Shirt.Woot

Re: Eat Your Vegetables!

Thanks for the votes and nice comments, everyone!

Re: Procrastinate

Being a hardcore procrastinator myself I actually like the slogan, but hate the font and really hate the illustration. I doubt it will be very clear what's going on either, other than a big grey blob.

Re: Return the favor

I really like this design and its sentiment.

Re: Five Second Rule

I like this! I also like the little cookie in the exclamation point!

cabinboy100 wrote:I thought the title was a perfect nudge in the right direction, but without it, I suppose you could get lost in a kind of rebus.

I really like the "Sometimes sharing is bad!" text, but maybe replacing with a piece or paraphrase of the "why buy?" adage can save this? Maybe in propagandese?

"Don't buy!"
"Save your money!"

I dunno. I just hope the saucy cow lives. =)

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. I thought the vagueness of the original text would be funnier than including the whole quote, but I guess it makes it too vague.

What if I put
"A little free milk never hurt,"
at the top and in smaller print at the bottom "but don't give up the cookies!"?
Feedback appreciated.

imsochady wrote:Mwahahaha, this is awesome Lucky!

Cheers imsochady! Congrats on your recent print at www.goodjoe.com

snarglepuffs wrote:But the idiom the image is based off of is, if anything, anti-marriage (Why get married if you're already getting the benefits?). The text, however, seems to indicate what you were saying though, which is why I find that the two don't go together very well (and why I think the rejectionator didn't get it either).

I've never heard of that idiom being used to -support- promiscuity. It isn't something you say to a guy to convince him not to buy, it's something you say to a girl to convince her not to give away the milk! Hence: "somethings sharing is bad!"

kylemittskus wrote:What is your point then?

The very word "recognizable" makes it subjective. There is no such thing as an objective recognizability (this conversation is forcing me to create a bunch of neologisms which is kind of fun). In fact, the word "style" is also a subjective term. What constitutes a set style versus just a trend? Or a personal predilection or proclivity? What even constitutes "propaganda"? These are all rhetorical questions of course because I don't think any of us (except me) want to get into a huge debate about decontruction and Jaques Derrida. We can though if anyone wants to!

What I am trying to say, and I think Bella is as well if I may speak for her(?), is that you do not understand that what we (you included) are talking about is inherently opinions. My opinion disagrees with yours and is of course affected by my exposure to varying styles, posters, media, etc. as well as literally an insurmountable number of other things; your opinion is as well.

MJ: Thanks for the other links. I can appreciate the minimalist style. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but those "seem" like propaganda to me because I can see them as posters. This is, of course, my own proclivity and isn't really debatable. I nevertheless appreciate your participation.

well, i will repeat again; while you as a person may not recognize it, as a propaganda style it is recognizable. furthermore, the other posters shown in this thread should be enough to educate everyone, so there is no subjective opinion on whether or not it is recognizable. after seeing all 4 or 5 examples, the only way you can say its not recognizable, is if you just want to argue.

so recognizable as defined in this derby, is in fact NOT subjective. you may not recognize it, but if the style exists in old propaganda, then the style can be recognized, or acknowledged if you will, as a classic propaganda style. that is the whole point here: subjective opinion on whether or not it is recognizable does not exist, because if that were the case, nothing would be recognizable, since no one has seen everything. to make it even clearer, and this is yet another repetition, say someone has never seen russian propaganda before, they will then not recognize the style. does this then mean the russian propaganda style isnt recognizable? (being too afraid to leave a rethorical question unanwered when it is directed at you, i can tell you the answer is no). a style exists, whether you know about it or not. it is not my opinion that the style on this shirt follows the style of other propaganda, it is a fact, as proven by the gift of vision.

the fact that you even try to create some issue out of style and trend and what are they and what are they not is just ridiculous. it matters nothing.
same thing with discussing what constitutes "propaganda".... it is clearly defined. i gave you the definition in the other thread. propaganda is what propaganda is, in all its shapes and sizes.
going all philosopher on me isnt going to do any good, cause we all know there is no point in such stuff besides arguing for the arguments sake, which while interesting at times, rarely leads to anything. some things are defined you know.

although, you still dont seem to grasp what propaganda is. propaganda does not have to be in poster form. but if it helps, why dont you imagine a big old square around the design of this shirt, maybe you can "see" the poster and it will "seem" like propaganda

klesnick wrote:Jeez, Kender...who pooped in your punchbowl this week??

