+1

I just find his stuff really boring, like any power that the original image once held is stripped once he adds his branding to it.

here's my favorite print of his (after flipping through his book - and i'm fortunate to have one!)... i should really frame it up and put it on the wall...

i remember seeing on obey pasteup walking home from class everyday in college and I was always baffled by it - i was like, "is that andre the giant?" and thought it was promoting something, but i had no clue what it was. wasn't until after college that i knew who shepard fairey was

while personally, i dont particularly get into fairey's work, i wouldnt go so far as to call plagiarizing here, maybe just less interesting in some cases than the source material.

i dont think he is actually trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes in using existing revolutionary poster art in his work without changing it, more like he is trying to use that imagery to make a point. i think this is valid as art, although the original message loses its meaning a bit when its being so heavily cashed in on in my opinion, but that may not eve be his intent. i think you would have to make a pretty strong argument to call his work 'stealing'.

fairey, as well as a million punk bands, old biker gangs, etc, have all taken existing material and re-hashed it, but it nearly always is reformed or put into a different context in some way, making it their own, if a bit uninspired. there is a lot more grey area there than in actually stealing something physical like candy from the corner store, or a wallet from somebody's pocket. that kind of stealing is not punk, cool, or anything except totally lame-ass.

except robin hood, he was rad even though he wore tights.

that article is VERY annoying, and the author's arguments are very weak. The article does indeed read like an Onion article. I am not a huge Shepard Fairey fan, it just pisses me off how lacking in any valid or legitimate points this author's argument is

He writes the following about these pieces of work:


When Lichtenstein painted Look Mickey, a 1961 oil on canvas portrait of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, everyone was cognizant of the artist’s source material - they were in on the joke. By contrast, Fairey simply filches artworks and hopes that no one notices - the joke is on you.



Left: Libertad para Angela Davis (Freedom for Angela Davis) - Félix Beltrán, Cuba, 1971. Original silk-screen print created by Beltrán in solidarity with Angela Davis when she was a political prisoner in the US. Right: Fairey’s plundered version as a street poster, which neither credits Beltrán nor identifies Angela Davis.



Black Panther - Pirkle Jones. Photograph. 1968. Portrait of an anonymous Panther at a political rally in Oakland, California. The Panther photos of Ruth-Marion Baruch and Pirkle Jones are internationally famous and have long been available in book form. Right: Fairey’s street poster, which neither credits Pirkle Jones nor makes any mention of the Black Panther Party.


I don't see the difference between the Lichtenstein-Mickey, and the Fairey Angela Davis and Black Panther works. In both of Fairey's pieces, everyone is "cognizant of the artist’s source material"

By contrast, Fairey simply filches artworks and hopes that no one notices - the joke is on you Fairey

It is ridiculous to assume that Shepard Fairey hopes that people think that the images of the Black Panther and Angela Davis are his own creation, and that he hopes that nobody notices

the author's entire point that Fairey is "deceiving people by pawning off the counterfeit works as original creations" is ridiculous. The author must really think that people are stupid. Does he honestly think that people are smart enough to be "cognizant of the artist’s source material" in the Lichtenstein Mickey, but too dumb to realize the above images are of a Black Panther and Angela Davis?

I know the band Death In June use it.

Did a bit of reading on the death-head skull, appears the Nazi's didn't invent that exact skull, but rather they 'appropriated' it too.

Where did they appropriate it from?

Not agreeing with the article (didn't even read most of it) - but when a group (such as bikers/bands) appropriates an image they aren't attempting to turn the "stolen" image into art, but rather to use the image to create their own image. Shep is clearly taking images and attempting to create art (and profit) out of them - I think there's a huge difference between that and, say, the Hells Angels using Nazi imagery, or a band using an image as a record sleeve - they're intention is to profit off their music, not the sleeve.

I dunno about that but I assure you the Misfits make a whole lot more licensing money of that old movie skull than they do on cds past present and future. Lil Jon rocks Misfits tees with gold teeth. Ever seen the Misfits clothing section at Virgin Megastore? Virgin don't do bootlegs.

From what I could find, seems early Prussian regiments used it for certain army regiments. Which makes sense when you consider the geography and what land Nazi Germany wanted to occupy.

This situation reminds me of the situation in hip hop nowadays....there is no point of reference and kids nowadays do not care to seek out or dig deeper when looking at something. You got kids thinking that MC Lyte bites lyrics from Lil Kim and that people like Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas are good producers when all they do is rehash hits from the eighties a la Puff Daddy and kids dont even know that the cool part of the song they like was taken from a real hit from back in the day. Take that I FART A LOT Fergie....her whole album sounds like a mix tape from the 80's.....Fergalicious = Supersonic . Homeboy Fairey sounds like a sucker when he talks about being busted for co-opting peoples work. Sorry for the ramble....I hopeI made somewhat of a point.

Who'd a thought Puff Daddy would be slightly cooler than anyone, much less Will I Am?

interesting..........

I think you also have to look at the fact that Shepard is in business with IMO a much more amazing and much less known street artist Dave Kinsey. I don't think Kinsey would want to associate himsilf with another artist who has made a name for himself by plagarising.

the Mark Vallen article completely misses the point of Shephard Fairey's work, which is to intentionally quote those images, much like people use samples in music. They are iconic images and most of them VERY well known, which is exactly why he uses them. the meaning and original context they come from adds to the meaning of his piece, in turn.

i wasn't a Fairey fan until i saw his recent shows in NY, and was surprised how beautiful the peices were, and read more of his thinking, and began to get what he was trying to do. It's all about creating iconography and reflecting on the use of mass marketed images and the way they affect our thinking.

I do think he gets onto thin ice when he's using the images of leftists and revolutionaries and raking in the bucks SELLING them on t-shirts and all that. all the product he produces (clothes, watches, etc) loses me, but the art i'm ok with.

that spoof site is brilliant. obey kitty, lol! even in fairey's book, he has pages of all the bootleg Andre posse stickers. it's all about parody, re-envisioning the same images, and shifting or adding layers to the meaning each time you do.

(eeee - too much talkin for a Fresh Meat, sorry )

Having known Shepard since the early 90s, and picking up stuff from him before I knew him (one of the oldest two color xerox wheat paste prints he ever did I gave him back just so he could put it in the book). He is one of the most genuine people you will ever meet, and most of all the rumors and hearsay you hear are untrue.

The thing with Shepard has been since day one, he has taken "cultural" imagery of one sort, and then recontextualized it in a modern way. He gives credit in interviews with the sources of the imagery, and often he works directly with the original people to get their permission or kickbacks. He even used to include special hangtags with bios of each of the original sources so that people would check it out.

These same people writing these articles about him now, were his biggest supporters when he was small. Once the perception of getting big has come along, all the bandwagon haters jump on, as it is not cool for one of their peers to be successful. It is supposed to be an elite club of intelligent punks that no one else is allowed to know about. They were the same way with Banksy until he started selling for $$. The price of success, is that thse who feel they are owed something by knowing you beforehand is that they feel betrayed. Punk has never been able to handle success. It is a funny mix.

Science!
[/color]

Partially in response to that, way back in 1980, Gary Panter published the "Rozz Toxx Manifesto" in which he lambasted people for using the word "sell-out," concluding that "capitalism good or ill is the river in which we sink or swim, and stocks the supermarket."

Of course, the manifesto also advocated "recordings of screaming vegetables at every salad bar," but that's another topic...

that's it, isn't it? what happens when the anti-establishment stance actually gets something besides a fuck you from those outside the circle?
what if people actually like it, and you become successful? or god forbid mainstream?
sure see that happening in the toy collecting universe, too.

Yup, the conundrum comes from the fact that the punk ethic is essentially reactionary, be it against too-slick overproduced corporate rock, as it was originally musically, or against the idea that you have to be a professional to get something done, or against the overbearing policies of a government, or against general boredom ... it's a "stick it to the man" thing at heart, so when that which is "punk" is perceived to become "the man," the true believers get all irked up. Some of it is dumb, some of it is spot-on. For example ... Green Day is punk rock? Give me a break. On the other hand, if, say, Usugrow became as successful as Shep Fairey or moreso, some "true believers" might say that he'd "sold out" and that his work was no longer cool. That would be really dumb.

I hate when people refer to someone as being a sell-out. In the long run, when you create something be it art,music,ideas,furniture,etc. you make it for yourself first and foremost but you also make it to be seen or heard by at least one person. So in essence the very first time you pick up a pen and paper or instrument and get put ideas down you are selling out. I say more power to the select few artists that can actually have enough of an audience to make some money doing what they love.

Even Green Day and Rancid? Those dudes are whack no matter how you slice it.

But they weren't whack way back when there was only a select few who listened to them.

We can agree to disagree on that I kinda put Bay Area punk rock down for the count sometime around when the Farm started having shows... but that could start a flamewar Im sure so I'll finish with an IMHO

That sounds about right to me Abe. I saw some okay shows at the Farm but it almost felt like nostalgia for the recent past. It was no Deaf Club.