Can I point out

[fingertrouble]

The ridiculousness of the AP going after Shephard Fairey for the Obama poster?

I mean I can't imagine Alberto Korda going after those who used the Che image? Ultimately although bootlegged as with the Obama poster, it benefited the cause. And Shephard Fairey redrew the image, cropped it and turned it into that poster, and didn't hide where he got it from, and didn't profit from it at all.

Love to know what Manny Garcia thinks - surely he's not such a AP staffer - probably a freelancer - that he thinks that such a historically important cultural object and poster gets the kind of litigation that Mr Korda would've balked at (well he couldn't actually sue until recently because Cuba wasn't a Berne convention signatory, but he's gone on record saying "I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world" and only being against the commercial use of the image).

It's all very silly.

Comments

[arthole.livejournal.com]

Manny was a contractor who has since been laid off. He did not even recognize the image as based on his own photo.

[holy13nation.livejournal.com]

Are they going to sue the Obamicon people as well?

Mind you, something needs to happen about the whole hipness thing. I did begin to wonder if it was a new criteria for being considered a street artist - the ObligatoryObama.

[shaggycub.livejournal.com]

Um Yeah, I don't see Fairey as a folk hero. His whole career has been about appropriating other people's graphic images for $ and not giving out any credit. Would you have honestly known that "Hope" poster wasn't his own graphic design if the Associated Press didn't squawk about it? Would you have even cared and just assumed he's a great graphic designer? I'd say Fairey's biggest crime is "borrowing" obscure leftist protest art, stripping them of all context and meaning and then selling them for big bucks as part of his clothing line. Not only is Fairey stealing these images, but he's also *copywriting* his stolen images. WTF?

[timbearcub.livejournal.com]

Maybe not a folk hero - but in the case of the Obama poster he did put all the proceeds back into the campaign.

Which sounds pretty left wing to me.

And the design wasn't AP's - just the source photo which is different, look at the eyes and the tie. Not totally the same and he redrew it in the whole red/blue/white thing which is his.

And no I don't really care he used a photograph; it doesn't bother me what sources an artist uses, it's the end product. If it's just a direct rip then it's boring, but he did much more than that with that image...it's iconography, it's design, and yes a little stealing. But what great art doesn't steal?

[timbearcub.livejournal.com]

And looking at his clothing line it's mostly the Obey/Giant stuff which isn't "I'd say Fairey's biggest crime is "borrowing" obscure leftist protest art, stripping them of all context and meaning and then selling them for big bucks as part of his clothing line." cos unless I missed a meeting the OBEY Giant isn't leftwing radical at all?

Unless you're Barbara Kruger.

The only bit I can see is one hoodie using Angela Davis, the rest is his own stuff, or just ironic take on logos such as Nike which is just Adbusters type stuff, and is well done even by bootleg t-shirt vendors.

No radical stuff there? If he was ripping David King then I might get annoyed, but this is standard fare and nothing leftwing as far as I can see?

[shaggycub.livejournal.com]

Not all of his work does, but he certainly has done it often enough. In the past, he's also ripped off Ralph "Bingo" Chaplin's pro-union imagery, Ruth-Marion Baruch's Black Panther portrait, Rupert Garcia's "Down with Whiteness", Gary Grimshaw's White Panther logo and Rene Mederos. There's a rather rational critique with side by side comparisons between Fairey's works and the works of those he borrowed from. It's not likely to change your mind, but it's worth reading. http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm The artist who wrote it doesn't have a problem with borrowing/stealing/appropriating, it's that there should be some credit given to the source material, or at least even acknowledged that one's even been stealing.

[timbearcub.livejournal.com]

Hmm doesn't really bother me - it's obvious he's referencing and not just nicking the stuff. Credit would be nice - but in this age of 10000,000000 internet pedants it's not needed. You make a reference and 5 million nerds tell you where it's from.

Thing is most if not all the designers have done this. Neville Brody ripped off Rodchenko and didn't apparently design all of his stuff being actually created by his 'studio' (I was part of interviewing someone who worked in his studio and claimed they had designed Industria, dunno if true) and Peter Saville stole all over the place.

Thing is I don't think Fairey is doing it nastily - most of his stuff IS street-only; and the references he makes are well known. It's part of the art - he's referencing, and changing, not copying. It's referential post-modernism - not totally new Herzfeld and the Pop artists have done this. Not shocking at all.

Unless you think Banksy and Le Rat are frauds too?

I don't think he needs to give credit where he is obviously changing it and context.

Welcome to the 21st Century Art World!

[timbearcub.livejournal.com]

oh and I wouldn't know where the death's head skull was originallly from either; I think that article is rather disenguous.

I really don't see a difference to this or mashups - recontextualising other people's work into a new form. You may not like the form, and it might not get a credit, but really it takes a few clicks or a little research to find the sources. And those original sources? Now get far more attention, previously no-one would've paid any attention to them.

To paraphrase from the audio version of this, sampling:

"Tell the truth, James Brown was old
'Til Eric and Rakim came out with "I Got Soul"
Rap brings back old R&B
And if we would not, people could've forgot
We wanna make this perfectly clear
We're talented and strong and have no fear
Of those who choose to judge but lack pizazz
Talkin' all that jazz"

Most if not all of his sources are fucking obvious, even to me (not a Black Panther? what rock is the writer under?) and intentional repurposing. As they are mostly apart from the t-shirt street work, it's a long history of stolen iconography from the street.

I get more annoyed with Jonathan Ives nicking the Braun designs and getting plaudits for it for fuckloads of cash.

How is that different?

I also don't think that because they are radical images that they are somehow sacrosanct; look at what happened to Korda's Che image for example. At least Fairey is challenging people, illegally in the street, making them think. He might have the Obey brand but least he does actually get out there and confront people in their spaces.

Most precious artists hidden in their pristine white galleries could learn a lot from him and Le Rat/Banksy etc.

[shaggycub.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying they're sacrosanct, I just think he's just another businessman not a radical street artist. I don't think that he is challenging anything, just making a fast buck off of the works of others and claiming he's making a political statement after the fact. At least Warhol had the decency to tell the world he was a whore and just wanted to be rich and famous, Fairey's posturing behind BS. How is Fairey confronting people-how is he different from Urban Outfitters selling Che t-shirts? He wants it both ways, he wants to appropriate the works of others and also copyright his own works based on them so others can't appropriate his works.

I'm actually not against borrowing and repurposing, but I am also for the rights of the originating artists. I'd be pretty pissed if someone copied my work and was selling it for the kind of money and gallery shows that Fairey's getting.

[timbearcub.livejournal.com]

He might say he's copyright, but like Banksy copies it doesn't really matter on the street - people will steal his style whatever. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

You say he's all about making a profit - so why then are all but 2 of those 'rips' that article go on about, are street posters and graffiti and not tshirts?

I doubt he's making anything off those unless he's selling the posters or stickers? I saw very little of that work at the Obey store other than one image of Angela Davis...not really a big scandal.

[shaggycub.livejournal.com]

He does sell the posters I seem to recall they're about $40 or so. He's also published a book of his collected works that retails for $60. In addition, he's had a number of gallery shows. He's currently at a gallery and his "originals" are going for $600+.

[timbearcub.livejournal.com]

reading through the whole of the article - only two instances I had a problem with, the MC5 tshirt which was a bootleg lift but ended well, and the Rene Mederos tshirt.

All the others I think are fair use, changed context and he's added something to the original or changed it enough for it to be a new work.

Really it's a pedantic and rather silly article, making rather tabloid assumptions about people's knowledge and that Fairey is somehow TEH EVIL cos he doesn't obviously credit IMO.

I mean Raphael doesn't suddenly paint 'btw props to Botticelli' in the School of Athens? I don't see why Fairey should unless he directly copies.