Public Voice Network
- Sex in the Designers Offi… 120120
- Filetypes You Hate 1212
- Pic of the Day 2754827548
- Chipotle 7272
- Car of The Day 116116
- 80s California New Wave 1818
- blog 5104551045
- Terry Richardson is a cre… 5353
- Wal-Mart Exodus 1111
- South Park 7171
- Flo TV - Live Mobile 66
- tiger sex text msgs 2929
- FMT 031810 2020
- "here are some sites… 2727
- !@#$!%$!#@$%! Keychain... 55
- Hand Drawn Logos 1010
- Politics 1119611196
- The Dead Weather - new al… 55
- The Pacific. 3434
- Vid of the Day 21482148
- Best Concert? 4444
- Studio Blogs 1212
- EC: David James - Out of prin… 1212
- heads of state 6363
Shepard Fairey Controversy 5454 Responses
Last post: 4 months, 4 weeks ago | Thread started: Nov 27, 07, 3:03 p.m.
- mtgentry
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/…
"I am outraged that anyone could make a career out of the consistent, secretive and wholesale copying of other people’s artworks. Fairey has habitually used, without permission, the works of other artists, both living and deceased. To have created one or two works in such a manner is perhaps forgivable, especially if there was no money involved, but Fairey has developed a profitable livelihood exclusively based on pilfering the artworks of others."
Did he discuss his methods during his QBN sessions speech?
link via unbeige
- Nov 27, 07, 3:03 p.m. – Permalink
- jfletcher
I saw Shepard speak at the QBN sessions which I loved. When I furst saw his work I was pissed about the Obey thing because it came from a movie, and I thought the credit for that was hidden.
I hadn't given much thought to it recently since I've really enjoyed his work overall, but this article raises some questions for me...
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 3:13 p.m. – Permalink
- blackspade
this has been done to death, concentrate on your own work for f*k sake
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 3:26 p.m. – Permalink
- Point5
He discussed his methods briefly... I think it comes down to just how much of the artwork was changed; it would appear just enough to avoid lawsuits. Can't really say I liked his attitude, a bit cocky it seemed, but his theory behind everything was pretty fucking thought provoking.
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 3:36 p.m. – Permalink
- ukit
Yeah I'd have to agree...no shame in calling him out on this stuff, since people don't seem to be generally aware of it. it doesn't sound like he's broken any laws, but it makes a difference if he built something from the ground up or essentially photocopied it and stuck his logo on it.
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 3:46 p.m. – Permalink
- Chief
"What initially disturbed me about the art of Shepard Fairey is that it displays none of the line, modeling and other idiosyncrasies that reveal an artist’s unique personal style. His imagery appears as though it’s xeroxed or run through some computer graphics program; that is to say, it is machine art that any second-rate art student could produce.
In fact, I’ve never seen any evidence indicating Fairey can draw at all."
pffft, what difference does that make? this sounds like some of the bs that came out of an open forum we had back in art school where the painting students and faculty refused to aknowledge the digital media program as "real art" all while paul pfeiffer sat with a bewildered look on his face like wtf am i doing here.
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 4:22 p.m. – Permalink
- handsomeboy
his QBN talk had nothing in it, nothing interesting in the way of content (it came off like a summary of chapter 1 of his OBEY book) - however i was watching the video of it, I wasn't actually there so I assume he gave a full talk and the video is just a really edited down snippet?
I am surprised no one has brought up the OBEY vs FUCT designs.
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 4:50 p.m. – Permalink
- ukit
Yeah but Chief I think the main point of the article was that he used other people's artwork without credit, in fact over the original artists' objections in a few cases. Sure, sounds like this guy is out for him for some reason but that's worth bringing up isn't it?
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 4:59 p.m. – Permalink
- Chief
duchamp, rauschenberg, johns, warhol all appropriated images, materials, and objects. explain to me the difference. was it the fact they were all capable of painting/drawing? or maybe that fairey chooses imagery not quite as famous or as easily recognizable as lichtenstein? where did lichtenstein give credit to the images he was "inspired" by? i don't remember that being something we spoke too much about in art history courses. i didn't get a chance to read the entire article; i'll finish it up later tonight.
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 5:21 p.m. – Permalink
- Jaline
I agree with ukit.
It shouldn't be a big deal that Mark Vallen is calling Shepard Fairey out, especially when he (Vallen) can make a good case for himself. I don't mind reading it as long as it makes sense and is thought-provoking. I'm not sure where I fall in this argument (because whatever art is, it's subjective), but people should stop getting so defensive about questioning an artist. More people should be questioning things.
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 5:27 p.m. – Permalink
- designerror
last post on this page
- Dog-earNov 27, 07, 7:07 p.m. – Permalink
