I would bet this is just a promo for some dopey zombies with white gloves and XX eyes.

i oddly think a "zombie" companion would be pretty cool...

Umm, we've already seen the pushead companion (great toy). How could it get more zombified?

Is "zombified" okay here?

Thank you Oli!

Bazzinga!

I am unimpressed with the Boba Fett. UNIMPRESSED!

I think it's better than both the 'Trooper and 'Vader...but that's not saying much.

Star Case > KAWS x SW

This is a bit of a derail but here's what annoys me about this illustration.

Step 1: Huge Kaws fan has massive gallery show - http://www.jeremyriad.com/blog/editorials/remember-those-kaws-6-foot-under-companions/

Step 2: Kaws complains about the way said fan is displaying his companions (in custom made 'coffins') citing something along the lines of "violating his proprietary rights because he hadn’t intended the art to be displayed in this way."

Step 3: Fan changes the display and gallery is expected to hunt down and delete all 'coffin' photos online
At this point, Kaws seems like he's being a bit of a dick, but folks say things like 'he's protecting the integrity/context' of his piece

Step 4: Kaws comes out with this 'headstone' illustration which shows he clearly has no qualms with associating his work with death, coffins, graveyards etc.

I don't know if he's just being an asshole in general, or if he just wants to control each and every aspect of his 'brand'. Either way, the more I look at his pieces, the less art I see and the more business I feel. Just slap 2 X's, 3 stripes or a fucking swoosh on it and send it off to Target already.

moodydoom: That sounds extremely lame! Seeing the guy has made huge effort in presenting them and that´s what you get for thanks?

This is just an uninformed wild guess. Medicom is our distributor for Japan and they have done such an unbelievable job, I can't even begin to explain....those guys are the best.
That said, have you checked out your local Japanese super market toy section lately?
All of the Japanese markets I have frequented in the US have shrunken their toy section
down by 90% or so.
Japanese toy magazines are almost unrecognizable....what was once hundreds of pages every 30 days filled
with hundreds of new wacky random items now far less pages, now focusing on
core brands and big names ( in general ).

Real Fake has sections in tons of amazing shops around the world, including two great locations here in Korea.
We have our own Uglydoll shop in Seoul and the fever pitch goes up up up, but I would not think 2x
about opening a store in Japan right now...
in my own limited view, it seems to me, in my own opinion, that there has been a radical shift
in Tokyo away from the directions of a few years ago and a new focus on home grown core brands and characters.
Nakano Broadway of even just two years ago has drastically changed.
Now it's Hello Kitty and One Piece yes, random umbrella man with underwear on his head no.

If that makes any sense.

Again, ZERO idea if this is related to the image...that could just be a great poster for an awesome new project for all I know.
And if so, it would make sense to me to ask to remove the coffins if we had a tombstone theme planned...
but that would make sense to me, not saying I am right at all.

Hey David, not to start an argument, but just so that I better understand your point here's a scenario:

I'm a massive Uglydoll collector (among other toys). I arrange an exhibition of my private collection at a public space. I curate the show and create custom display units for the event. Now let's say I have a massive childhood affinity for both toys and soda/pop. I decide it would be cool to create massive transparent soda cans, in which i stuff tons of my brightly coloured uglydolls. Now as it turns out, unknown to me, you are about to launch an Uglydoll soda.

Are you saying that you would ask me to remove the display because it foreshadows your business plan for launching Ugly Soda? If so, i'd be curious to know why this would matter to you. Would people looking at a private collection really care - after the fact because they wouldn't even know it until you launched - that I displayed a similar idea before you got to reveal it. Would this really affect your brand?

Alternatively, let's say you think Soda is evil and hate the fact that I am attaching it, again in my private collection, to your brand. Again, should you have the right to dictate the terms of which i engage, play or represent your creation? Why not start imposing limits on all kinds of other arbitrary things then, for example not allowing one companies toys to be placed on the same shelves as a competitor....

KAWS has every right to be upset at the way his work is displayed, especially in a museum setting. I think he just doesn't intend for his companion character to be presented as "dead" and I highly doubt he translated the gesture to say his work is dead. It wasn't a complaint about his work being associated with death. The original nature of the Kaws Companion might have been altered when they were placed in those coffins, and he wasn't comfortable with that.

No offense, but I completely disagree.

I doubt KAWS looked into the reasoning at all, rather he didn't like the way his work was exhibited and pounced. For someone who has made a living defacing other iconic brands with (clearly) death X's as eyes as his signature, I find this a great example of calling the kettle black.

Regardless, he is more than allowed to voice his displeasure, but forcing the exhibit to heed his request is completely laughable. I have always found it offensive when artists, musicians, etc. feel they have a right to dictate their work after they've made it available, for sale to the retail market. I completely understand and agree that no one should have the right to reproduce the work as a means income (like use imagery to make t-shirts where the artist or creator doesn't collect royalties, etc.), but to tell people how they should display work in another setting or otherwise, or wish to profit on the secondary market (not applied here, I know) is appalling. Furthermore, I find it stunning that someone who does what he does, and makes the bulk of his money the way he does while not at all elevating the idea of "fine art" can even remotely complain.

Caravaggio he aint!

On another note, the closure of OriginalFake, if that is "what's" happening is clearly economics. Assuming it's anything else is you not using common sense.

Ding ding ding ding!

^^^

What'd I win?!
What'd I win?!

a "kaws" ding dong (and oddly enough, i didn't have to make this... there was already one out there.)

no not at all, the closest thing I came to this was asking someone to stop buying our dolls, sewing stuff onto them, and reselling them as their own. Still, this is my own personal preference and I can't pretend to know how Kaws feels. I do know building a brand is a huge huge effort like no other and control is always important at all stages ( but not the sort of control you mention ),
as brands are so very, very fragile at all stages.

A museum showing an artists work is one thing but when it's just 'some dude' doing it I think the artist has every right to speak up. Especially because the artist's name is still attached to the project therefore using the artist's own recognition to get any attention drawn at the showcase. It's not a collector's place to try to be creative with someone else's work using their clout for quick fame. Kinda like all of those Bansky shows all over the world that he had absolutely nothing to do with. It happens & it's legal I guess but it's lame. I know in California at one point artist's were entitled to a certain percentage of their aftermarket sales too which is awesome & should be the case everywhere.

No offense intended and I fully support artists making money but that is straight bullshit. Ownership is a right and if an artist chooses to sell his work it's none of his business or money if I decide to resell it. While flipping may suck, what I do with my personal possessions is my business and mine alone. Should Toyota come and charge you when you sell your Prius, should the guy that built your house demand payment when you sell it? The very nature of the argument is absurd and completely ignores the concept of ownership (of a physical item, not intellectual property). If someone as an artist cannot accept that once they sell something that the physical object now belongs to another human being, then they shouldn't sell their shit.

good read before class. you learn something new everyday.

and that mike G line makes a lot more sense now, although i cant seem to find it again. i must be going crazy

Interesting discussion...

I have to agree with 666doll, this IS calling the kettle black.
Your argument suggests that Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks should jump out of their graves ( or Walt's head from it's cryogenic container) and open a can of whoop-ass on Kaws.

I don't have a problem with parodies and appropriation in art, I enjoy them but Kaws just went too far trying to dictate how a collector displays something they own, more so by the nature of Kaws's own work.
What's next, one can't display Kozik figures in Ikea cabinets? ; )

One could, but why would one want to?

So when exactly does the switch get activated that turns artists/toymakers/bloggers from rational human beings to over-sensitive, prima dona rockstar wannabe's? Is it when a certain level of $$$ is placed on their craft or just when they start believing their own hype?

I certainly think the latter.