The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Shepard Fairy: Plagiarist or Appropriation Artist?
Bewildered_Ronin
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, Shepard Fairey, most famous for his Obama "HOPE" poster design, is being sued for his use of proprietary resources.
The image of Barack Obama made ubiquitous by Shepard Fairey’s “Hope†poster looked especially familiar to The Associated Press, which says the artwork infringes on its copyright to a photograph of the president, The A.P. reported. Mr. Fairey has previously acknowledged that his poster, a mixed-media stenciled collage depicting Mr. Obama on a red, white and blue field, is based on an A.P. photograph taken by Mannie Garcia in April 2006. The A.P. said in a statement that any use of the image requires its
permission, and it is seeking credit and compensation for its use in Mr. Fairey’s works; a lawyer for Mr. Fairey told The A.P. that the artist was protected by fair-use standards. In January, The National Portrait Gallery in Washington added Mr. Fairey’s poster to its collection.
- source
Fairey has sued back:
Shepard Fairey, the visual artist who created the iconic “Hope†poster of Barack Obama, has filed suit against The Associated Press, according to court documents. Last week, The A.P. said in a statement that the poster, based on an A.P. photograph taken by Mannie Garcia in April 2006, requires its permission for use of the image, and that it is seeking credit and compensation for its use in Mr. Fairey’s works. In the suit, filed in United States District Court in New York, lawyers for Mr. Fairey are seeking a declaratory judgment which would rule that Mr. Fairey’s poster does not infringe on The A.P.’s copyrights and is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine. The complaint also seeks an injunction enjoining The A.P. from asserting its copyrights against Mr. Fairey, his company, Obey Giant, and anyone in possession of the poster or works derived from it, as well as a jury trial.
- source
A bit about Fairey, both for and against his art style:
AGAINST
The expropriation and reuse of images in art has today reached soaring heights, but that relentless mining and distortion of history will turn out to be detrimental for art, leaving it hollowed-out and meaningless in the process. When I refer to "mining" in this case I mean the hasty examination and extraction of information from our collective past as performed by individuals who do not fully comprehend it. That is precisely what Fairey is guilty of, utilizing historic images simply because he "likes" them, and not because he has any grasp of their significance as objects of art or history. In 1916 Henry Ford, the famous American multimillionaire, bigot, and founder of the Ford Motor Company, uttered the infamous words, "History is Bunk." That once outrageous statement has now become part and parcel of postmodern art, as reflected in Fairey’s own negligence regarding history.
If carefully examined, the rebellious patina and ersatz activism of Shepard Fairey’s art gives way to reveal little in the way of political imagination. Ultimately his work is the very embodiment of "radical chic", bereft of historical memory and offering only feeble gestures, babbling incoherencies, and obscurantism as a challenge to the deplorable state of the world. Such an artist cannot provide us with a critical assessment of where we stand today.
- source
FOR
It’s quite obvious from Vallen’s tone that he doesn’t think much of Shepard’s art. Of course the author is duly entitled to his opinion, but the constant allusion to Vallen’s feelings throughout the piece does little to imbue it with any journalistic integrity. The most bothersome aspect about his commentary, however, isn’t Vallen’s relentless bashing of Shepard’s work, but rather him confusing his own opinion with fact. In nearly every paragraph he makes sweeping—and baseless—assumptions about Shepard’s motives, claiming that Fairey cares simply about money and little else. Obviously, nobody but Shepard knows what’s going through his mind—least of all Vallen—so let’s be reasonable and consider the simple facts. If Shepard’s only motive were greed, wouldn’t he be a hedge fund manager or a personal injury lawyer? Surely, only a fool would make street art, which is completely free to everyone except the artist—who has to pay the material cost of making it and potentially the collateral cost of getting busted for putting it up illegally—if money was all one were after? Truth be told, street art is no Madoff scheme, though it carries the accompanying legal tangles just the same.
It should also be noted that the bulk of Fairey’s career has been spent operating during a time when street art was of little monetary value in the art world, both high and low. Only in the last five years at best has the genre began to show relative financial promise, and like all things fashionable, may fall from favor again tomorrow, especially considering the current distraught state of the art world and collector’s notoriously fickle tastes. In his writing, Vallen commits the fallacy of equating the artist’s results with his intent, which is to say he thinks that the reason Shepard has been so successful financially is that he planned it all along.
