Graysalchemy wrote:Do you not mount photographs then either?
I cheerfully lump photographs in with watercolours! They are after all pictures on paper. And the conventional way to display them is in a frame with a window mount. (Or in a clip frame...) Don't think I've ever framed one, mind.
And I know a poster is on paper, and has a picture, but it never set out to be a "picture". The conventional way to display a poster is pasted onto a wall. The moment you treat it like a watercolour then you take away from the posterishness of it and - exactly as IFGL says - turn it into a picture.
If that's what somebody wants to do, then fine, I'm not stopping them. But they have transfigured them (Harry Potter reference seems appropriate here). I don't want to turn vintage posters into pictures. I want them to carry on being posters as much as they can. If it's a reprint, then it's just wall candy, so do what you like as it never was a poster in the first place. But an original poster is a piece of ephemera and so to my mind it needs a different treatment. I want to see the edges; I want to see every last square millimetre of it - otherwise it might be incomplete.
Obviously you have to do something more than just paste them on the wall, but less is more, and to me that means float mounting and a plain black frame. And a wide mount upsets the designer's proportions, so float mounted and an inch all round. It still looks like a poster - you can see all of it. It is still the same shape and size (broadly) as it was. But it can be hung up!