Thanks klesnick.

@kender42-This design is just my lighthearted approach/interpretation of the theme.

Re: Return the favor

whalen25 wrote:It looks like a hemorrhaging cabbage

hmmm... I wonder how that would taste?

icymallard wrote:it duznt look like what you say, but it GMV because its so arbitrary and obscure.

So I hear... apparently it looks like a hemmoraging cabbage.
Thanks!

imsochady wrote:Hahahah! Mmmmmmm, cabbage..... neat design!

heh, thanks! And awesome, congrats on the print at goodjoe! I've been thinking about submitting there.

w00zle wrote:I really like this design and its sentiment.

Nice, thank you w00zle!

Re: Read A Book

I think you really nailed it, as far as the theme goes. Great job on the design. gmv.

banzaaiii wrote:well, i will repeat again; while you as a person may not recognize it, as a propaganda style it is recognizable. furthermore, the other posters shown in this thread should be enough to educate everyone, so there is no subjective opinion on whether or not it is recognizable.

So if I made a poster with a rainbow on it and called it propaganda, that becomes a "recognizable" style? The question remains: who decides what is and what is not recognizable? You?

Re: Five Second Rule

I like this! GMV. (Although I think the halos on the words might be a bit much...)

mitchellp wrote:**double post**

Some people make it an art form.

Papaya79 wrote:The whole idea of a theme is to inspire each person's artistic interpretation. If this piece did not fit the theme it would be rejected.

I like it, Eat Cake Not Pie! .. that's what people should do. I will buy this when it prints and wear it proudly in Hawaii!!!

Re: [url=http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=37078]Rule

I've been without internet until today. So, are you saying you can't print this because some dots might be too small?? While the art was created from a photograph, it is all one color black using threshold and a solid color overlay.

kylemittskus wrote:So if I made a poster with a rainbow on it and called it propaganda, that becomes a "recognizable" style? The question remains: who decides what is and what is not recognizable? You?

If that poster was used as propaganda, and became a well-known and long-lived example of propaganda, I think it would qualify.

It may not be a widespread "style" of propaganda, but it is clearly a parody on the style and message of a well-known piece of propaganda. To me that's enough. If "Loose Lips Sink Ships" didn't exist, or even was less classic, you're right, it's not at all propaganda-ish. But as it stands, it's within the realm of on-topic. It exists not as a recognizable propaganda style, but as the style of a recognizable piece of propaganda.

Realistically, Rosie the Riveter wouldn't be very propaganda-y either if she wasn't such a pervasive image. I see this as a similar example.

ryano1124 wrote:But what "tradition" does it represent? Some "traditional values" that many southerners like to brag about:

- denying homosexuals and other minorities equal rights
I'm pretty sure this is a Christian belief and if I'm right, Maine had something to say on the matter recently.

- proselytizing and foisting creationism in schools
Again, Christian belief.

- opposing choice for women
Christian and pretty much nationwide what with women's national income

- ignoring separation of church and state
The statement from that document actually reads to where the STATE is not to interfere with the CHURCH, not the other way around. Gotta love how people pick and choose these days.

has it never occured to you that the meaning may be intentionally hidden beneath so many other "good intentions" to create a widespread proliferation of a symbol of hate? look into the way neonaz1 groups are now recruiting people under the guise of pride and community only to slowley turn them onto a message of hate and violence. whatever the flag means to southerners, it means racial hatred, seperatism and intolerence to anyone not from the south. so you can go on and on about how the confederate flag is a positive thing and how most southerners are really decent people, but at some point you should wake up and realize that you are brandishing the american swastika on your belt buckle, t shirt, pick-up truck, front porch or state flag.

also, addressing the points above, christian beliefs and religious righteousness are the basis for most of the social beliefs and intolerance in those close minded states.