Considering that Fairey’s career began entirely by accident after he made a funny stencil—of an appropriated image no less—and put it on a sticker, then posted that sticker around town as an open-ended social experiment, it’s hard to believe that he expected all along to turn that sticker into a house in the hills. If it is true, then Shepard should be picking lottery numbers for all of us (and designing the tickets).
- source
This might seem trite, but it represents a massive riff in the design, let alone art communities. There is much to be said for the way that Fairey blatantly "borrows" resources from obscure political art, with very little modification or personal interpretation. Instead, it is nearly wholesale ripping entire concepts with enough minor tweaks to avoid legal scrutiny.
One last bit of quote comes from renowned graphic designer Milton Glasser:
INTERVIEWER: Fairey has referred to what he does as “referencing.†There’s certainly plenty of precedent for making reference to older artwork in new ones. How does one distinguish between plagiarism and reference?
GLASSER: The process of looking back at the past is very accepted in our business—the difference is when you take something without adding anything to the conversation. We celebrate influence in the arts, we think it’s important and essential. But imitation we have some ambivalence about, especially because it involves property rights. It probably has something to do with the nature of capitalism. We know that in other cultures, Chinese culture for instance, imitation is seen as a tribute, because you wouldn’t bother imitating trivial works. But in those cases the influence is acknowledged and the skill required is obvious.
For myself—this is subjective—I find the relationship between Fairey’s work and his sources discomforting. Nothing substantial has been added. In my own case, when I did the Dylan poster, I acknowledged using Duchamp’s profile as an influence. I think unless you’re modifying it and making it your own, you’re on very tenuous ground. It’s a dangerous example for students, if they see that appropriating people’s work is the path to success. Simply reproducing the work of others robs you of your imagination and form-making abilities. You’re not developing the muscularity you need to invent your own ideas.
One of the things that really bothers me is Fairey’s use (below) of the famous Swiss photo (above) of a woman’s head. There are too many unique observations that the artist made. It’s just too close to the original observations of the photographer. It doesn’t seem clean to me. The distinction between these things is ambiguous, but when we look at it we feel, “Something is not right.â€
- source
Blog - Bewildered Ronin @ Blogspot | 24/7 streaming NPR Talk & BBC World - RadioIQ
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
{_,.~o-0=| She's Half |=0-o~.,_}
Bewildered_Ronin on
0
Posts
The piece of art did.
It would appear the natural democracy of fame has already ruled that the artwork has some unique value added and isn't just a rip off.
Looking at the photo and the art piece next to each other, it's clear that he merely used it as reference, and did not trace it.
You want to demonize someone for tracing and passing it off as original art? Go yell at Greg Land.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
NSF 56K!!!!
[ Left: Still from director Michael Anderson’s 1956 film adaptation of George Orwell’s cautionary story of a dystopic future, 1984. Right: Fairey unmistakably stole his image from the "Big Brother is Watching You" propaganda posters used in Anderson’s film, without crediting the source.
[ Left: Meeting - Vladimir Kozlinsky. Linocut. 1919. Kozlinsky’s depiction of workers listening to a revolutionary agitator. Middle top: Fairey’s plagiarized version of Kozlinsky’s linocut. Right: Have You Volunteered? - Dmitry Moor. Famous recruitment poster for the Soviet Red Army. 1920. Middle bottom: Fairey’s plagiarized version of Moor’s Red Army poster.
Fairey simply attached his portrait of Andre the Giant to these two Soviet prints, added the words "Obey Giant", and then took full credit for the works as original designs. Fairey is selling his rip-off version of Kozlinsky’s Meeting as cellphone wallpaper on the Jamster.com website. Jamster is owned by Newscorp, the corporate media conglomerate founded by right-wing billionaire and owner of the Fox News network, Rupert Murdoch, ]
[ Left: Political power comes from the barrel of a gun - Artist unknown. 1968. Chinese poster from the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution period. The title of this poster quotes the famous pronouncement made by Mao Tse-Tung. Right: Fairey's plagiarized version titled, Guns and Roses. The Chinese poster's central motif of hands bearing machine guns was plainly digitally scanned without any alteration. Fairey, or his assistants, then applied a modified sun-burst background, placed clip-art roses in the gun barrels, and released the imitation in 2006 as a supposed original work.]
[The skull and crossbones T-shirt marketed by Fairey’s OBEY fashion line.]
[The death’s head logo of the Nazi Gestapo.]
[Ver Sacrum - Koloman Moser 1901. Front cover illustration for the Vienna Secession magazine, Ver Sacrum.]
[Fairey's ripped-off poster version of Moser’s art .]
