in fashion, music, design, beauty, and advertising. Owing to the fact that an original piece of artwork is more expensive and clearly visible than a replica, therefore, the original piece is more desirable since it contains the spirit of creativity. For hardcore lovers of art, possession of the artwork would be a lifelong dream. Original pieces of art are worth thousands to millions of dollars while a poster is a few hundred dollars. Business companies compete to own an original art in order to make replicas for financial gain. Therefore, while some people who have a deeper appreciation for art, and would be willing to own it for its rich historical and sentimental value, others would see it as a product and readily exchange it for money. Although people will not grudgingly accept a replicated work of art, they would desire to possess an original piece of art, for the pride of owning a monumental piece of art, or for the monetary possibilities it possesses.  

Mass reproduction of art works may be in a form of posters, photos, prints, postcard, or silk screens. A poster is a reproduction with an eye appealing title, description, and the name of an artist (Henshaw 2002). A print is a reproduction in which the image is not directly on paper or canvas but on a matrix (Daniel 1971). However, the print on the matrix is transferable on paper or canvas. Photographs or photos are images that electronic gadgets called as cameras. A camera contains a light sensitive surface and the lens. The lens focuses the wavelengths of light of a scene; the light then falls to the light sensitive surface in the camera forming an image of an object. An artist can use a camera to capture the image of an existing artwork. The image that the camera produces is printable as many times as possible. A silk screen involves stretching a piece of fabric and putting it on a frame to form a screen. The parts of the screen that do not contain an image are blocked. The painter then forces ink through fabric to paper underneath to form an image. The artist regulates colors he passes through fabric to paper, the technology, therefore, produces images of a wide range of colors (Barry 2011).                          

Reproduction can be by hand or by mechanical and electronic gadgets like printers and photocopiers. Mass reproduction usually involves taking the original art piece, then photocopying it to produce mass copies. In some cases, the artist scans the original artwork, and then edits it using some specialized computer programs to appear as the original artwork. Editing is also for purposes of enhancing the artwork to suit the individual interests. The artist then prints the scanned and edited images using high-level printers and quality inks on canvas or paper. Rollers and sprayers later texture the printed artwork to produce highly quality pieces (Barry 2011).                                  

Mass reproduction of art works may be in a form of posters, photos, prints, postcard, or silk screens. A poster is a reproduction with an eye appealing title, description, and the name of an artist (Collins 1985). A print is a reproduction in which the image is not directly on paper or canvas but on a matrix. However, the print on the matrix is transferable on paper or canvas. Photographs or photos are images that electronic gadgets called as cameras. A camera contains a light sensitive surface and the lens. The lens focuses the wavelengths of light of a scene; the light then falls to the light sensitive surface in the camera forming an image of an object. An artist can use a camera to capture the image of an existing artwork. The image that the camera produces is printable as many times as possible. A silk screen involves stretching a piece of fabric and putting it on a frame to form a screen. The parts of the screen that do not contain an image are blocked. The painter then forces ink through fabric to paper underneath to form an image. The artist regulates colors he passes through fabric to paper, the technology, therefore, produces images of a wide range of colors.                                                                                                                                                           Reproduction can be by hand or by mechanical and electronic gadgets like printers and photocopiers. Mass reproduction usually involves taking the original art piece, then photocopying it to produce mass copies. In some cases, the artist scans the original artwork, and then edits it using some specialized computer programs to appear as the original artwork. Editing is also for purposes of enhancing the artwork to suit the individual interests. The artist then prints the scanned and edited images using high-level printers and quality inks on canvas or paper. Rollers and sprayers later texture the printed artwork to produce highly quality pieces.                                       

Notable differences exist between posters and paintings. While considerable exist between posters and paintings, salient features put the two, mainly on the basis of the aims they hope to achieve. The main difference between art paintings and posters is in their use; posters are primarily used to communicate a certain message (Collins 1985), with the help of text, visual art in paintings is primarily to help communicate and reinforce the message. With an art painting, the work is presented plainly in visual form to inspire feelings in the personal naturally without a direct agenda. The observer of an art painting is supposed to explore the artwork and through what it expresses derive the emotions and message the painter may have been trying to communicate through the piece of art. The interpretations of the message of a piece of art painting are practically limitless, and the observer is allowed to offer a critique of the same and decide what is symbolizes best. In posters the intention the visual art is intended to invoke and mimic the original painting since visual art is entirely absent, which points to the menial role art is given in the same (Henshaw 2002). The emphasis of a poster is to communicate the message thereof, although the art may be used to draw attention to the first instance. For a poster, the designer is at liberty to associate the art piece with a particular message, painted artworks offer little choice for the painters to do the same. The best they can do is to label the paintings; the expression of the same is open to public critique.                                          

