Surprise! on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

mashroms says:

obey obey obey obey - don't think don't question. obeeeeeeeeey!!!!!
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

chasing endless days says:

interesting.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

rootless_cosmopolitan says:

very interesting...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

I think this is pretty cool. I like the way the artist took the original piece and expanded it. If there wasn't a reference to the original piece, though, then it gets tacky.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

alex_skazat says:

It's called appropriation.

He didn't invent Andre the Giant, nor the photograph of Andre the Giant for the stickers (which mostly was copyrighted) - almost everything he's done, he's appropriated. Artists do it all the time. This is no different.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

eikonktizo says:

that's cool. obviously the moser piece was done as a cover for "ver sacrum," a publication run by secessionists (like klimt and schiele) that ran from 1898 through 1903... look it up for more info.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

ErinZ* says:

Good artists copy.
Great artists steal.
-Picasso
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

the point isn't that he "appropriated" the Moser piece, he flat out STOLE IT. the fact is that if he gave some credit to moser, or addressed the source of inspiration for the piece, and where it came from. there wouldn't be an issue here. he didn't even change Mosers art he simply expanded on it so it would fit in his current format for all his other posters.

check this link. its arguable, but it has happned before just not so blatantly....

i'm not saying that i don't like the piece, i bought the damn thing, i think it is beautiful, but give credit where credit is due.

if hooked up a gutiar to my mac, and just happend to use some john lennon lyrics, (you know "appropriated" them), and passed them off as my own. I would be considered a thief.

i understand some of you got your andre the giant tatoos last week and feel that you have a little connection with the Obey family, and must defend its honor... but come on .. this is clear as day. open your eyes kids.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

lolamakes says:

i actually did a painting of this same piece. called it "loloman poser" expanded it a lil...it's beautiful piece and i love a lot of kolomon's graphic art.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Steve Rhodes says:

Umm, this is an artist who has been appropriating images from the start .

He told people when he spoke at SFMOMA last summer about the images he uses in his work and that he likes it when people use his ideas and art in new ways.

Should I tag this with thief?

Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

and also last summer, in Santa Monica, he stated that he illustrats all of his own images, i don't know if tracing paper counts.. but that surly wasn't implied...

i'm a little confused as to, why, what Shepard Fairy says about his own artwork, then applies to other peoples art?

also someone photographing graffatti isn't them putting it up on their website and selling the poster as if it was their own..... its a little different.. wouldn't you say?

nice try...

maybe when you have your own artwork ripped off and are not given any credit for it, you might actually see how wrong this is.

When Picasso said that quote, he was in fact speaking of style, concept, the idea, and expanding on that idea, not photo coping other artists work...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

VTscapes says:

There is a fine line between appropriation and theft. And he's crossed over it. As for the Picaso line,what a load of crap. A true artist is an original.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

THANK YOU!!!!!! VTscapes... finally a level headed person...

hugs and kisses!!
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

endof1981 says:

i think i may have to flag this image, it may offend shepard fairey and Koloman Moser. the real deal is that he's stealing ART here, and not just an image from the newspaper (i.e. Andre the Giant). that wasnt art it was simply an image. which justifies him being able to use Andre...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Spacechip says:

I dunno man, if you included some line from "imagine" in a song which you write the rest I don't think you would be morally obligated to disclose the source. everyone would know you were quoting Lennon. copyright might be another matter, but this is public domain material you're talking about here.

Musicians 'quote' each other musically all the time. If you're on stage and your guitar solo incorporates a few licks from "all blues" you're don't have to stop playing and say "just so everbody knows - miles davis wrote those last couple bars"

I actually think the link you provided is more blatant than this instance, since it has to do with the marketing of a corporate logo and establishing a brand identity etc, which Fairey clearly ripped off a bit. Thing is that each individual case is defensible due to the 'sampled' nature of the originals - i.e. you don't get to call dibs on using Mao in your work, but maybe Mao, and the Black Panthers, AND Gene simmons etc.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

agitprop says:

Designers re-use old art all the time. Nothing controversal about this at all.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

ErinZ* says:

Careful, agitprop, you may have to defend Kozik's use of Mao in this thread. Heads up!
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

robcat2075 says:

To use the source so literally, without attribution seems dishonest. If it was just a cheap poster, maybe not a big deal. But what do you think would happen to an art student who put something like that in their senior exhibition, or their portfolio?
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

famous! says:

if the original art were more famous, this would be a non-issue. it was simply the shock of finding it without recognizing it initially.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

Public Domain is great, its fine, its even dandy, and helpful for hack graphic designers (like myself) that go to cookie cutter schools like Brooks college.... but the point is that, we are not talking about a Clipart book here, we are not talking about an image that was inspired by another, or just looks similar. He didn't take an element out of Mosers work and use it in his.

HE SCANNED THE IMAGE AND THEN USED IT!. it is the center of the piece, the main image, its not just an element in his piece. and no credit was attributed to the original artist.

Spacechip, we are not talking about a simple LINE here, words are descriptive, and sure even coincidently, song writers lyrical content over laps a bit, when you are singing about a common life occurrence like "love" lets say. But i think it is, wrong and dishonest to not give credit where credit is due, you are comparing music, that is influenced by another, not music that is stolen from another, and that is the point here.

if we want to contintue to compare this piece to music, you would have to consider me stealing the whole chorus, sound, and tempo of " Imagine". for it to even be close to comparison. and filling in the body of song, and then calling it VISUALIZE®
(this is my idea, don't steal it.. i will sue you, visualize® is a registered trade mark of iamanerddotnet, any duplication replication with out the written permission of iamanerddotnet is prohibited by law.) JOKE!

Erin Z* your funny!... now maybe if agitprop, had taken that image, from one of Shepard Fairy's prints, and added some spray paint here and there, calling it his own, and sold hundreds of them, claiming them his own artwork with no credit to Shep, then YES he would have to defend it.

We are not talking about someone making a bootleg t-shirt, or some artwork to post up in their bedroom, he sold hundreds of these, all while passing them off as his own artwork. And that is wrong,

I think robocat has hit the nail on the head. With that comment. Strange when people actually have something constructive to contribute to the conversation huh Erin Z?

Famous maybe your right… Maybe if it were famous it wouldn’t be an issue, but that’s just it using an artists work that is more famous, and not an un-known art nouveau artist makes it more suspicious. And fact is if it were a more popular piece, I can bet he sure as hell would have giving the original artist credit. Moser has two books one of which is like 90% type from what I understand and the other a little known book that contains about 50% images.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Steve Rhodes says:

The point I was making was his original Andre the Giant sticker was appropriated. And I don't think it is any less because it was a photo he used instead of an illustration.

He was sued by the estate of Andre the Giant. The image he uses now is much more stylized.

www.flickr.com/photos/guywilliamwelch/2703598 0/

And he pointed out in his SFMOMA talk that when the estate began selling their own Andre the Giant merchandise, they used his version.

Yes, he appropriates the face but he puts it in his own context.

I imagine he would refund your money (though your pointing this out - well, boing boing linking to it - probably makes it more valuable).

There is a long history of appropriation. This has been done by many, many artists. A few have been mentioned here. Others include Robert Rauschenberg, Sherrie Levine, Richard Prince, Han Haacke...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

Okay so people have appropriated images, I feel some of those artists used appropriated images, in ways that you knew where it was coming from, and gave credit to the original artists...

Even so, just because other artists have done it, doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't justify it.

I hear catholic priests are molesting little children... must mean its ok.

Please!
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Steve Rhodes says:

Please!

Comparing appropriation which has a long history in art (sometimes explicitly crediting the source, but often not) to sexualy abusing children is absurd.

I'm sorry you're upset that Fairley didn't create his own image in the style of art from a century ago.

Go take a look at Supply and Demand in a library or buy it in a bookstore. You'll see he shows a lot of the source images he uses.