Re: support the meaningless neverending war

I rest my case, by the way.

I think that the furrowed eyebrows say it- it is hard work! it doesn't need the tag line. My husband was a stay at home dad with our daughter for 2 years- i know he had those eyebrows, but i would never say that he couldn't do it.

AdderXYU wrote:I would be utterly shocked if this passed woot's potty humour filter.

Urinals are not the same as pottys... too bad it was rejected.

Re: Communicate Kindly

Man... I thought this one was gonna fog for sure... Nice Shirt!

AdderXYU wrote:If that poster was used as propaganda, and became a well-known and long-lived example of propaganda, I think it would qualify.

It may not be a widespread "style" of propaganda, but it is clearly a parody on the style and message of a well-known piece of propaganda. To me that's enough. If "Loose Lips Sink Ships" didn't exist, or even was less classic, you're right, it's not at all propaganda-ish. But as it stands, it's within the realm of on-topic. It exists not as a recognizable propaganda style, but as the style of a recognizable piece of propaganda.

Realistically, Rosie the Riveter wouldn't be very propaganda-y either if she wasn't such a pervasive image. I see this as a similar example.

i see all that and i understand all the points laid out. however, i have to agree that this is not in a recognizable propaganda style. when i saw it i knew immediately it was a parody of the "loose lips sink ships" poster, but the only similarity i saw in it was the slogan. the type, while seemingly trying to stay close to the original, missed the mark. the type comes off as playful rather than menacing, as the original. the graphic is also quite far off of even the poster it was trying to emulate. it does borrow graphic elements from a specific famous example, but it does not follow through with what a propaganda poster should do, or even what the original loose lips poster did, inspired a deeper, stronger feeling (fear in this case) to control behavior. if youre going to argue with me that that is not what propaganda is, then youre headed down a long, steep path.

its a very fine line between "in a recognizable propaganda style" and "in the style of a specific, recognizable propaganda poster", but in this case i fall on kyle's side.

banzaiii - recognizability is not objective. listen to what you're saying. you're saying that the ability of an object to be recognized lies not in the person viewing it, but in the object itself. like you can build physical recognizability into something. like there is a math equation for recognizability. thats crazy.

Re: Procrastinate

seems like a slogan shirt to me.

sailormoontsu wrote:I've been without internet until today. So, are you saying you can't print this because some dots might be too small?? While the art was created from a photograph, it is all one color black using threshold and a solid color overlay.

The stated reason for rejection is that it's from a photo, not that printing is a problem. Woot tends to reject most art that's obviously created from photos.

If you were hoping for an answer from Woot, that usually doesn't happen.

marmls2m wrote:i see all that and i understand all the points laid out. however, i have to agree that this is not in a recognizable propaganda style. when i saw it i knew immediately it was a parody of the "loose lips sink ships" poster, but the only similarity i saw in it was the slogan. the type, while seemingly trying to stay close to the original, missed the mark. the type comes off as playful rather than menacing, as the original. the graphic is also quite far off of even the poster it was trying to emulate. it does borrow graphic elements from a specific famous example, but it does not follow through with what a propaganda poster should do, or even what the original loose lips poster did, inspired a deeper, stronger feeling (fear in this case) to control behavior. if youre going to argue with me that that is not what propaganda is, then youre headed down a long, steep path.

its a very fine line between "in a recognizable propaganda style" and "in the style of a specific, recognizable propaganda poster", but in this case i fall on kyle's side.

banzaiii - recognizability is not objective. listen to what you're saying. you're saying that the ability of an object to be recognized lies not in the person viewing it, but in the object itself. like you can build physical recognizability into something. like there is a math equation for recognizability. thats crazy.

The fact is that there is an impressive amount of arguing on a piece with obvious ties to the theme while there are pieces with NO ties to the theme that have avoided similar.

