Resources: Wooster Specs
Posted on April 7, 2005
Filed Under Resources, Web Sites |
I saw Marc and Sara from Wooster Collective the other day and they told me something thats been posted on their site in the past but I’ll put it here for quick reference too.
If you’re going to send them pics, don’t send em your 4 meg hi res photos.
For art pics size your photos at:
420 pixels wide 72dpi.
If you want to list your upcoming art show use:
550 pixels wide 72dpi.
If you make it as easy for them as possible you’ll probably be that much closer to getting your stuff posted. It’s not a guarantee but it can’t hurt.
Comments
4 Responses to “Resources: Wooster Specs”
Leave a Reply
Some other suggestions:
Also make sure there is no actual social or political
content in your art or “art” show, because this could automatically
eliminate you from being shown on the site.
Only those with plush dolls and black and white paste-ups
tend to make it far there.
Im sorry im just wondering where the element of “illegality” is on
certain street art sites.
Its ILLEGAL in most places to adhere artwork to the walls off most cities.
Therefore all street artists are outlaws. So there must be some reason
all these artists are so interested in getting up, and in effect they are
making some social or political statement, didactic or not.
I find it problematic when we just look at the pretty pictures and never ask, or demand, anything of depth. Yeah Banksy put up blatantly anti-war artwork in 4 mainstream museums in NYC a few weeks ago. The peices speak for themselves. And I think its hilarious that he made a joke out of all the media hype. His images made it into the NY Times even! He doesnt need to “talk” about his political philosophy, and with the exposure of his imagery people are exposed to creative activity and “alternative” viewpoints on current events.
When that isnt so prevalent, im still curious why people risk their priviledge to get up. I want to know who’s and egotistical, and who’s got a brain. Who’s gunna be dedicated to the street or some crappy multinational ad campaign. (There is a way of making a living with integrity!)
And not everything can be the greatest thing you’ve ever seen. I guess when it looks like yesterdays then…well who knows?
Is anyone else out there thinking?
Ive got plenty more to say, but you know what, i’ll save it for the street!
I am tired of political steet art. Just because it’s illegal we have to make it political or it has to have “content”?
Whatever happened to making people smile, curious or just annoyed?
If I see one more Anti-Bush poster I will puke. The worst thing is that if it is political, people feel that the message is enough and not matter how crappy the artwork or delivery (drippy, oversprayed stencils or badly printed posters) is, it is suddnely meaningful and profound.
Great that you want to change minds, I have no objections. Just put some thought on the people whose minds you want to change. Chance are all your friends want Bush out, you have to hit the middle/upper class soccer moms and suits. They are going to look at you crappy stencils and two minute photoshop attempts as hurting.
Quality gets attention. If your offended, it because this is directed at you.
Making someone crack a smile, inspiring curiosity, or even just being annoying—I agree, all those things are great! There is room in Art-with-a-captial-A for all of this, certainly, but the fact that street artists are choosing an illegal forum in which to operate does change the stakes, if not raise them per se.
I think it may be talking past the point to assume the original post was a call for more posters of Bush’s face or “two minute photoshop attempts.” I think many (if not most) people are sick of both—just as plenty of people are sick of 5th generation knockoff cartoon characters on stickers.
I think the decisive statement is . . .
“there must be some reason all these artists are so interested in getting up, and in effect they are making some social or political statement, didactic or not.”
. . . and I think there is an interesting point to be explored here. Sure, you can disagree with the conclusion, that’s an individual call, but the premise is solid. You do have to have more than a passing interest to get up, and the implication(s) of choosing an illegal action isn’t one that is widely discussed.
Quality is well, qualitative—and an honest discussion of aesthetics is one of the threads to be pulled out of the wider discussion radical and bitter seems to be calling for.
“the implication(s) of choosing an illegal action isn’t one that is widely discussed”
it adds interest to what (w/c)ould be quite lackluster in a “legal” for(um/mat).
this is not to say there aren’t (or can’t be) plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons why this for(um/mat) is chosen, such as richer context interaction, more heterogenous exposure, etc, but, the immediate bright edge of illegality is a definite draw, which, as an artist ultimately striving to create noticed work, it would be fooling yourself to deny.