Perhaps you should put your print up for sale on ebay and donate
the money to RAINN

www.rainn.org
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

rossangeles says:

I've always assumed all of the Obey stuff was appropriated from outside sources. I would have been more "surprised' if you proved that He actually drew the piece. Scratch the surface of the majority of contemporary art (music, film etc etc.) and your bound to uncover similar results. It would be great if more artists revealed their sources and introduced new audiences to inspiring work. I doubt it would have a detrimental effect on sales as most people are too lazy to care. But those that do would benefit from it greatly.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

nustang70 [deleted] says:

comparing appropriating art and molesting children...that's like comparing apples with orange juice. maybe you should think a little more about the history of art and a little less about child molestation.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

mistarmcmillions says:

"I hear catholic priests are molesting little children... must mean its ok."

totally valid argument up until that point.

you're not talking about appropriation in regards to art, you're talking about stealing images and copyright infringement, getting up in arms about that; otherwise i can't imagine you making that comparison to such a vastly different topic at all. bringing roy lichtenstein up is a great counterpoint. it's pretty common. in fact i don't see a difference in the two artists' examples provided
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

The point was to be absurd, in order to show that you are missing the blatant absurdity of Shepard Fairy stealing artwork, and the insinuation that it is OKAY to do so.

I’m sorry that you’re upset that I am pointing out his obvious hypocrisy…

I own supply and demand, and it doesn’t matter how many times he shows the source of his artwork, his history isn’t what we are debating, we are debating this piece of “art” and

If I have 10 children and raise 9 of them perfectly fine, but manage to kill one by negligence, the 9 don’t cancel the one I killed out. It doesn’t make it okay.

I don’t care what he has done in the past I don’t care what he credit to whom, from where, the argument is here, with this piece not the numerous pieces in supply and demand that he gives credit to the art/artist that he stole from.

You guys are taking it a bit to serious…

and i think rossangeles, re-states my point, there is no doubt that shepard fairy has "skills" if i may, he has a great understanding of composition, and design. his patterns are amazing.

but thats not the point. credit was due. and passing off other artists artwork as your own, simply is not right.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

endof1981 says:

unfortunately here the medium isnt the message... or is it im confused now!
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Murple's Nemesis says:

As a peer group graph designer (now art director) in San Diego I've crossed paths with his work and SF many times over and been a slight bit miffed by his accidental "success".
So, I have a few opinions here and I'm going to be honest:
The sold "OBEY" work is a rip off of the Moser published piece.

The style and basic content of Mosers commerical work was retained from the original and "not changed or altered" into a "new piece".
the only thing that "SF's crew" did was to attempt to fill out the missing bits and replaced the first branding statement with their own.
the saddest part is that either him or someone working in his shop did a rather poor job in building the piece... you can tell were the first work ended and the new stuff began. The clip art used is better than their (illustrator?) hand drawing.

secondly. (about SF)
SF fell into and stumbled upon the blackmarket style
I personally don't believe that he really deserves all the props that gets thrown his way. (yes I said it). his value is that he's a better marketer than an inspired "artist". his style is bitten from the socialist propaganda posters and constrained into stark images by not having better printing technique or tools available. The "andre has a possie" sticker was nothing more than a accidental happening that caught on when skater friends started slapping them around town in odd places they were at vs throwing them all away. Others saw these from the ASR trade show/streetscene yearly events. thought it was deliberate / cool and started doing it themselves. (the ball got rolling and been playing too it ever since)

in short, the print is over 90% someone else's work. just look how the beautiful hair goes flat and stale to the left of the flowers.
Even the nouveau frame is straight out of a clipart book I've had since college
the only thing that "they" did was slap their branding upon it so it could be sold.
in fact that's the move valuable part of the whole thing.. it's name branding as "obey".

Do they deserve to make money from this.... perhaps, because they searched for and saw the branding potential in the Moser work.
but without the "obey" ball rolling behind them to give the piece "validity" the piece would be an "OK" looking but " busy " silkscreened t-shirt.

in short , the only reason why the "obey" branding is cool and they're getting away with it
- is because you paid for it and people that don't know art or design parrot the "geeze how cool" approval for his product.
He's got the pole position in the market and the branding in the public's consciousness via a happy accident years ago with lots of his stuff really being nothing but a bite off others work.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Prehensile Eye says:

i think that this is analogous to duchamp's 'modification" of the mona lisa. yeah, i think he should have credited the original. however, it has been over a hundred years since the original was created. unless you make an argument for perpetual copyrights, i don't see how this is "wrong". borrowing in whole or in part has happened in all the creative arts for centuries. when you go to hear a jazz band play, they'll probably play standards derived from pop songs of the 40s, and they may not tell you what they're playing. *shrug*
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Curran says:

iamanerddotnet, you're exactly right. Shepard Fairey is an artist of very little originality, and with a shtick that shows about as much depth and development over the past 17 years as Roy Lichtenstein did in the same time-span -- and no, that's not a compliment; Lichtenstein was a hack who never moved beyond his one little gimmick. Sure, he was successful -- a successful hack. Maybe that's what Fairey and "artists" like him today strive for.

But unlike Lichtenstein, Warhol and their ilk, the notion of artists and graphic designers appropriating other images at least had some freshness in the early '60s when they started doing it. But now? It's just pathetic, and it's derivative of something already derivative. There's not a single idea in Shepard Fairey's entire creative output that's actually original, that hasn't already been explored in the 1960s and later. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Have any of you actually read Fairey's "manifesto"? I've read more clever, cogent essays by college freshmen. His tagline is "The Medium is the Message", shamelessly ripped off of Marshall McLuhan's 1964 essay (yes, he credits McLuhan, but that doesn't make it OK). He ripped off Andre the Giant's image, which was someone else's work. He's a walking rip-off of the past, and he's never going to move beyond that.

In his "manifesto", he claims "Another phenomenon the sticker has brought to light is the trendy and CONSPICUOUSLY CONSUMPTIVE nature of many members of society." (caps original to text) Gosh! --you mean that people are trendy and conspicuously consumptive?! Who would've thunk it? Good thing that we had this OBEY sticker to inform us. Of course, the fact that Fairey sells his products and keeps trotting out new versions of them, means that his commercial output is part of what he's warning us about. Thanks, Shep!

He claims "people are not used to seeing advertisements or propaganda for which the product or motive is not obvious". What rubbish! The advertising world has made its own art-form out of deliberately confusing the public's perceptions and expectations with ambiguous images and slogans. Maybe Fairey should take a class in basic advertising concepts.

He's also recently done a series of "anti-war, anti-Bush" prints, posters (and very likely, temporary tattoos and iPod cases). Gosh! --against the war AND Bush! What a rebel! Take THAT, Bush administration! It'll only be a matter of days before the troops come home, thanks to Shepard Fairey's pithy political art.

The thing that really annoys me about Fairey and those who defend him are these two things:

1. His work is painfully passe and impotent, yet there's a large number of younger people who think it's the coolest thing ever -- simply because they have no depth of understanding about art, and certainly not of anything pre-1975 or so. But those are the same image-consumers that think that the Che Guevara image on a t-shirt is so rad. Oh -- and anarchy rules, apparently.

2. His defense (and that of his supporters) is predicated upon the notion that (a) appropriation is fine, since others do it, and (b) appropriation still has some potency in art. They keep chanting "it's OK because others do it", with their fingers stuck in their ears, because they can't defend the ethical vacuousness of the position.

Shepard Fairey is simply a mediocre graphic designer; there are tons of better ones out there, toiling away, who simply haven't been as good at stealing as he. As an "Artist" (note the capital A), he's as weak as say, Robert Indiana or Peter Max, and his work is just as dated. No one I know in the higher echelons of the art world takes any of these guys seriously, and the history of art isn't going to pay them any notice.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

reflecked says:

pfft... get over yourselves.

he did a creative makeover of a boring layout.. improving and expanding on the theme. it's good. it's ok because it's
good, perfectly legal, and..... if you must... moral, as well.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Curran says:

I wasn't aware that it was the job of artists to improve and expand on someone else's theme; I thought they are supposed to explore new ideas.