[ Left: Fairey’s plagiarized poster. Right: Original street poster from Czechoslovakia’s, Prague Spring - Artist unknown 1968. The poster depicts a Soviet Red Army soldier in 1945 as a liberator, then as an oppressor in 1968.]
[One Big Union - Ralph "Bingo" Chaplin. 1917. Artwork created for the Industrial Workers of the World.]
[ T-shirt created by Fairey for his OBEY clothing line. Neither Chaplin nor the IWW are given any credit by Fairey. Click here for a larger view of Chaplin’s artwork.]
[ Left: 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.]
[ Left: Down with the Whiteness - Rupert Garcia. Silkscreen print. 1969. In the permanent collection of the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Right: Shepard Fairey’s rip-off version of Garcia’s silkscreen. Fairey published his plagiarized version in his book, Supply and Demand. No credit was given to Rupert Garcia.]
[ Left: Liberate Puerto Rico Now! - Young Lords Party. Silkscreen poster. 1971. Right: Fairey’s rip-off, "Wage Peace: Obey", which neither credits nor makes any mention of the Young Lords Party.]
-edit-
And I'm not just talking about the legal definition of plagiarism. As Glasser said, The distinction between these things is ambiguous, but when we look at it we feel, “Something is not right.”
BTW, I just realized that I misspelled Fairey's name in the thread title, but not in the text itself. Despite my feelings toward Fairey, that was in no way intentional and I apologize if it inadvertently offends anyone.
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
Now his "HOPE" meme has proven to be equally virulent.
I don't know what his technical artistic skills are like, whether he can draw a bunny from memory or even a straight line without a ruler... but he definitely has a talent for getting an image stuck in your head. His images have incredible social and psychological weight, and that has to be worth something.
The source photograph of Obama is not terribly memorable, yet the poster is. One could make very detail arguments back and forth about how much work or talent it took to render the portrait in Warholish four-color, but the huge popularity of the poster itself and of the style is highly transformative. It wouldn't surprise me if Fairey is remembered by history as a key cultural figure of the 21st century.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
EDIT: Bah, poor wording on my part. What I meant-Even comparing the two-the picture and the poster-side by side, there's significant difference. Enough so that I'm comfortable saying the there's no plagiarism there.
Some of the pictures in the against spoiler are closer than that, sure. But I still don't see any of them that seem like plagiarism.
From a moral standpoint, I don't see anything that he's doing as particularly wrong.
However, I think that now that he's no longer a skater punk trying to put himself through art school, but the owner of a hugely successful design studio that does Hollywood movie posters and album covers for A-list bands, he should have to share some of his monetary success with the original creator of the images he derives his work from.
If in 20 years everybody remembers his name while nobody remembers who the hell took the Obama photo in the first place, I'm not going to cry any tears.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Actually, Fairey wanted the tagline to be PROGRESS. He printed off a series and the Obama campaign saw it, they liked it, and they wanted him to change it to HOPE to fit with the official campaign slogan.
Fairey uses Adobe Illustrator. The creation of the Obama poster can be done within under an hour if you're new to the program, within under 10 minutes if you're a experienced, and within a minute or two if you're a pro. The same goes for the Stephen Colbert image (video link) used in EW's Top 100 Entertainers.
I agree Fairey has a sense of flare, but his blatant use of other design concepts and over-reliance on them is somewhat unnerving. Especially for me. As someone who is a graphic designer and artist, I would hate to think that this will only inspire a whole generation to "copy pasta" others' works, institute minor tweaks, and then claim credit as their own genius. This isn't the same as Lichtenstein challenging the notion that comic book styled artistry was, in fact, legitimate art. This is stealing iconic imagery concepts and re-branding it with self-promotional iconography.
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
I would classify that as plagiarism rather than reference because there doesn't seem to be any referencing going on: it's as if he merely saw the image, found it striking, and modified it to fit his theme. Basically, there new design doesn't use the old image in a new or novel way, it simply requires a striking visual and so it copied it from an existing source.
I'm not sure what the legal definition of plagiarism is, however.
And is regarded as one of the premier graphic designers within the industry. With Paul Rand gone, Glaser is seen as one of the last great icons of bygone design principles.
To compare what I mean by "bygone design principles"
Left: Paul Rand
Right: the bastardizing "swoosh"
-edit-
I don't mean for this to be a purely legal interpretation. Sometimes people see it as plagiarism even if it isn't legally recognized as such.
and my internet is FUBAR. modem's hot enough to fry eggs and I'm tired of restarting it. time for shutdown and to get my 4 hours of sleep. to be continued...
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
It's a lot more than the head tilt-the colors have changed completely, there's the removal of a significant element (the flag in the background)and the addition of two significant elements (the HOPE lettering and the lapel pin). What you're left with is a photo and a poster that have significant differences but a similar...is composition the right word? Similar framing. He's not using the photo, nor is the imitation what I would take to be a close one.
Hiphop is music. Hiphop that relies purely on samples and doesn't add significant original content to the work is also still music. It's just not original music, and it doesn't belong to the artist.
Many of the linked pieces are promotional; they're effectively ads for his graphics design firm.
Regarding the Obama poster, he was selling it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Obviously Fairy's going to fight tooth and nail for his photoshop skills.
"Fairey has come under criticism for appropriating others' artwork into his own while failing to provide attribution for the work used.[5][6] When Austin, Texas graphic designer Baxter Orr did his own take on Fairey's work: a piece called Protect, with the iconic Obey Giant face covered by a SARS (respiratory) mask. He started selling prints, marked as his own work, through his website. On April 23, 2008 Orr received a signed cease-and-desist order from Fairey's attorneys, telling him to pull Protect from sale because they allege it violates Fairey's trademark. Fairey threatened to sue, calling the designer a "parasite".[7]"
What a douche.
I don't know how this impacts the appropriation art discussion, but I remember Colbert asking how much Fairey (and it feels wrong to call him that) was making on the Hope poster. I believe the answer was nothing, zero, zilch.
From Fairey's wikipedia page:
But, who knows, maybe he's lying.
Also, I highly doubt that the photog owns the rights to the image, so his opinion doesn't matter much.
edit: also, just to clarify, whether you consider the guy a plagiarist or not, you can't sue for plagiarism. You can sue for copyright infringement, but copyright law gives you pretty wide leeway in a lot of areas to reproduce stuff.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved.html
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I think that he was referring to the use of the image on clothing and all other junk that is commonly found being sold on the streets.
I'm sure he made money for the use of the poster in the campaign as well as the inauguration poster that he made. But I'm not a 100% on this.
For some of his other work, I'd say it's less clear, especially when it looks like he's just running a face through a photoshop filter and adding some text to the side.
Him sending a cease and desist is just dumb though, I hope that dude takes him to court and lets a judge sort it out.
Anyway, I don't really see in what capacity his poster could possibly displace the AP photo. "Oh we were going to use the AP photo of Obama for this piece on him, but we figured that the readers would prefer to think of us as incredibly biased, so let's use this image of him as a christ-like revolutionary figure." Plus, I think regardless of his previous work, this image has been pretty well altered.
Although he heavily draws from other works, he certainly adds (an annoyingly repetitive) message to each. In the large sense, I think the re-branding of multiple famous pictures is a message in itself. I'd consider myself to be heavily biased in favor of free speech though.
Suing somebody for doing the same thing you are doing though? Giant fucking hypocrite. Enough to make me actively avoid supporting him even if I particularly liked his work.
That's actually not a fair analogy. And here's why: In hip hop the use of samples are accredited to the original artist, and that original artists is paid royalties for the reuse of their work. None of which is the case in Fairey's artwork. Also, besides the use of the samples, the entire arrangement and production is unique. In other words, they may use a sample of anothers work, but they compose the arrangement, the lyrics, and all other elements are their own work.
To make a more accurate musical analogy to Fairey's work: it would be like taking the guitar, organ, drum, and vocal tracks from The Doors' song Break On Through, using them in their entirety, only adding a deeper bass drum kick to the arrangement, then calling the finished work an original composition.
Not sure where you heard that, but you're not entirely correct. The photographer, Mannie Garcia, has said that he does not care to seek profit from the photo, but that he would like recognition for being the basis of Fairey's image
A lot have also compared Fairey's works to Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein. Take Lichtenstein's memorable "BLAM!" There is no way, when looking at the source for that image, that you can say Lichtenstein didn't completely copy that arrangement from its inspirational source.
While I enjoy Lichtenstein's art specifically because it is such an obvious lift from comic books, I would never say that his images were creative or original in concept. I don't even think Lichtenstein would say that. Fairey, on the other hand, is saying that his blatant copying of source material is originally creative. I realize that Fairey's images probably are different "enough" to get away with fair use, but his "art" leaves a bad taste in my mouth and smacks of creative laziness, IMO.
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin