- Last post
- 54 Responses
"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
I give it 10 posts before Chuck is also brought into this thread...
He has a problem with get up kids. Another thing I gathered from his QBN Sessions ... well session ... was that he alters people's visions of Che Guevara.
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...
it's fabulous to see people put so much effort into bitching and moaning. that mark vallen writes pretty well for a disgruntled 5-year-old though.
imagine if he spends all that time coming up with some fresh concept or material???
this has been done to death, concentrate on your own work for f*k sake
It has been done to death, but I never really gave it a second thought until I saw how incredibly serious he took himself, haha.
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.
He has a good point. I'm not sure why people get so angry and insult everything about a person when they say something they don't like...
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.
"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.
b b but i've got real talent! look at how fucking life-like these palm trees are! i'm old and i deserve to be rich too!! waaaa waaaa
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.
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?
if it's plagiarism then legal action could be taken, but it would possibly be ruled derivitive and not strictly plagiarised, but to phrase it that way certainly frames him nicely like a "criminal" getting "rich" off of the labor of others.
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.
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.
i think what ticked off the author was the general source material shepard fairey was deriving his work from.
last post on this page