But if that's your idea of "good", I've got a semi-original Thomas Kinkade painting to sell you.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

Curran, hands down sound argument. i mean i thought i had them with the child molestation comparison... but you out did me (kidding)

i owe you a beer, when ever your ready to collect.

i'm glad to decided to join the decussion, thanks for your insight.. much appreciated.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

xona808 says:

reflecked : "he did a creative makeover of a boring layout.. improving and expanding on the theme"

I've been watching this discussion from afar, with no need or want to post, but you've floored me on the fact that the original is the static and the Fairey piece is a expansion of a "theme".

It's not a theme, its a movement that Moser and his friends/collegues founded; their work and art schools spun off and founded other movements. it was his (obey's) lack of creativity that has brought this whole conversation forward and ongoing. There will be many more Art Nouveau movements. I doubt there will be any Obey revival movements.

there is a lot to be said for lack of history or the reverence of a beautiful, original piece of art work.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Curran says:

>>Curran, hands down sound argument. i mean i thought i had them with the child molestation comparison... but you out did me (kidding)
i owe you a beer, when ever your ready to collect.
i'm glad to decided to join the decussion, thanks for your insight.. much appreciated.<<

Heh heh -- overpraised bad art make Curran cranky.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

ursonate says:

Wait a sec, how do we know that Moser wasn't copying someone else?
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

formerfactory says:

Fuct & Obey (1990s)

Warhol (1970s)

Woodblock print (1930s)

Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Steve Rhodes says:

So just try and help me understand.

You've read Search and Destroy. You're familiar with his work. You realize he uses appropriation. He copies stuff.

You like the piece. You buy it.

Instead of writing something like, "Great, I've discovered the source
of the piece I like," you cry thief.

Personally, it isn't a piece I'd buy. But if I had, I wouldn't have expected a footnote accompanying it with the source of the image.

Maybe he'll write about it in his next book.

Some artists do cite the source material, but many don't (how many films have you seen which quote a scence from another film sometimes obvious, sometimes obscure).

He did say at SFMOMA that when his daughter was born, his work changed in both form (more beautiful ) and content (more political).

I was actually skeptical before I saw him speak, but was impressed with his work and what he said.

Not everything, but it seems he raised this tenth kid pretty much the same as the other nine.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Jean-Paul Satire says:

At least he wasn't ripping off El Lizzitzky or Aleksandr Rodchenko!
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

soslappy says:

i think it works, dont be hatin on shepard.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Pam Rosengren says:

We have to be really careful with the issues here. This isn't just about one print. The implications of this discussion are much wider.

Copyright is a limited-term monopoly right, intended to give the creator of a work (and his/her estate) financial benefit for a specific period of time. After that term, a work returns to the public domain and can be used freely and without attribution.

It is important to understand that. Fairey has not acted unlawfully, nor has he acted outside accepted arts practice. If the Moser work were recent, that would be a different matter.

It is also important to understand why limited copyright term matters.

If you are arguing for indefinite extension of copyright then you have some good friends in the media conglomerates. The problem with that is it leads to impoverishment of the public domain - which has been identified as a (if not the) major source of innovation. Human knowledge and creativity build on what has gone before. There is a big struggle over copyright at present, not because everyone wants to steal content, but because we need to be able to create our own works based on contemporary cultural iconography.

If copyright is taken to extreme, then jazz and blues would be illegal for sure, so would collage and montage, as well as many other art forms. The Dadaists would all be banned - their works would probably have to be destroyed. Not to mention all those guys in the sixties mentioned above. In my country (Australia) copyright laws have been tightened so much that we have no fair use provision for satire. Think about it.

If you are arguing that copying is unethical, have a deeper look at art history. Historically, artists always learned by copying the masters. Lots of copies of the works of the Old Masters exist, and many works only survive as copies. This is widespread in all the arts. Shakespeare, for example, used many earlier works when developing his plays. Think of the folk process, where works are changed and developed over generations, sometimes retaining much of their original character, and sometimes being substantially reworked but still clearly identifiable. Check out Bob Dylan's works and his creative process. It is much the same as what we are talking about here (though Dylan is IMHO by far the superior artist).

We need to be clear-headed about copying and copyright. If we're not, then we could acquiesce to a copyright regime which would be stifling for everyone except the media conglomerates. It is already affecting people here in Flickr who use old found images in their montages. Their pages have been removed from public view in case of (highly unlikely) copyright violation. The risk is seen as too high for Flickr to take.

But what effect is that going to have on the art of montage? We have perfect tools for it now (Photoshop, GIMP) but will we be unable to exhibit montage on the web for fear of copyright violation? (Fairey's work is a digital montage of public domain works, a bit more subtle than the usual, but you people have identified the source images accurately.)

What I have tried to do here is develop the broader perspective of this thread. It is important to understand why we need to retain the right to make copies, and to sometimes present these copies (or derivatives) as new art.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Justseeds Visual Resistance says:

In the link above to the fuct site, what's interesting to me is that Fuct claims that Shepard ripped him off, when in fact BOTH of them were appropriating imagery from a Cuban poster of Angela Davis. [Link to original poster].

It is very common these days for artists to appropriate imagery from past revolutionary movements -- Cuban OSPAAAL posters, Maoist propaganda, Soviet constructivism, or Emory Douglas of the Black Panther Party. You have to walk a fine line of respect when doing this, especially from 60s movements, where the original artists may still be alive and working as artists!

Apart from the original Andre the Giant campaign, in recent years Shepard has made a catalogue almost exclusively from "sampling" revolutionary artwork and re-branding it.

The resulting brand is interesting & problematic because it mixes respect with ironic detachment: Shepard obviously means to celebrate the history of political art, but somewhere in the mix the reference gets lost and the spirit of the original gets stripped out.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Justseeds Visual Resistance says:

I should probably add that the Angela Davis poster in question was designed by Felix Beltrán, a lifelong graphic designer, currently alive and well in Mexico!
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

I don't think that anyone is questioning, the legality of what SF did, or does. Shouting copy right infringement from the mountain tops, its obvious, and we've come to the conclusion that SF is far to clever in his thievery to allow that.

I’m sure he learned his lesson when the Estate of Andre the Giant sued him. Which also resulted in a name change from Obey Giant to simply Giant as well as an overall icon change. All of which was never mentioned in his lecture.

I don't think the argument is about if this was legal, or illegal, that isn't in question, but from a true "artists" perspective I think it is quite obvious that this act is wrong, and immoral.

Not to mention the both arguable and ill clarity of what Shepard is actually brining to metaphorical “table” as Curran brought up a good, and valid point in the role of artists“…. I thought they are supposed to explore new ideas.” Shepard didn’t even attempt something new, By simply scanning a far more talented, fairly unknown artist, to use in his mainstream cookie cutter art, offers nothing new nothing original. The only thing it offers is the opportunity of putting more money in his pockets all while adding insult to injury by not naming, or giving credit to the original artist.

I think (well I hope) most would agree with me, when I say that our copy right law is a joke, when it comes to original artwork, to say if you change something 10% releases you from any and all legal ramifications. It is so capitalistic its almost disgusting, 10%, is a simple hue, and color change in a photograph, a few extra lines here and there. A slight addition here and an erasure there. It’s a joke, but again. This isn’t what the discussion is about

I think the point, and the purpose of me posting this image was to point out the obvious un-originality, and blatant theft (or "usage" depending on who your talking to) of a piece of art done 108 years ago, making that image the center and main focus in the piece, and then trying to pass it off as his own original art, and if that is right or wrong, coming from an artists perspective.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

maybe i'm wrong, but i felt...... attempted rather.

to point out the fact, that its not a legal issue...

great, its public domain,

so the hack artists feel safe and sound when they are using other peoples artwork as their own... wonderful... i understand that quite well...

the point is.. not giving the artist credit, and passing it off as his original artwork.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

christophertfong says:

picasso once said: "if there is something to steal, i steal it!"
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

ANIMALNewYork says:

Although I appreciate when artists reappropriate certain symbols, motifs and logos to make a point or be ironic, this is far from that. As some commenters noted, this is just BORING and LAZY graphic design. But admittedly I'm not all that surprised.

He blatantly ripped off Nazi insignias but did so without any real knowledge of the logo, so he was in no way turning the tables on the design or anything, but rather just tracing an image he thought was cool. Walmart in turn stole that image and sold it in their stores: www.consumerist.com/consumer/3rd-ss-division- totenkopf/wa... He also basically just traced that image as well and added the Obey logo. That is not reappropriating to me, that is just tracing shit.

Sure great artists steal, but the BEST ones CREATE original work. I agree Shep's work is not even functional anymore as propaganda since it's so "impotent." He got lucky and should enjoy his more than 15 minutes of lame.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Curran says:

shanrosen wrote:

"If you are arguing that copying is unethical, have a deeper look at art history. Historically, artists always learned by copying the masters. Lots of copies of the works of the Old Masters exist, and many works only survive as copies. This is widespread in all the arts. Shakespeare, for example, used many earlier works when developing his plays. Think of the folk process, where works are changed and developed over generations, sometimes retaining much of their original character, and sometimes being substantially reworked but still clearly identifiable. Check out Bob Dylan's works and his creative process. It is much the same as what we are talking about here (though Dylan is IMHO by far the superior artist)."

I just don't get this line of reasoning. The first process you describe is is one for learning, and of course, you're quite correct that artists used to learn by copying the Old Masters. But there are profound differences between that situation and this one. They copied to develop their skills, not to pass off their copies as originals. When they were judged ready by the academy or their master, they would stop doing copies and become "real artists". That learning process is almost entirely lost now.

Could Shepard Fairey paint a portrait of Andre the Giant? Not to save his life, I'd bet. Neither could most of the appropriation artists of the '60s; they either didn't go through that academic training process, or they tried to but simply didn't have the chops. So copying was historically always only a learning aid for technical and compositional skills.

Fairey (and too many other artists today, IMO) are artistically lazy. Both artists and audiences have developed an insatiable appetite for visual novelty, fed by our unprecedented access to media (magazines, the web, etc.) and it's made image consumers of us, far more than art appreciators. We consume an image over the course of a few seconds, are done with what little it had to offer, and then move on to whatever catches our eye next. A work of art used to have the power to engage the mind and the senses for a long time. I can stand in front of a great work of art (even contemporary ones) for 15 minutes without getting bored, and find something new to appreciate every time I revisit it. Can that be said about most art today, or about *anything* by Shepard Fairey?

This situation has produced artists who are little more than image selectors; who search through the past for things to appropriate. Appropriation of a small thing -- say, sinusoidal Art Nouveau hair lines, the stark contrast of a pen and ink rendering, a stylized rose -- these things are forgivable in an artist. But to appropriate an entire image with a scanner -- that's just lazy. When Duchamp appropriated the Mona Lisa to put a mustache on her, it was a little joke, but it subverted the original as much as it did anything, so I can accept it as something new. If he had done it a second or third (or 20th) time with other paintings, I wouldn't be so indulgent. But Fairey doesn't *do* anything with Moser's image but duplicate it for his own, totally unrelated (and wholly irrelevant) artistic statement. It's all he's ever done, and probably all he's capable of.

And I'm getting really tired of Picasso's statements about stealing from other sources being brought up again and again. Picasso may have been a very clever man, but he had the ethics of an alley cat (try looking into how many women he seduced and mistreated, and how many children he abandoned). I don't think we should be holding Picasso up as an authority on what artists should or shouldn't do.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Eric Silva says:

Curran is right on.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Curran says:

Weston Deboer wrote

"He (Fairey) would never say that he came up with that idea himself."

But isn't that what he did, by not crediting the source of 90% of the image that he passed off as his own? Did Fairey give any credit to Moser? Not that I've been able to find.

I'm a fan of Moholy-Nagy's "Light-Space Modulator" from 1930. If I took 90% of that sculpture and copied it nearly exactly, but put it inside of my own art-context, should I pass it off as my own work? I would certainly have ethical problems with doing so (in addition to it being derivative and lazy-minded).

Can you explain what it is you find "awesome" about Fairey's work? And can you tell us what (if anything) is original about it in the history of art?
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

What do you mean... "... would never say that he came up with that idea himself."

SF scanning Moser’s work and calling it his own is not an IDEA, Moser's work was not an IDEA, and SF doing so, is not he taking credit for Moser's "idea". it is clearly SF stealing his work and calling it his own, the only "idea" SF had was to help pad his bank account by selling other talented artists work, as his own.

Weston Deboer: "who stole from who?"

what exactly are you implying?

I’m curious if the people defending SF, are doing so because they actually believe what they are defending is right and just, or if they are just defending the current trend, because its “cool” and they own a few obey t-shirts, and as a result feel that because they "like", follow, appreciate, and were fooled by (like myself) him and his“manifesto”” and artwork, they in turn are being attacked.

Are these the same people that stood behind the backstreet boys, creed, or would currently defend the black-eyed peas, or Fergie.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Curran says:

Weston Deboer wrote:
"That is not 90% of the image. It is a start of an image and shepard just expanded on it."

I disagree. It is the heart and focal point of the image, and it establishes the aesthetic theme for everything else in it. Take Moser's image away and what remains? A border that I would guess was scanned out of one of Dover Press' books on Art Nouveau or Arts & Crafts-style decorative borders, and Fairey's recycled Andre the Giant star. Lame.

"who says that anything needs to be original?"

People who care about art. Art historians. Gallerists. Curators. Critics. Other artists. Fans of Koloman Moser. In short: a majority. Show a work that uses the majority of someone else's work to a gallerist or curator. Do you think that they'll accept it? Not unless it has some very defensible reason for the appropriation, such as with Richard Prince.

"what is the purpose of art? i thought that it was just to invoke emotion."

That's one purpose, but not the only one, nor is it even required (what emotion does say, a Donald Judd sculpture evoke?) Regardless, I see absolutely no emotive content in Fairey's work. Do you?

"And yes if you copied 90% of the sculpture and changed just that 10% of it as yours. You can and will be able to pass it off as your own work."

I would never do that, for 3 reasons: (1) appropriation doesn't interest me, (2) I couldn't have any self-respect if I did, and (3) my respect from others would be diminished.

That poster for "Walk the Line" is a decent piece of graphic design, but essentially it's a photo that a professional photographer took from this photoshoot
that Fairey solarized in Photoshop, added a border, flames, rays, type and a few other embellishments. It's NOT fine art, and it's not particularly original; it looks a lot to me like a couple of different graphic artists who were popular in the '80s, and I'll bet that with a little searching, I could find their names and post similar work.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

eikonktizo says:

i think there are a lot of valid issues being brought up here - obviously we're not going to solve an on-going debate here and now. i think all artists recognize the ways in which our work derives from others' works, ideas, and influences. many of us (including many masters) directly quote from those who've come before. i do it in my own work - below is an example.

www.flickr.com/photos/44154499@N00/335683529/

this painting, in progress, quotes directly from a film by werner herzog ("lessons in darkness" - a classic, especially in light of current world events; check it out). here is one of the screen shots i've used in developing the background of the painting:

i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/liquidwaves1/l essonscreen.jpg

so is this evil, wrong, horrible? no, i don't think it is. and, no, it's not what SF did with moser's work, but it is appropriation, and might be "off" in the minds of some... just throwing it out as a point along the continuum...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

El Negro Magnifico says:

"whats your point?

what does that have to do with the discussion?"

My bad, I shouldn't have said anything. Someone pointed out this comment thread to me at gigposters.com. I only sighed because I've heard this argument over and over again.

I see the whole thing as re-appropriation, and Shep does it well. The image was given a different meaning than originally intended.
The Obey vs. fuct™ situation: coincidences. Folks who re-appropriate (whether it's lifted or re-drawn) images are bound to have some overlap, whether it's in the public domain or not. Whether you're Art Chantry, Frank Kozik or Shep...it happens. That's my two cents. It probably doesn't add much, but was that better than my initial comment?
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

danieldanger says:

That poster for "Walk the Line" is a decent piece of graphic design, but essentially it's a photo that a professional photographer took from this

A. that photo is a recreation of a photo of the real johnny cash. so the photo posted isnt even a pure original source. neverending loop of influance situation there.
B. theres about 5000 other photos of other musicians carrying guitars that way. the classic six string samurai pose. theres prolly 4 or 5 in existance of me doing the same thing. shep aint copying a sole artistic photo done by some famous photographer, hes referencing the same famous pose that photographer recreated.
C. the film company prolly gave shep a photo and said "use this photo", so it very well might not even be his choice. in my although-brief experience of making theatrical posters for major studios, they give really really stock photos and sources and youre required to use them.
D. i <3 el negro. hes possibly the best.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

El Negro Magnifico says:

Howdy, DD!
BTW, I'm not bashing folks that re-use imagery. The folks I namechecked at the end are influences of mine. Personally, I wish I could do what they do, but it's not naturally my "thing". I gotta draw and take pictures to do what I do, to get across the "idea".
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

danieldanger says:

to be honest, im kinda shocked how someone could be a shep fan and NOT know he uses old images in his work. thats like thinking that really IS mickey mouse all over disneyland...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Curran says:

Hey eikonktizo --
I think it's safe to say that there's no resemblance between the type of appropriation you've done in that painting and what Shepard Fairey did with the Moser (nor between the quality of your work and his). Pretty damned impressive skills you've got, BTW.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

bodobalazs says:

nerd,

i am sooo happy that you are not trying to make this a legal issue. but there are some, who think like you and try to make such issues of appropriation, borrowing, cross reference, quotation or plagiarism a legal case (see rogers v koons), and what you have as a result is art (good or bad, that is indifferent now) being banned or not being produced at all. see www.illegal-art.org/ for more examples.

for me (who do not appreciate the work of SF at all) this whole issue boils down to you feeling being cheated that your hero, SF is not that big of an artist as you have thought before. the only conclusion is that you should collect Moser instead of Sf from now on. And try to learn to live in peace with those people, who think aesthetics and morals and intellectual property are different domains, very dangerous to mix.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

literarymind says:

can we agree that what OBEY does is commercial artwork, not fine art? in the realm of the commercial, the point is to sell, not to innovate...

that being said, anyone who disagrees with Picasso doesn't know enough about art history... all great artists use the past in order to shape the future- SF is a commerical artist selling the past to kids. period.

"I do not seek. I find." Picasso
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

*awhiz says:

You mean that's NOT really Micky!?
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Curran says:

literarymind wrote:
"can we agree that what OBEY does is commercial artwork, not fine art? in the realm of the commercial, the point is to sell, not to innovate...SF is a commerical artist selling the past to kids. period."

I'm not at all sure that's his sole ambition. His Wiki repeatedly refers to him as an "artist", as do other sources, and he often refers to himself as an "artist" and what he does as "art" on his own website. I think he's always tried to play it both ways -- graphic artist and fine artist.

Frankly, I'd have little trouble with him or his products if he just admitted that he's a graphic designer and left it at that. But fine art has been under attack for so long now that the last thing that artists need is to have art further diluted by people in the media's spotlight claiming that their posters or stickers are "art". It's as annoying to artists as say, it must be to composers to have Billy Joel or Paul McCartney calling themselves "classical composers", just because they've written things that are amateur pastiches of real classical music. Definitions matter quite a lot to some people (myself included), although I realize that my insisting upon accurate divisions may offend some -- especially in a time when some people think it's so hip to call ones self an "artist".

"that being said, anyone who disagrees with Picasso doesn't know enough about art history... all great artists use the past in order to shape the future"

Really? I don't see the past in works by van Doesburg, Mondrian, Judd, Turrell, Malevich, Duchamp, Beuys, Serra and many others. Seems to me that most great artists make a conscious decision to break from the past, rather than plunder it. But that's just my opinion.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

El Negro Magnifico says:

This opens up a whole other debate.
Personally, I don't call myself an artist. I'm an illustrator/designer/scribbler/hack. The term "artist" comes off all high-minded n' shit, and I'm not with that. That being said, there are folks who's work I dig that are comfy with that term and call themselves that. Fine with me.
And the whole "fine art" thing...does that mean gallery work? Because Shep's in galleries.
I dig folks who blur the line between what's regarded as fine art and illustration. Kozik, Baseman, Biskup, Camille Rose Garcia, Blaine Fontana...all of 'em. Some people refer to 'em as "lowbrow".
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Elmo Keep says:

i'd definitely agree with the low brow label. but i think the problem here is that shepard fairey refers to himself as a fine artist - he makes a clear distinction when referring to his exhibitions has "fine art". patently, this is bullshit. he is a brilliant commerical graphic designer, not an artist. even "obey" and "this is your god" come from "they live" (john carpenter). he is great at making the pretty things. that's it. i still love my debbie harry print of his.

but this rip-off of ron mueck is just flat out stealing.

Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

arttheterrible says:

As artists, are we not obligated to know our history? are we not responsible for understanding and acknowledging those who came before us?

To say you don't see the past in van Doesburg, Mondrian, Judd, Turrell, Malevich, Duchamp, Beuys, Serra is to not know your history.
Duchamp ("nude descending a staircase"), Malevich ( "woman before and advertisement column"), Van Doesberg and Mondrian ( De Stijl)
and Judd are all following a direct lineage that begins with Cezanne (l'estaque) .... of course you all learned this in your intro to modern art class... right?

and what about Duchamp?? (In a conversation on appropriation, how is it that it took this long to even mention his name?) Here is an artist (or critic you decide) that completely changed the boundaries of what "art" is simply by defining his intent. Does the urinal stop being a place to piss simply by placing it in a gallery setting? Who are we to say "NO", and its Duchamp's intent that caused the art world to redefine its boundaries.

SF has done none if this with this piece. He failed to recontextualize the piece, he failed to acknowledge history as being an integral part of his process and he failed to follow a lineage that would have placed him in line as a great appropriation artist that history will recognize. It is his "intent" that is called into question here, which I can only assume was to fatten his wallet
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

pantechnician says:

"I don't see the past in works by [...] Duchamp"

You need to L.H.O.O.Q. more closely at his work, in that case.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

mr.anatol says:

we have DJ vs musican situation here
good DJ makes something probably new from others's work and it's still music after all. but I wouldn's take playing lessons from him. He's an illusionist, the great deciever ;)
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

aeonsaway says:

Art is a realm of creative action, wherein artists should feel utterly free to render what they want, in whatever way they want. If that isn't what Picasso meant, surely he of all people would have upheld it just the same. All that is real or is true or that matters about art is that through the medium, artist and audience might interconnect in a sublime moment; that's the message. This crusade of yours is a miserable tangent to all of that, accomplishing nothing that will advance art or the human condition thereby. If you can't get with SF, you (and the mopes you slavishly praise for agreeing with you) should be finding someone you can get with, or creating something of your own, instead of squandering energy dragging him down. Whatever his means, and to whatever end, at least he's functioning in the living gestalt of art, adding to it, communicating. Go back to your life, or get one, and get off his back.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Mr. P. Lasell says:

Wow, must really suck to discover for the 1st time that Fairey has built his cult following on plagarism. Better not look at 99% of his other work or your world will crash around you ;)
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

Okay, jeezz try to take a night off from the computer and you’ve got like 500 posts to reply to… jesus!

WOW! Such an eloquent use of such brobdingnagian (I can do it too see?) words we’ve got here….

“…If you can't get with SF, you (and the mopes you slavishly praise for agreeing with you) should be finding someone you can get with, or creating something of your own”

Isn’t that just the point here, SF (if that is his real name) didn’t do that, your pompously telling me and the people.. Excuse me I mean “mopes” that agree with me, to go and create something of my own, when the person you are in fact defending (attempting to defend rather) didn’t do that at all. He scanned a previously created original piece of art and in an act that was even more pompous than the comment you posted, attempted to pass the artwork as his own.

If you don’t/cant/are unwilling to see/admit/come to terms with that being wrong, on more than one level, Then the only thing I can say to you is move on,

A lot of you seem to love to quote Picasso, So here is a Picasso quote for you

“The people who make art their business are mostly imposters.“

and there is no aguring the fact that, SF has turned OBEY in a huge business, multiple books, a clothing line, a DESIGN studio, posters. Stop throwing Picasso quotes around like they are candy on Halloween, its pathetic, common sense should tell you that it is obvious that SF ripped Moser off and that it is wrong. My goal was to expose it.
I’ll be honest, I learned a few things from SF, and only posted that image, because flickr said they would give me $50 for every person I got to sign up for a new flickr account.. cool huh? (kidding), but I’m very happy to see how many people turned out to post their opinions
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Weston Deboer says:

Yeahhhh art
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Spacechip says:

Okay okay okay, SF certainly seems like kind of a dick. He's clearly as much as business man as an artist (if not more) and the idea that he would promote a poster such as this as a 100% Original Creation® (as you claim we would and does) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

But is is WRONG? Is it THEFT?

As a sample artist his craft lies in making choices. Selections and juxtapositions. So he opened a couple books, picked out a face, a frame, and stuck them together with his logo and some slogans to make a poster. Ok, no big deal.

Then he sells said poster and makes a crapload of money and makes no effort to disclose the fact that all he really did was open a couple books and pick out a face and a frame etc. Ok, kind of gross.

But I still uphold my opinion that the creation of work such as this is not in-and-of-itself objectionable. And I squirm at the idea that artistic merit relies on how much effort the artist spent. How much creation, how much originality, etc.

I can't create a tree. I can't even paint a tree. But I could pick out a tree that I like and photograph it with perhaps some interesting blocking. Is my work valueless just because I didn't somehow spew my ethereal spirit onto the paper to create it? Is it only art if Cuccan is willing to gaze at it for more than 15 minutes, or if some curator says that they've never seen anything like it before?
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

arttheterrible says:

you cant compare what SF does or did to photography. the very essence of the medium is to copy or better yet preserve in time. some may even argue that photography is a time bases art form. you cant photograph something that isn't there. so go ahead and photograph your tree and rest assured nobody should accuse you of not spewing your ethereal spirit...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

xona808 says:

i am wondering where the innovators are at? have we become so consumeristic we can't create anymore? music is now ruled by mixing DJs and the art scene is a mess of montages and collage artists. i haven't seen a movie with more than a full one minute shot before it is cut, edited and distilled down to a moment to sell the newest American Idol song. are we becoming more stupid or just more bored?

one of the things that fascinates me about this discussion and the people defending the copyright law and appropriation is that we are an entire generation (and nation) of consumerists; so if it is indeed legal and out of copyright, it seems to be a non issue.

shepard fairey poured time, love and effort into that piece of work - i am sure. but this makes him a great art director, not an artist.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

mashroms says:

shepard fairey is the new god. lol
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

reluctant_popstar says:

Iamanerd, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. You need an education.

Shepherd Fairey did NOT steal any artwork. He already owned it. And so did you. And so did I.

That's what the Public Domain means. It belongs to all of us. Therefore, THERE WAS NO STEALING! He can do whatever the frick he wants with the image. Even publish it as is and sell it. He is legally allowed to do so, Morally allowed to do so, and ethically allowed to do so. You can do this also. So can I. What Shepherd Fairey did, WAS OKAY. It certainly WAS "okay for him to do so."

Face it, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Give up. Go home. Go away. You need to rethink your worldview.

SF is "far too clever in his theivery"? Wake up, Jack! THERE WAS NO THEIVERY. HE ALREADY OWNED THE ART.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

nathansnider says:

Shepard Fairey's whole career is built upon stealing other people's art. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a piece of his that doesn't appropriate someone else's work in whole or in part.

The recent Obey designs are pretty, I'll grant them that much, but they're not original. Spare me this crap about "pop art" or the "remix culture." The world's been there, done that. Straight-up stealing with no additional commentary or self-reflection on the part of the artist is just plain boring. And doing it for money, without giving credit where credit is due, is just despicable. How on earth does copying a Koloman Moser print, or a Chinese government woodblock print, or this little image (whether it was taken from a Fuct design or from a 60's movie poster) have any artistic value whatsoever?

But more importantly, how does someone who continually rips off other people's designs for money maintain a reputation as original or, god forbid, "edgy"? He may be a talented designer and a savvy marketer, but he's about as innovative as a Xerox machine.

To be fair, I liked Shepard Fairey's early work. The "has a posse" stickers were interesting when they first started hitting the streets because they actually had the potential to catch you off guard and make you question things, even if only a little. The Obey "manifesto" made sense 15 years ago, when he was doing something unique in the public space. Nowadays, "street art" is everywhere, and that element of surprise is gone. Meanwhile, Fairey's images have gotten increasingly predictable, and the whole enterprise has become completely, transparently commercial.

A large part of what made the early work interesting was the fact that it was on the street without explanation, but all of that is lost once you transfer the designs to a t-shirt or a gallery and they become part of a brand identity. At one time, for about a year in the early 90's, he was actually doing art. Ever since, he's just been copying other people's designs for a buck.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

Phew! Thanks for that Popstar, I wasn’t sure what you were saying was right, but after you said wrong the third time, it was then that I was truly convinced, that I was in fact………… what was that word again? Oh yeah, WRONG!… thank you, now I can say that my eyes are truly open and I have seen the light.

My world view is now changed. Who are you? The damn Obey Gestapo? Do you have any demands? what I should eat for dinner tonight? Or do you just wanna beat me up for a while later?

ARE FLIPPING KIDDING ME RIGHT NOW?

It’s you that needs to “WAKE UP, JACK!” I don’t care if your talking about your great grandma’s ginger snap cookie recipe, a poem, or some 18th century artwork…. Taking something that is not your original work, and passing that thing off as your own is what is “wrong,”

Its insane and a huge problem with society, if people like you are walking the streets. I just hope your not making any decisions that impact the lives of the rest of the logical thinkers out there.

Am I in protest that he used something that is public domain? NO

Am I in protest of him using something that is public domain, and passing it off as his original work? YES, and that my brash, hostile friend is what this is about. Taking something that is not yours…. Excuse me… that “everyone owns” …and passing it off as your own original work.

And I think your going to have to realize that anyone in the “real” art community, anyone that really matters, thinks the same way. Then, read what nathansnider, and Curran had to say, and go cry yourself to sleep with the knowledge that it is you that needs to “ give up, go home. Go away. And change your world view”
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

agitprop says:

I never heard of Moser before this discussion. If Fairey appropriates imagery from an artist that few people know or appreciate and breathes new life into it, makes it contemporary and fresh, then I see nothing wrong with it. If you feel like you were "ripped-off" because what you bought isn't "real art" then sell the print. I'm sure someone else will enjoy it.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

your so lost,

he didn't breathe new life into it.

the only way he made it modern, was by printing it a few months ago, its the SAME ARTWORK

if adding some hair, adding a Art Nouveau clip art boarder, then adding a few obey logos, are making it "modern" then i'm completly wrong.

he took an image, built it out a little bit in the same style of the artist.

thanks for the tip though.....
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

agitprop says:

I'll start the bidding at $100. :-)
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Pam Rosengren says:

Sorry nerd, you still haven't got it.

You say "I don't think that anyone is questioning, the legality of what SF did, or does." Yet you still repeatedly call it blatant theft. How does that work? Forget theft, it isn't theft. Same for artist attribution, it is not necessary at all in this case.

You say you speak "from a true 'artists' perspective" yet you ignore the perspective of a true artist such as Picasso, famously quoted as saying "good artists copy, great artists steal". Bob Dylan is regarded as one of the greatest (musical, poetic) artists of the twentieth century, and he has always appropriated ideas, lines, phrases and even whole tunes. "With God on Our Side" is a response to Dominic Behan's 1959 song "The Patriot Game" and it uses the exact tune note for note. That tune in turn comes from a traditional tune family over 100 years old. True artists do this kind of thing, and have done throughout history.