A poster is mostly a reproduction of an artwork, while an art painting is mostly an original artwork. An original artwork refers to the artwork that an artist creates and prints using his hand. The print is on a plate, a stencil, or a stone that is specifically for the purposes of this artwork. On the other hand, an artist creates a poster, mostly, from an existing artwork although it can be original. Posters are mostly an enhancement of the original artwork (Henshaw 2002). Production of posters is made by mechanical and electronic gadgets like computers and printers. The artist producing posters trains to use the specialized programs designed to produce graphics such as a program called Microsoft Publisher or Artworks.                                                                                         

The number of art paintings is limited, and usually for each painting the painter numbers it as a fraction of the total number of paintings to distinguish it from the other. On the other hand, there is a mass production of posters, and they contain no numbers. The number of posters is large due to its large audience (Collins 1985). A painting will contain a graphical object, and maybe a signature of the painter. Normally, a poster will include both text and graphics but may be textual or graphical. The text includes the title of graphic, a description, and the name of the artist. Whereas a painting should be very appealing to eyes, a poster should be both appealing and informative. For the poster, both text and graphics should be highly appealing (Henshaw 2002). For an art painting, the signature of the painter does not have to be appealing; in fact, in most cases, the signature is minute or even absent.                                                                                                                                                                 The main distinction between posters and art paintings lies in the production quality, whereby posters undergo the color enhancement or degradation to produce the high quality or low quality pictures in relation to the original art work (Collins 1985). However, art paintings retain their original aesthetic value and the image quality over a long period of time while posters degrade at a faster rate. As a result, art prints are best suited for the long term decorative purposes. Art paintings mainly include: screen prints, lithographs, etchings, serigraphs, acrylic glazing, among others. The above methods of producing art works are the chief forms of artistic expression in the contemporary society. Art prints are the paintings created by artists in limited numbers, signed, and each piece numbered. On the other hand, posters are the mechanical reproductions of an artist’s original work.                                                                                                                                                            

Art paintings and prints are done using some high quality inks, while posters are printed on glossy paper using ordinary ink. As a result, art paintings are appreciated in value over time, while posters remain stagnant or depreciate in their value. Art paintings are sold at high prices on the market, while posters are sold at relatively lower prices as they are not being the authentic art productions. Art paintings displayed in museums and art galleries are mostly accompanied by a certificate of authenticity signed by the artist. On the contrary, posters placed in galleries are never accompanied with certificates (Collins 1985). The main aim of a poster is to pass an important message or advertise. Groups using posters include advertisers, politicians, protesters, and propagandists. Advertisements on posters can be for jobs, events, or products of an organization. An artist designs a poster to attract an eye from distance. People use posters to advertise other artworks like paintings too. Posters can also be educational involving a particular subject with an educational value. An art painting is less likely to be educational (Timmers 2003).

Conclusion

Mass reproduction has brought a woes and rewards to the art world in competing measures (Collins, 1985). Artists have been on the losing end of the disadvantages resulting from the unregulated reproduction of artworks. More often than not, the users of the pieces of art give little credit if any to the original creators of the art, and brashly present it as their own. Even now, some artists are deeply afflicted by the actions of the advertisers who make obvious imitations of their artworks and use in to articulate their aggressive commercial motives. This trend will damage the spirit that inspires art, and more time spent in settling feuds and passing counteraccusations with no fruitful ends will only harm the industry further. Further still, artists will slowly find themselves drawn to the commercial world, and commercialization of artistic still will deeply bias their integrity, and draw focus from genuine inspiring artistic concerns to serve financial interests of the companies and persons financing compromised artistic pursuits (Henshaw 2002).

Individual artists have little ability to counter the influence of the unauthorized users of their works. Mass production of artworks is a relatively easy process, considering the enormous technological advancements today that make such process easy for anybody with the appropriate technology. With proper channels unscrupulous business people benefit themselves at the expense of the artists who have put their creativity and time to create the meticulous works of art. With such challenges out of the picture, art may have a new lease on this age, where every imaginable aspect of our lives is dotted with one form of art or another.

Poster art is assuming forms conventional painting may not achieve. With the emerging technological advancements, poster art has more backing, adapts to the current trend of mass art production more naturally (Collins 1985). The other reason poster art enjoys is that it does not focus on the traditional expectations of art paintings which seek to make indelible marks in history. Poster art is comfortable with having a brief seasonal existence such as political campaigns, advertisements, and cultural events. The popularity of posters is propagated by the mass hysteria these kinds of occasions inspire. In addition, poster production have considerable monetary backing behind their production, as they are a way of marketing a product or service, or an ideology that can influence social behavior.