It's completely fair to believe that the tie is not enough. I've certainly argued that a number of times on pieces. But there is also a pretty coherent reasoning as to how this -is- sufficiently on theme. There are other designs that don't touch on ANY form of propaganda, ANY familiar piece of it, and don't have slogans with a propaganda feel to them.

Re: RAGAZZE

Oh my snap ... I want i want i want. Looks like it has a long way to go to get to the fog

This is not a sexist song/shirt. Look at the rest of their music and you will see it is satirical humor at its best.

tjost wrote:CAKE!

NOOOOO!!!! THE CAKE IS A LIE!!!

AdderXYU wrote:The fact is that there is an impressive amount of arguing on a piece with obvious ties to the theme while there are pieces with NO ties to the theme that have avoided similar.

It's completely fair to believe that the tie is not enough. I've certainly argued that a number of times on pieces. But there is also a pretty coherent reasoning as to how this -is- sufficiently on theme. There are other designs that don't touch on ANY form of propaganda, ANY familiar piece of it, and don't have slogans with a propaganda feel to them.

Agreed. The conversation digressed to a deconstruction of vernacular, particularly "recognizable." You said, I think this is the proverbial rub: "It exists not as a recognizable propaganda style, but as the style of a recognizable piece of propaganda." This makes it not on theme for me. More than wanting a rejection though, I just enjoy discussions of language which this became.

Now, on to other designs that have no link whatsoever to the theme as there are many.

Re: Stop using Bad typefaces!!!

I know this is sort of only relevant to designers, but....I just had to.

Turns out babies' faces are actually kind of difficult to draw.

Re: CAKE!

Must have this shirt...

Re: RAGAZZE

I think this is great-looking and well thought out, but it's a little too big on the shirt for me.

Still, gmv.

AdderXYU wrote:The fact is that there is an impressive amount of arguing on a piece with obvious ties to the theme while there are pieces with NO ties to the theme that have avoided similar.

It's completely fair to believe that the tie is not enough. I've certainly argued that a number of times on pieces. But there is also a pretty coherent reasoning as to how this -is- sufficiently on theme. There are other designs that don't touch on ANY form of propaganda, ANY familiar piece of it, and don't have slogans with a propaganda feel to them.

While this is the case, don't forget Adder, "no one else is on theme" isn't an excuse.

bellarific wrote:I know this is sort of only relevant to designers, but....I just had to.

Turns out babies' faces are actually kind of difficult to draw.

Hahaha, win. +1

Re: Land of the Freebies v2

I like this. I was hoping someone would make one with "capitalist pig" on it just for me. I <3 capitalism. And T-shirts.

SJCarlson22 wrote:Nice illustration.

Thank you very much!

mrwednesday wrote:While this is the case, don't forget Adder, "no one else is on theme" isn't an excuse.

It never is.

You'll note, however, that I feel it -is- on theme, due to its use of recognizable propaganda in its style. To me, that clears the requirement of "propaganda style," just as if the theme was Picasso, a piece based on a less representative piece of his would still be on theme, even if it didn't sum up his entire style.

It's not so much that there are others that are off theme. It's that there are others that are off theme and this one can be well defended as on theme.

Re: The War's Over

Please post this elsewhere, perhaps somewhere that does not reject shirts with a little balls in favor of fisher price, care bear shirts.

I love woot but shirt.woot seems to be targeted for people who prefer hugs over ideas.

bennyIV wrote:I've never heard of that idiom being used to -support- promiscuity. It isn't something you say to a guy to convince him not to buy, it's something you say to a girl to convince her not to give away the milk! Hence: "somethings sharing is bad!"

I was so disappointed to see this rejected! But I guess it could be interpreted as sending a mixed message. I agree with bennyIV and am leaning towards the anti-promiscuity message. Maybe something along the lines of "He Won't Buy"?

Nit-picky detail now - if you do resub, I wonder what she would look like with a brown eye, maybe with maroon highlights.

I do hate to see this wasted in a rejection - who would have thought a cow could look so provocative?!? Great job!