I am not implying that Fairey is anywhere near the same stature as Dylan or Picasso, or that this particular work is even good. I agree that it isn't very creative.

What bothers me about this thread is that this purism and moral indignation is based on a flawed understanding of both legal process and creative process. Now that wouldn't matter so much if the media conglomerates weren't trying to indefinitely extend copyright terms, but they are. All of your arguments rest on an indefinite (and worse, retrospectively indefinite) copyright term - this would obliterate public domain. Infinite copyright, the kind you and the media conglomerates want, breaks creative process. If you can't understand this connection, and if you are nerd enough to read this paper, go to this page and download the PDF that is linked about a third of the way down under "policy problems". That report squarely identifies public domain as being the major source of innovation of all kinds, and emphasises the need for limited term copyright.

Otherwise, just ask Fairey for your money back. It looks like this is what it is all about. (You won't have any luck getting a refund on your Dylan collection if you have one. Behan tried to take on Dylan, and the folkies just said it was "the pot calling the kettle grimy-arse". Folk process, as it is termed, goes back to the beginning of history.)
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

economywon says:

It isn't art. It's graphic design. It's a poster. Most of the images they reproduce clearly have their origins elsewhere. Here's your sign...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

chasing endless days says:

oh my god...where did all these posts come from??? anyways...things got out of control somewhere in the beginning;child molestation, killing one child but not the other 9, re-use of original artwork, name branding, etc. i have to say Chris, you made an interesting upload. Is this the most comments you've had?
By the way, have fun in Mammoth and happy holidays!
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

agitprop says:

This argument was settled 50 years ago. Anyone heard of Roy Lichtenstein?
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

DrHobo says:

Great way to get lots of comments; *clap* *clap* *clap*

Come out with some retarded statement defending the nonexistent copyright of a public domain image winging with the kind of arguments I'd expect from some moronic college kid. Resorting to comparing it with child abuse and purporting that the guy is a thief because he didn't print the original and very much dead artists name on every mug, t-shirt and poster produced.
God help anyone kicks you off that moral high ground at any point in your life.
What’s next on your list? Insisting anyone who uses a Photoshop filter credits the filters creator first. Seems valid, after all you didn’t create the effect, the filter did. Maybe a step further and credit the creators of Photoshop, maybe windows or macs creators and credits, the hardware your using.
Each print could come with a 2000 page document of small print names for their contributions to the creation of 'the art'.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Inspire Collective says:

I see...I see...nice job finding the original! ...that's awesome...i saw your post on www.youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com and i have to say great research i finding the image's history ...i don't see anything wroung with ReUsing...i've even began a flickr group about it...you can see it here:
flickr.com/groups/reuseproject/
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Nascentideas.com says:

Shall we add Jeff Koons to this list of artists who appropriate images? Reprinting famous adverts (including Nike adverts) for your work is perhaps more blatant than SF yet he's still recognised as a Fine Artist (with capitals so you know we're being Serious here) and his work is featured in possibly the "best" modern art museum in the world, Tate Modern.

SF's work is currently in the Baltic Exchange in Gateshead at an exhibition called "Spank the Monkey" so it's impossible to argue that no one in the art world considerd him a serious Fine Artist, it seems to me to boil down to a question of "worthiness" of commercial success. The people here who are up in arms about his appropriation seem (in the majority) to be boiling it down to not liking his work. Who made you the arbiters of taste and worth in art?
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

man_a_chine says:

its more about obey's artistic intent than it is about specific copyright/legal issues. most art based on appropriation or "quoting" other works has a specific artistic intent related to WHY the artist quoted. lichtenstein's point in particular wasn't just to make a pretty picture and pretend he created it...his artistic intent (along with things like warhol's soup cans, duchamp's urinal, etc) was to recontextualize something that previously did not have "artistic merit"...he never for a second claims that he created from ether the images he copied. warhol didn't invent soup. duchamp didn't invent the place to piss. this type of appropriation is an acceptable form of art, its done all the time and even in the case of obey, has been done well and with as much artistic merit as the earlier work we've mentioned...the very concept of the ubiquity of the andre the giant sticker is what makes it art. obey's spinning that recognition into a profitable venture - love it or hate it - is his own right. for fuck's sake jasper johns and robert rauschenberg designed shop windows for bloomingdale's (or was it macy's?)...everybody's got to make a living. as obey steamrolled its way into marketing and brand-ability, the concept of appropriation has been central to the aesthetic...which again whether you like it or not is just fine.
the problem here is that as this piece is presented...as a 'suitable for framing' print...as art...as a pretty picture...as a profitable comodity...with no meaning or artistic intent as to WHY the original moser piece was copied, just makes it seem like a carbon copy. i see no artistic merit in how the piece was recontextualized. it seems that it is simply being passed off as original art to make a buck. which is too bad because for the most part obey shit is pretty good, and i even like the overall artistic statement...seems like this one just slipped through the cracks.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

agitprop says:

Man a chine^^Best comment yet.^^
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

Curran says:

I wrote -- "I don't see the past in works by [...] Duchamp"
-to which pantechnician replied
"You need to L.H.O.O.Q. more closely at his work, in that case."

I don't see "the past" in "L.H.O.O.Q."; I see a refutation of the past; a replacement of it, as much as if he had taken Michaelangelo's "Last Supper" and dressed Jesus and his Disciples in Adidas track suits. If this were the 1900s, and I were to take a similar visual icon like say, a dollar bill or a Campbell's tomato soup can, and do something that subverts its original intention, then it seems to me that the new work isn't about the past, it's about it NOT being the past any more.

arttheterrible wrote
"To say you don't see the past in van Doesburg, Mondrian, Judd, Turrell, Malevich, Duchamp, Beuys, Serra is to not know your history.
Duchamp ("nude descending a staircase"), Malevich ( "woman before and advertisement column"), Van Doesberg and Mondrian ( De Stijl) and Judd are all following a direct lineage that begins with Cezanne (l'estaque) .... of course you all learned this in your intro to modern art class... right?"

Er...I was the TA for the Art History Professor at my college; I was the guy who put together the slide shows for his lectures and arranged his notes, so yeah -- I kind of know art history.

What you're seeing as a "direct lineage" from Cezanne to Judd is something that I believe Judd would've dismissed out of hand (have you read his collected essays?) Why you chose Cezanne, I don't know, since if your equation is correct, surely Cezanne owes a greater debt to say, Brunelleschi and Alberti, 500 years before him, than Judd could possibly owe to Cezanne, 75 years before him.) But regardless, I think you're looking at the works of the artists I mentioned as if they fit into some sort of artificial historical construct, rather than looking at their work itself as being unique. Of course, art isn't created in a vacuum; all of these artists knew the work that had preceded theirs, but most of them were trying to destroy the past, not fit into it. THAT was my point. Read the manifestos of the Futurists, the Dadaists, etc., and you'll see that they're all about demolishing the past to make way for their own ahistoric visions.

Agitpop wrote
"This argument was settled 50 years ago. Anyone heard of Roy Lichtenstein?"

I think that if you look up the thread, you'll see me talking about him pretty early on. What Lichtenstein did -- at first -- was to totally recontextualize comics in scale, in setting, in emphasis, etc. (It should be remembered that Lichtenstein's previous efforts were neo-cubist and Ab-Ex, at which he was a dismal failure.) Doing this was certainly ground-breaking, but the thing about breaking new ground is that one has to move forward, or you're just spinning your wheels. Lichtenstein went on to spin his wheels for 40 more years; truly a hack. Compare his lack of development with his contemporary, Chuck Close, whose work has evolved in many ways over the same time-span.

Lichtenstein wasn't the first to use appropriation in art; that honor probably belongs to Braque and Picasso in 1912, with their collages. He wasn't even the second (Duchamp), the third (the Dadaists) , the fourth (the Surrealists) or the fifth (Rauschenberg and Johns). But although Lichtenstein's appropriation was unique in some ways, I don't see how his subversion and recontextualization of his source material paved the way for Shepard Fairey to rip off Moser. In what way are the appropriation and the appropriated different? A: they aren't.

estanmilko wrote
"SF's work is currently in the Baltic Exchange in Gateshead at an exhibition called "Spank the Monkey" so it's impossible to argue that no one in the art world considerd him a serious Fine Artist"

Ah! I have to say "thank you" for the good, long laugh. SF has a piece in the Baltic? Wow! He's has hit the big time! Of course, that show is basically an overview of lowbrow/street art; hardly a serious exhibition, and it includes other nobodies. They're also doing a big show on Keith Haring, if that tells you anything about their curatorial credibility, although I doubt that will register with you. Sorry, but I've been in more impressive shows than that, and you've never heard of me. No, SF can go right on spanking his monkey, because the art world just isn't interested in what he's peddling.

You mention Jeff Koons. I would argue that Koons is one of the greatest art charlatans of the 20th century, and his success more of a testament to a slack market and greedy, unprincipled dealers (hello, Ileana Sonnabend!) and his own skills as a prostitute -- er -- self-promoter, than any qualities his work has. Indeed, if you do a little reading, you'll find that Koons has been the most polarizing, most heavily criticized American artist of the past 20 years -- by critics, never mind the public! But as long as there are nouveau riche people who want to "invest" in artwork, his dealers will always find purchasers. And BTW -- Koons has been sued numerous times for copyright infringement, and lost at least three times. THAT'S how much of a thief he is.

I'm bemused by all the posters here who go on about "public domain" as if it's some sort of important value in creating art nowadays. Public domain is no more relevant than its inverse -- an image being under copyright. The legal status of an image is just that, and nothing more. Did SF break any laws or infringe on any copyrights when he made this? No, he was safe by a couple of decades. But "theft" isn't merely a legal issue. One can "steal" someone's affection, or ones attention, or ones idea, without breaking a law. What SF did was to no less unethical (and lazy) than if he had stolen a contemporary's image. I think that's the point that most of us are trying to get across. Legal, but unethical, lazy, and contrary to the spirit of creation in art.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

bjheinley says:

Is Andy Warhol-esque style-biting better the second time around with Fairey? I donno. No?. I'm bored with it though ... kinda like re-makes of movies. Or watching the old bands from the sixties play in Reno.

I think early on Fairey had some decent points he was making with his art; I like that it started with a joke, and I even like some of his crew's graphics (even the moser re-do)... but it's become so blah conceptually.

Appropriate away, I say.. but I don't expect us to get behind you're art ideas unless you expand the concept (rather than just your wallet)
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

found the boarder he used, with some super small changes and some lightning bolts additions.....

AWESOME!!
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

reluctant_popstar says:

Iamanerd:

My goal was not to change your mind or make you rethink your position. Clearly, that was set in stone long ago.

My goal was to yell at you! I can see that I succeeded in shaking you up. I may not have changed your views, but if I caused anyone reading to these posts to stop and think about the issue, even for a minute, then I accomplished what I wanted to.

In return to your post, I can state that I am quite happy that you also are not in charge of making decisions regarding who owns artistic works. If you were, we'd still have to negotiate with the heirs of Shakespeare if we wanted to put on one of his works, or, heaven forbid, adapt them or add to them in any way. And, if you're upset with my use of capital letters, let me point to your own previous sentence: HE SCANNED THE IMAGE AND THEN USED IT, which appears above.

No, Shepherd Fairey was not required to notify you or your Taste Police that he was adapting a public domain work into a new work. And thank Heaven that he wasn't required to do so. Hoperfully, you are now aware that SF sometimes (okay, a damn lot of the time) appropriates PD works and sells the results as his own. With that foreknowledge, you are quite justified in not purchasing any other of his works, if that in fact bugs you.

What you should not do (only my opinion) is call SF all kinds of names like a thief, and a hypocrite, which he is in demonsrable fact, not. Sorry, you can yell "Thief" until you're blue in the face, "from the highest mountaintops," but the Police aren't going to be knocking on SF's door any time soon.

For the record, I do author creative works myself and have been paid for them.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

chasing endless days says:

*clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**cl ap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap* *clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**cl ap**clap*
Thanks C for the expressing your opinions and research.
Also another *clap* for Man_a_Chine...i agree with your views.

Jesus...some of you people took this way too seriously. Just accept that people have different opinions!
By the way, it's IMMATURE to post hate comments. (you know who you are)
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

iamanerddotnet says:

maeniak!.. you the offical cheer leader!

god job..

p.s. i hate you
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

j l t says:

The original Moser work has NOT been shown to be in the public domain. He lived in a Berne Convention country, and died in 1918; fast forward 75 years, and sure, it COULD have been released to the PD in 1993, however we don't know that his estate did not renew the rights to this print; a large volume of his work is still actively owned by whoever his estate passed on to, right? I'm not a fan of automatic eternal copyright (or automatic eternal public domain, necessarily) but if ownership is actively maintained, then I'm not sure how anyone can suggest that what Fairey did was kosher. It might look great - and it certainly does - but why is everyone claiming the source art is in the public domain? I think a more critical look at the provenance of the original art is needed...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

reluctant_popstar says:

If this was published in Europe originally, this should have entered the Public Domain 70 years after the death of the author (1988). The estate cannot "renew the right to this print," as far as I know. There is no copyright renewal beyond that point. There used to be copyright renewal here in the US, but we don't have that anymore.

You're assuming that this particular work was first published in the home country of the author, which may not be the case. If it was published in the United States originally, then anything published prior to 1923 in the US is now in the Public Domain, which clearly means this entered the Public Domain years ago.
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

lepublicnme says:

@ iamanerddotnet
As you have serious trouble with this Shepard Fairey screenprint, I devote myself for the acquisition of this work. I'm OK to pay the shipping fees you'll engage to send the tube with the print at my home.
Drop a mail for full details !
Best
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

You	Sign in \| Create Your Free Account
Explore	Places \| Last 7 Days \| This Month \| Popular Tags \| The Commons \| Creative Commons \| Search
Help	Community Guidelines \| The Help Forum \| FAQ \| Sitemap \| Get Help

Surprise!

Comments

mashroms says:

chasing endless days says:

rootless_cosmopolitan says:

ScoundrelPDX says:

alex_skazat says:

eikonktizo says:

ErinZ* says:

iamanerddotnet says:

lolamakes says:

Steve Rhodes says:

iamanerddotnet says:

VTscapes says:

iamanerddotnet says:

endof1981 says:

Spacechip says:

agitprop says:

ErinZ* says:

robcat2075 says:

famous! says:

iamanerddotnet says:

Steve Rhodes says:

iamanerddotnet says:

Steve Rhodes says:

rossangeles says:

nustang70 [deleted] says:

mistarmcmillions says:

iamanerddotnet says:

endof1981 says:

Murple's Nemesis says:

Prehensile Eye says:

Curran says:

reflecked says:

Curran says:

iamanerddotnet says:

xona808 says:

Curran says:

ursonate says:

formerfactory says:

Steve Rhodes says:

Jean-Paul Satire says:

soslappy says:

Pam Rosengren says:

Justseeds Visual Resistance says:

Justseeds Visual Resistance says:

iamanerddotnet says:

iamanerddotnet says:

christophertfong says:

ANIMALNewYork says:

Curran says:

Eric Silva says:

Curran says:

iamanerddotnet says:

Curran says:

eikonktizo says:

El Negro Magnifico says:

danieldanger says:

El Negro Magnifico says:

danieldanger says:

Curran says:

bodobalazs says:

literarymind says:

*awhiz says:

Curran says:

El Negro Magnifico says:

Elmo Keep says:

arttheterrible says:

pantechnician says:

mr.anatol says:

aeonsaway says:

Mr. P. Lasell says:

iamanerddotnet says:

Weston Deboer says:

Spacechip says:

arttheterrible says:

xona808 says:

mashroms says:

reluctant_popstar says:

nathansnider says: