Banksy: Did Banksy Reveal His Identity?

Did Banksy Reveal His Identity?

It appears that British street artist Banksy has once again made a visual play on the pop culture mystique surrounding his identity. This time the anonymous-one has allegedly created a self-portrait on the side of an office building in the Shoreditch area of London. The stencil piece involves a necklace wearing rat holding a sign with a face upon it. Some individuals have assumed that the piece is a self-portrait.

Rumor has it that the face upon the sign is from a photo of a man believed to be Banksy that was taken in 2004. The photo, which Banksy allegedly referenced, was taken during a graffiti event in Jamaica. In 2004 the photo spread on the internet like wildfire-- it caused an online media blitz of claims that Banksy’s identity had been revealed. However, if the piece involving the infamous photograph is authentic it is most likely Banksy’s way of poking fun at individuals who try to make his identity known.

The visual play on identity may very well be a response to a recent hoax that involved Banksy’s identity. Earlier this month an elaborate hoax that involved a former chairman of London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts, an actor impersonating British street artist Banksy, and a celebrity dinner hosted by Joan Collins was exposed. The hoax was masterminded by Ivan Massow, former chairman of London’s Institute of Contemporary Art.

Massow hired an actor, Bryan Lawrence, to dupe his longtime friend celebrity Joan Collins. Apparently Massow had hoped to sell footage of the bogus Banksy attending a dinner party hosted by Collins in order to reveal Banksy’s identity to the masses-- and to profit. After being exposed Massow flip-flopped on the issue by suggesting that actor Bryan Lawrence “could be” Banksy.

Banksy's street work often features humorous images that flirt with serious issues. The images often focus on anti-war, anti-capitalist, and anti-establishment messages. His collective work is often described as a prime example of creative freedom and as a visual voice for a public that would otherwise be silent. His work has inspired thousands if not millions of young artists. However, some critics suggest that Banksy profits from war, capitalism, and the establishment-- as well as the cult of celebrity. Or is it the cult of anonymity?

Today it is difficult to be anonymous-- there is little room to be mysterious in our online world. Thus, the fact that Banksy has been able to conceal his identity, at least to the masses, is attractive in our social media driven age. Regardless of who Banksy is the mystique has proven to be a key factor in keeping his visual message on bookstore shelves, in gallery exhibits, and in the news.

Hoaxes and ethical criticism aside, Banksy’s choice of anonymity has fostered debate concerning who is behind the persona. For example, several Banksy theories have been expressed on blogs and art forums. Some comments suggest that he is actually a she while others suggest that Banksy is a group of street artists rather than an individual.

On that same note, others have suggested that the ‘real’ Banksy has nothing to do with the commercialization of his work. Some have went as far as to suggest that Banksy’s work has been ‘hijacked’ by art dealers for profit due to the popularity of his art-- or that Banksy was ‘created’ by a group of gallerists in order to ‘legitimize’ street art within the mainstream art world for profit.

The Banksy conspiracy theorists suggest that alleged recordings of Banksy’s voice and his ‘official’ website are not legitimate. Some have noted that the registrant for Banksy’s website (www.banksy.co.uk) is Steve Lazarides-- who happens to be Banksy’s agent/ art dealer-- as ‘evidence’. Could it be that Steve Lazarides is running one of the most profitable art schemes in history? Could it be that Steve Lazarides is in fact Banksy? Perhaps the other artists that Steve Lazarides represents are collectively Banksy? Doubtful.

That said, one could suggest that Banksy-- the individual, the myth, the icon-- has found the perfect recipe for fame and fortune (and more importantly a surefire way to keep people focused on his art and social messages) in that he has been able to keep people guessing. Debates about Banksy tend to focus more on who he is rather than the art itself-- at least at first. The motives behind the mystery seep into the dialogue.

Is Banksy nothing more than a paper-tiger provocateur smothered by contradictions and hypocrisy? Maybe. Is Banksy an artist who is more interested in conveying a visual message to the world than basking in the media spotlight directly? Possibly. One thing is for certain-- we won’t know much about Banksy until he reveals his identity and therefore addresses questions more openly. That said, if Banksy reveals his identity would we continue to care?

Link of Interest:

Fake Banksy Infiltrates Celebrity Dinner
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/05/fake-banksy-infiltrates-celebrity.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

When Art Dealers Go Bad: Run Ronnie Run!

Art dealer Ronald Coles at his Kenthurst gallery in 2004. Photo: Natasha Paes/Hills News

In February 2009 hundreds of complaints were filed in Australia concerning art dealer Ronald Coles. This was due to two key factors. First, Coles had orchestrated an art market scheme that involved selling forgeries that he claimed were original works by Norman Lindsay and other famous Australian artists. Apparently he had the fakes created in China. Second, Coles owed millions of dollars to his angry clients and allegedly had stolen authentic works of art as well from his cliental. The forgeries had ended up for sale at auction houses and other venues while the legitimate stolen works had been sold online.

Australian authorities raided the Ronald Coles Investment Gallery and Coles residence only to find a large collection of firearms and hundreds of stolen paintings-- some of which were valued at over $4 million at the time of the bust. Afterwards dozens of former clients discovered that works of art that they had entrusted to Coles had been sold on the internet while others found out that the works they had purchased from Coles were in fact fakes. Unfortunately, Ronald Coles was no where to be found-- he has been on the run since before the police raided his property.

It has since been revealed that Coles had been running his scheme as early as 1994. Rumors state that other professionals within the market were aware of Coles activity but were wary of exposing him out of fear that the market as a whole would be scrutinized. In other words, if those claims are true it would mean that other professionals kept silent while Coles established a national reputation for himself as a legitimate art dealer and broker.

The plot thickens-- Ronald Coles is currently running from more than just the law. Recent buzz claims that Coles vanished with over $1 million in cash that belonged to an under-the-table client-- an outlaw biker (bikie for the people down under) gang in Australia. Needless to say, the biker gang did not bother with a formal complaint to Australian authorities. Instead they intimidated Coles stepdaughter, Sage Carver, who also happens to be an art dealer.

Sage Carver claims that the gang told her that they want to take Ronald Coles for a “ride”. However, the name of the specific gang has yet to be released to the press-- though the story has been confirmed by press in Sydney under the condition of anonymity. Apparently members of the biker gang had shown up at a gallery opening hosted by Carver in order to find out where Coles had gone. The outlaw biker gang members left with five paintings after Carver was unable to provide them with information.

A senior member of the outlaw biker gang, under the condition of anonymity, informed the press that the gang had invested money in Coles operation and that the shamed art dealer owes millions to over a dozen dozen senior members of the gang. The outlaw stated that the biker gang has the resources and the manpower to find Ronald Coles before he is captured by law enforcement, stating that “one way or another“ his gang will get their investment back.

The senior member of the outlaw biker gang made it clear to the press that Ronald Coles can only run for so long. All I can say is that Coles had better keep running-- or do the smart thing and run to the nearest jail cell… though it might be wise for him to pay back a few of his clients first.
Link of Interest:

Bikies want to have a 'chat' about their $1m
www.smh.com.au/national/bikies-want-to-have-a-chat-about-their-1m-20090509-aykb.html?page=-1

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Did Paul Gauguin cut off Vincent van Gogh's ear?

A self-portrait by Vincent Van Gogh

Two art historians from Germany are challenging one of the key legends surrounding Vincent van Gogh-- the story involving his self-inflicted ear mutilation. As the story goes, van Gogh sliced off his ear during a fit of madness and presented it to a prostitute whom he favored. However, Art historians Rita Wildegans and Hans Kaufmann claim to have evidence that supports their theory that Vincent van Gogh’s ear was severed by his on-and-off friend artist Paul Gauguin during their final altercation.

Wildegans and Kaufmann base their theory that Vincent van Gogh was a victim of Paul Gauguin’s skillful swordplay on documents from the time. For example, they note specific letters that Vincent sent to his brother Theo and a sketch of an ear by the artist as evidence. The sketch has the word “ictus”-- a Latin term used in fencing-- upon it.

Paul Gauguin’s account from the time states that van Gogh approached him with an open razor after he informed van Gogh that he was leaving for the last time. Gauguin is quoted as having said that he was able to quell van Gogh’s approach with just a glance. In other words, Gauguin’s account suggests that van Gogh cut off his ear after the altercation. However, Wildegans and Kaufmann suggest that what actually occurred was covered up in order to protect Paul Gauguin.

Paul Gauguin's account makes sense because in many ways van Gogh viewed Gauguin as more than just a man. After all, van Gogh idolized Gauguin. True, Gauguin could have made his side of the event up in order to protect himself-- and it could be that Vincent went along with it in order to protect his idol. However, the theory suggested by Wildegans and Kaufmann does not exactly add up.

I’m not sure if I can agree with Wildegans and Kaufmann’s theory. It is true that Paul Gauguin is noted for having been a skilled fencer and was known to have carried an epee at his side-- that said, an epee is not necessarily a slashing weapon due to the fact that it is designed for thrusting. In fact, an epee does not have a cutting edge. In other words, that specific type of fencing sword involves thrusting motions not slashing. That alone places a great burden on the theory presented by Wildegans and Kaufmann.

A self-portrait by Paul Gauguin

If Paul Gauguin had used his epee upon Vincent van Gogh it would have meant that he was aiming to kill since, based on the claims, he targeted van Gogh’s head. Point blank-- an epee is designed to penetrate an opponent with a thrust-- not severe body parts with a slash. So if Gauguin had thrusted the sword toward van Gogh's head he would have most likely aimed for the eye. Contrary to popular belief that would not have been a prime target.

I'll play Devil's advocate and say that it is possible that Paul Gauguin attempted to land a skillful epee thrust in van Gogh’s direction. However, that act would not have slashed van Gogh’s ear off entirely. If anything it would have-- due to the force of the thrust-- pierced his ear brutally. If that happened perhaps van Gogh decided to slash the rest of the ear off with his trusty razor. That said, it is important to remember that Paul Gauguin was a skillful fencer.

Being a skilled fencer Gauguin would have most likely aimed for Vincent's wrist if he desired to ward him off or for his heart if he desired to kill him. Since Gauguin's account states that van Gogh was armed it would have made sense for him to thrust in a manner that would have disarmed his opponent rather than kill him-- especially since Gauguin would have most likely wanted to sustain an amicable relationship with Vincen't brother Theo.

I doubt that Paul Gauguin would have wanted to kill Vincent van Gogh on the street in the first place-- especially since he was trying to leave hostile living conditions. He obviously wanted to leave trouble-- not find it. Nevertheless, Wildegans and Kaufmann have published their findings in a book titled Van Gogh’s Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence. The book will most likely stir more controversy and speculation once it is widely available.

Links of Interest:

Van Gogh’s Missing Ear: Was Gauguin the Culprit?
www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/arts/design/06arts-WASGAUGUINTH_BRF.html?_r=1&ref=arts

Van Gogh's ear 'was cut off by friend Gauguin with a sword'
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/5274073/Van-Goghs-ear-was-cut-off-by-friend-Gauguin-with-a-sword.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Fake Banksy Infiltrates Celebrity Dinner

Will the 'real' Banksy please stand up?

An elaborate hoax involving a former chairman of London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts, an actor impersonating British street artist Banksy, and a celebrity dinner hosted by Joan Collins has been exposed. Apparently the hoax was masterminded by Ivan Massow, former chairman of London’s Institute of Contemporary Art. Massow hired an actor, Bryan Lawrence, to dupe his longtime friend Joan Collins-- a Golden Globe Award-winning English actress, author, and columnist. Collins hosted a dinner for the fake Banksy thinking that he was the real deal. Apparently Massow had hoped to sell footage of the bogus Banksy attending the dinner party in order to reveal Banksy’s identity to the masses.

Joan Collins and her guests entertained the Banksy imposter for hours. During the event the fake Banksy dismissed the art of world renowned artists and declared that Tracey Emin’s art is “just a thought”, not art. Collins was not the only person to be fooled during the dinner. Apparently the dinner was also attended by comedian Stephen K. Amos, stage actress Ann Mitchell, and socialite Tamara Beckwith. The duped guests were given signed napkins by the bogus Banksy-- he gave Collins a can of spray paint displayed on a miniature easel.

The Banksy hoax fell apart after Ivan Massow contacted Daily Mail in the UK. Massow informed The Mail that he had real footage of the elusive street artist. He suggested that bringing the guests and Banksy together was a work of art. However, The Mail quickly discovered that Massow had orchestrated a hoax-- forcing Massow to confess that he was behind a ‘massive art fraud’.

In reality Ivan Massow was not really fooling anyone. He knew that his hoax would be discovered. After all, he arranged to have Sam Bloom, sister of actor Orlando Bloom, to be the waitress for the event. In fact, the chef for the dinner was also stage-- actress Helen Lederer played the role. Massow has stated-- after being exposed-- that he wanted to “investigate the nature of what’s real and what’s not real”. Of the event Massow has stated, “To pull off what was such a massive art fraud would have been really quite spectacular.”. Oddly enough, after being informed of the hoax Joan Collins stated, “I still think it might be him.”.

The Mail reports that Ivan Massow had intended to use the real Banksy in his film-- but the request was refused. Massow, according to The Mail, intends to still sell his film online as an ‘investigation into the nature of reality’. Oddly enough, Massow has flip-flopped on his confession because he has since stated, ‘I still think he might be Banksy. Prove it’s not him.’ Needless to say, I don't think the 'real' Banksy will reveal his identity anytime soon-- Banksy's anonymity have proven to be a key factor in the market for his art.

The Banksy hoax is interesting because it reveals some of the problems an artist like Banksy can endure when he or she decides to keep his or her identity a secret. After all, how can you prove who Banksy is or is not if he has not been seen? Only a few people know who he is or what he looks like. How can you prove that the people representing Banksy have the right guy or that maybe they have been hired by someone to represent Banksy as a male when in reality he may actually be a she? You never know.

If someone wanted to they could declare that they are Banksy and the only way to prove otherwise would be to have the identity of the ‘real’ Banksy revealed, true? It could easily become a legal mess if someone wished to push it. Would it be easy for someone to claim that they are in fact the ‘real’ Banksy and that the anonymous Banksy we have come to know is actually an imposter who has ‘hijacked’ the ‘real’ Banksy’s work for fame and fortune? Far-fetched? Maybe. That said, Ivan Massow has shown that anything is possible-- or can at least be 'created'.

Link of Interest:

When Joan Collins THOUGHT she'd met Banksy: The elaborate plot to impersonate graffiti artist and how the MoS foiled it

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1176729/When-Joan-Collins-THOUGHT-shed-met-Banksy-The-elaborate-plot-impersonate-graffiti-artist-MoS-foiled-it.html?ITO=1490

Street Art Defacement: Appropriate Media vs. Banksy
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/04/street-art-defacement-appropriate-media.html

Is Banksy for the People?

www.myartspace.com/blog/2007/07/art-space-news-is-banksy-for-people.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

Myartspace Blog on Twitter

www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

ArtPrize competition receives criticism from critics and art dealers

I've read some buzz about the ArtPrize competition. A few art critics and NYC art dealers have called it a sign of desperation rather than an opportunity for artists-- implying that anyone who enters it is 'just desperate'. In fact, one critic of the competition-- András Szántó -- suggested that anyone who wins the competition will never be accepted in the mainstream art world.

András Szántó also suggested that the $400,000+ cash prize should have been donated to existing art programs or as grants to artists who are represented by notable galleries. He actually made the case that only a select few should dictate what is 'good' art or 'bad' art instead of the general public-- backing the idea that only certain individuals are capable of understanding or appreciating art.

Szántó stated, "we already have a system for recognizing meritorious artists", "Would we pick heart surgeons this way? Architects? Firemen?", and "Rather than creating yet another channel of art-world mobility, how about improving what we have?" The only problem with that opinion is that a lot of great artists are never recognized by the mainstream art world-- or are cast aside due to gender or age -- so one could say that the 'system' Szántó speaks of has failed.

That said, I would have to ask Szántó if that is a sign of the failure of art critics or a sign that maybe, just maybe, there should be more opportunities for artists in general. At the very least there should be more rights for artists within the 'art world'. There is always room for the 'system' to improve, right? If needed there is reason for the 'system' to be destroyed and built again with the advances of today and the idea of equality in mind, true?

The basics of ArtPrize from the ArtPrize site: "At ArtPrize, any artist—from established to emerging—has the chance to show work. Any visitor can vote. The vote will determine who wins the largest art prize in the world. We also took the unusual step to allow people in the city to open a venue and choose the artists to show in their space. There is not one official curator or jury for the competition."

The main point of criticism about the competition is the fact that the public will decide the winner. In other words, those who have spoken out against the concept of ArtPrize feel that the competition is worthless to the winners since the competition does not involve professional jurors (I guess it would be a better competition if it involved them?). True, I prefer art competitions that involve a strong panel of jurors. That said, I don't think an artist is "desperate" if he or she decides to enter an art competition that is judged by the public.

My opinion is that the critics of this competition are stuck in the past and fear change. They fear the same public that they strive to reach out to with their art criticism and exhibit reviews. They don't want the flood gates of the art world to be opened to the public-- while at the same time it is common for these same individuals to complain about how the general public is not interested in art. It is obvious that they want the 'system' to change-- on their terms. They want a segregated system that supports the faces and spaces that they praise while upholding a facade of public inclusion-- just as it has always been.

I think the words of András Szántó reveal that some key players in the mainstream art world are wary of online juried art competitions in general regardless of how they are judged. After all, there have been a number of online art competitions involving jurors from the TATE and other high profile museums and galleries (including myartspace.com competitions-- www.myartspace.com/contests) and, as far as I know, none of the ArtPrize naysayers embraced those competitions. Thus, it would seem that certain individuals are not very accepting of online art competitions in general-- or the way the internet is changing the art world for that matter. Why? Because art competitions of this nature are a thorn in their 'system'.

There is obviously a fear of public opinion coming from those circles. In fact, one comment suggested that if the chosen work does not reflect the choices of professional art critics it would mean, at least in the eyes of the public, that the opinion of high profile critics does not really matter in dictating public taste for art. I think people already know that though-- people like what they like regardless of who said what, when, and where.

It is amazing to observe the unease that the internet has caused for traditionalists within the core of the art world. These are the same type of individuals who scoffed at the importance of having a website in the 1990s. Because of that the majority of the art world is only now catching up to technological standards that other businesses have long embraced.

In closing, one could say that the internet is forcing a few key art world figures to release their grip-- or has at least forced them to think about their future relevance within the art world as a whole. Is it a sign of desperation if an artist enters ArtPrize or any other online art competition for that matter? I don't think so. It is just an opportunity-- an opportunity that some artists will enjoy participating in.

That said, I think individuals who openly scoff at online art competitions are truly desperate-- especially when they talk about their beloved 'system' and how competitions of this nature threaten said 'system'. What say you?

Links of interest:

ArtPrize
www.artprize.org

myartspace Forum debate
www.myartspace.com/forum/topic.php?id=76&replies=1

The Thorny Authoritarian Issue : Open Thread -- Winkleman Blog
http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2009/04/thorny-authoritarian-issue-open-thread.html

The Prize of Desperation
www.artworldsalon.com/blog/2009/04/the-prize-of-desperation/

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Picasso: The value of a name?

Apparently there has been a lengthy battle over Picasso’s name in the UK. It started when Manders Paints, owned by Dougie Urquhart, decided to introduce a line of paints called Picasso Tint to Taste. The estate of Pablo Picasso quickly took legal action in order to prevent Manders Paint from using the family name on their products. The verdict is in-- Picasso lost.

The case has been described as a landmark ruling due to the fact that only Dougie Urquhart’s company, Manders Paints, can use the name Picasso as a brand name for UK based painting products. Needless to say, the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has sided with Manders Paints on the issue. However, the Picasso estate has appealed in the past-- so it is likely that they will continue to fight for their namesake.

The Picasso estate argued that the use of the name ‘Picasso’ without their consent amounted to exploitation by Dougie Urquhart and his company. In other words, they feel that the only reason Urquhart desires to use the name is due to the commercial value it has for his specific market-- products for painters. That said, Urquhart’s legal team pointed out that names of other famous painters, such as Renoir and Matisse, have been registered as trademarks with or without the consent of those respected families.

The Picasso estate is known for adamantly defending Pablo Picasso’s name and art. In fact, the movie Surviving Picasso (1996 Merchant Ivory Productions) experienced the wrath of the Picasso family during production. The producers were unable to obtain permission to feature replicas of Picasso’s art on the set. From what I’ve read the only painting in Surviving Picasso that is based on an authentic Picasso painting is the scene where Picasso, played by Anthony Hopkins, creates a section of Guernica-- though the scene is filmed in a way as to make the image only slightly visible.

This case involving Manders Paints and the Picasso estate begs the question-- what is the value of a name? I suspect that eventually we will see other art products named after artists. Perhaps in the future one will be able to purchase Hirst Black, Fairey Red, or Koons Blue. That said, is the last name of the artist as important as the visual legacy he or she leaves behind? Does commercial use of an artists name without his or her consent-- or estate consent-- harm the market for his or her art? What is the value of a name? Thoughts?

Link of Interest:

UK paint firm wins Picasso battle

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/8015364.stm

Manders Paints

www.manderspaints.co.uk

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

Myartspace Blog on Twitter

www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Art Market Crises: A Crooked Art Dealer and Angry Art Collector

Lawrence B. Salander in Court, Via New York Times

Weeding my way through recent art news I hit on two stories of interest. One involves a crooked art dealer and the other involves an angry art collector. Both stories are being hailed as examples of the collapse of the art market as we know. Oddly enough, in both situations the state of the economy has received some of the blame-- or is acknowledged for having opened the window for outsiders to view the deceit.

The art dealer, Lawrence B. Salander, was arrested in late March after being accused of stealing over $88 million from several art owners, investors, and Bank of America. Salander has been charged with grand larceny, forgery, falsifying business records, scheming to defraud, and perjury. Needless to say, the once prominent art dealer has pleaded not guilty. Salander faces up to 25 years in prison and his bail is set at $1 million.

My guess is that Salander will not be dealing in art anytime soon-- especially since his Salander-O’ Reilly Galleries is now bankrupt. This is the type of art dealer that gives all art dealers a bad name.

Links of Interest:
Salander Charged with Stealing $88 million [Artforum]
Times Topics:Lawrence B. Salander [New York Times]

Art Dealer is Charged with Stealing $88 Million [New York Times]

Francis Bacon, Study for a Self-Portrait, 1964, Via Rawartint

The art collector, George Weiss, is furious with high-profile auction house Christie’s. Weiss filed a lawsuit against Christie’s due to the fact that the auction house was unable to sell a self-portrait by Francis Bacon owned by Weiss. Christie’s had offered Weiss a minimum guarantee that the Bacon would sell. Unfortunately, the auction house failed to follow through after Weiss consigned the work. Christie’s has noted the turmoil of the art market in their defense. When all else fails-- blame the economy.

Links of Interest:
Christie’s Sued For $40M Over Francis Bacon Painting [Wall Street Journal]

Christie’s Auction House Sued Over Francis Bacon Guarantee [Bloomberg]

Christie’s Is Sued After Francis Bacon Painting Fails to Sell [New York Times]

The economic crises has fueled an already chaotic art world. In New York City there has been a betting game going on amongst gallery staff concerning which gallery will close next. Artists are have been forced to move to less expensive studios. Materials are becoming more pricey. Art museums are cutting staff and benefits. From that woodwork the roaches of the art market will surely be exposed-- and stomped upon.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

Myartspace Blog on Twitter

www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

The Downward Spiral of the Chinese Contemporary Art Market

An untitled painting by Zeng Fanzhi

In recent years the market for Chinese contemporary artists has been hot in the global art market. Many of the top selling Chinese artists were virtually unknown before the Chinese art market boom at high profile auction houses and art fairs. Successful Chinese contemporary artists, such as Zeng Fanzhi, reaped what quick fame and fortune offers to artists who dominate the global art market. Due to global success artists from Shanghai and Beijing have been able to operate large studios in order to create further work. However, success can be fleeting-- these artists are now caught in what has been described as the “downward spiral” of the contemporary Chinese art market.

Galleries and art dealers in Shanghai and Beijing are facing some of the same struggles that galleries in New York City and other hubs of the art world have been challenged by in recent months. At the core of the plight is the ongoing global financial crisis. Art collectors worldwide are not as wealthy as they were just a year ago-- thus, aspects of the art market have been caught in a financial freeze, so to speak. Prices for art have dropped rapidly-- meaning the value for specific artists may be in limbo. In other words, high profile collectors are wary to invest in an uncertain global art market.

Chinese contemporary artists who were steadily patronized over the last few years are now faced with the humble reality that perhaps their art will falter within the global art market. Even the top auction houses, such as Sotheby’s, have been reluctant to spotlight Chinese contemporary art in recent months. This has lead insiders to suggest that the era of high-priced Chinese contemporary art is over. Rumors suggest that the market for Chinese contemporary art may bottom out before the global economy recovers. Thus, the fate of these artists within the global art market is not clear.

The surge in popularity for Chinese contemporary art among wealthy global art collectors-- such as Charles Saatchi-- came without warning. Artprice.com only listed one Chinese artist on their Top 10 best-selling living artists list in 2004. By 2007, 5 of the 10 best-selling living artists at auction were from China according to Artprice.com. The most acclaimed Chinese contemporary artist for that year, Zhang Xiaogang, had total auction sales of over $56 million.

Zhang Xiaogang ranked under Damien Hirst and Gerhard Richter in 2007-- two artists who have long dominated the global art market. The rise of Chinese contemporary art came swift. Unfortunately, the crash of the Chinese contemporary art market in the last year came just as sudden. It begs the question-- will any Chinese contemporary artists remain on the Artprice.com best-selling list of living artists after 2009? Who knows what will happen in this turbulent market.

Some feel that the bust of the Chinese contemporary art market was needed in order to sustain the validity of the market for Chinese contemporary art as a whole. Wealthy art collectors and art dealers, such as Charles Saatchi, had artificially driven up prices by investing heavily in art by Chinese contemporary artists-- according to some insiders. Other high profile art collectors and art dealers followed suit in what I like to call the ‘Keeping up with the Saatchi’s' effect.

A few of these individuals were quick to open galleries in China in order to take advantage of the flow of wealth-- now gallery doors are closing. Needless to say, some individuals feel that the artificial rise of specific artists-- not just Chinese contemporary artists-- within the global art market must come to an end in order for the global art market to have a steady business foundation that places integrity and sustainability above excessive personal gain.

Thus, it is felt that art dealers-- in general-- must take more responsibility within the global art market by helping their represented artists sustain the market for their work in a realistic manner. For example, art collectors/dealers who artificially increase prices may need to be avoided if the global art market is to have a strong foundation. Unfortunately, many artists throughout the world will fall victim due to key art world power players who have already manipulated the market for their own needs. The global art market as we know it will never be the same. Integrity is due.

Link of Interest:

China’s Art Market: Cold or Maybe Hibernating? By David Barboza -- The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/arts/design/11decl.html?_r=1

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Shepard Fairey decides that Steelerbaby does not need to Obey his legal team

Larkin Werner's 'Obey Steelerbaby' next to a poster by Shepard Fairey.

UPDATE: It appears that Shepard Fairey has dropped his cease-and-desist order against Cafepress and Larkin Werner's Steelerbaby store. My sources tell me it was dropped on March 10th-- days after my post about the issue.

Disobey Shepard Fairey by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/03/disobey-shepard-fairey.html

There are three rumors floating around as to why Shepard Fairey dropped his cease-and-desist order-- all of which suggest that he did it in order to save face:

1.) Shepard Fairey did not want the negative press going into his case against the Associated Press-- kind of hard to be a champion of "fair use" when you oppose it, true? After all, Fairey sent the cease-and-desist letter a week or so before his last interview on NPR. During that interview he suggested that he is going against the AP in order to secure the rights of all artists who work under "fair use". Perhaps he is finally realizing that part of that involves people being able to parody his widely known posters and trademark? Or maybe he just took a big gun away from the Associated Press countersuit?

2.) Lawrence Lessig, Anthony Falzone, and the Fair Use Project did not want negative press concerning contradictions of "fair use" in regards to their client-- Shepard Fairey. After all, the Fair Use Project supports an extended interpretation of "fair use" in general. It would not look good if their client flip-flops on his opinion of "fair use". Shepard Fairey often appears to have a selective interpretation of "fair use"-- as in it is OK for him to parody-- or comment on visually-- the work of others while at the same time sending legal threats when emerging artists parody his world renowned images. Due to this it has been suggested that Shepard Fairey is only interested in "Fairey use".

3.) Shepard Fairey did not want negative press-- period. It seems the press honeymoon is over. Recently Shepard Fairey has been ripped apart by the press-- a far cry from the constant praise he received for months due to his work for the Obama campaign. Shepard Fairey of all people should understand the double-edged sword of mass media. It can’t be butterflies and awards all the time.

Needless to say, Werner's 'Obey Steelerbaby' items have returned to Cafepress, www.cafepress.com/steelerbaby.

At some point the artist who says "question everything" must answer some difficult questions from fans, critics, and collectors concerning his ethics, the validity of his art, and the contradictions that have shadowed his career-- questions that can't be answered by a resume of good deeds. The sidestepping and using charity as a shield during interviews must stop if he is to be taken serious. To put it bluntly, post after post from SuperTouch and other Fairey friends can't hide the fact that people are demanding answers.

What are your thoughts concerning this situation? Do you think Shepard Fairey honestly supports “fair use”? Or do you feel that he is only interested in --as the Phantom Street Artist calls it-- “Fairey use”? Did the Fair Use Project make a mistake in representing Shepard Fairey? What is your opinion of Shepard Fairey in general? What are your thoughts?

Links of Interest:

Steelerbaby Blues by Chris Young -- Pittsburgh City Paper

www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A59932

Fair Use: Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/fair-use-shepard-fairey-and-baxter-orr.html

Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Damien Hirst & Shepard Fairey / Cartrain & Baxter Orr by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/birds-of-feather-flock-together-damien.html

Integrity Lost: Lawrence Lessig helps Shepard Fairey by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/integrity-lost-lawrence-lessig-helps.html

The Phantom Street Artist speaks out against Shepard Fairey in Citizen LA by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/03/phantom-street-artist-speaks-out.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Disobey Shepard Fairey

Larkin Werner's 'Obey Steelerbaby' next to a poster by Shepard Fairey.

Last month Shepard Fairey was interviewed by Terry Gross for NPR. The world renowned artist discussed his pre-emptive lawsuit against the Associated Press due to the media giants copyright infringement allegations concerning his Obama posters-- Fairey had used an AP owned photograph by Mannie Garcia as the base image for his posters. Fairey is represented by Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project (FUP)-- an organization that claims to support an extension of the boundaries of "fair use" in order to “enhance creative freedom“. However, it appears that Shepard Fairey does not agree with FUP 100%-- at least when his work is used by others under "fair use".

Based on Shepard Fairey's recent statements you would think that he would fully support artists using his widely known images under "fair use". After all, in the NPR interview Fairey suggested that his lawsuit against the Associated Press is important because he views it as standing up for the rights of artists who create art that is protected under "fair use". However, Shepard Fairey has a history of threatening artists with legal action when they utilize his famous artwork under "fair use"-- even if the artist did not willfully infringe. The most recent situation involves graphic designer Larkin Werner and his Cafepress store.

Early last month-- before the NPR interview-- Shepard Fairey’s Obey Giant Art Inc. sent www.cafepress.com a cease-and-desist letter concerning a Cafepress store titled Steelerbaby-- Larkin Werner‘s account. Obey Giant Art Inc. took action due to the fact that Werner had been selling a version of his ’Steelerbaby’ doll that involved the word ‘obey’. Shepard Fairey feels that the merchandise involving the word "Obey" is an infringement on his trademark. However, Werner claims that his use of ‘obey’ was not inspired by Shepard Fairey. In fact, Werner has suggested that “Obey Steelerbaby’ is one of several catch phrases spoken by the doll at, www.steelerbaby.com. The obey phrase is popular among fans of Steelerbaby.

Obey Giant Art Inc. took issue with Werner due to the fact that the graphic artist had designed merchandise based on the popularity of Steelerbaby’s "Obey Steelerbaby" catch phrase. The merchandise, which was sold on Cafepress, involved pictures of the Steelerbaby doll standing between the words “Obey” and “Steelerbaby” while others featured the word “Obey” above the doll. According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, Werner-- who is based in Pittsburgh-- had earned around $70 from selling “Obey Steelerbaby” merchandise on Cafepress. That said, Shepard Fairey’s representatives feel that Werner’s “Obey Steelerbaby” merchandise is a direct threat to Shepard Fairey’s trademark and business.

According to the Pittsburgh City Paper, Olivia Perches-- the representative of Shepard Fairey who sent the cease-and-desist letter to Cafepress-- has suggested that Obey Giant Art Inc. owns the use of ‘Obey’ and that artists can’t use the word ‘Obey’ in their artwork or designs. Chris Broders, a business partner involved with Fairey’s Obey clothing line, has suggested that the use of “Obey” becomes an issue when artists or other individuals profit from the “‘Obey’ mark”. He went on to suggest that Fairey’s representatives and business partners will do what they can in order to “protect" their "trademark". Needless to say, Larkin Werner feels that Shepard Fairey is being a hypocrite due to the fact that Fairey has established a career from creating images under "fair use" of copyright and trademark law.
A comparison of a poster by Shepard Fairey (left) next to a poster by Baxter Orr (right). Orr put a SARs protective mask over the famous Obey Giant image and titled it ‘Protect’. Fair Use? You be the judge.

This is not the first time that Shepard Fairey has attacked "fair use". In 2008 there was a story concerning “fair use” and Shepard Fairey in The Austin Chronicle. The situation involved the famous Shepard Fairey and emerging artist Baxter Orr. Orr created a parody of the iconic Obey Giant image-- which he distributed and sold. Orr-- being cynical of Shepard Fairey -- strived to make a visual statement about Fairey’s art and practice in general. One could say that Orr’s appropriation of the Obey Giant image was in itself a statement on Fairey’s practice of appropriating from other artists.

Viewers of the work recognized that Orr had made a visual statement about Shepard Fairey and the Obey Giant image. There was no confusion as to who made what. Thus, it did not take long for Orr’s image to be picked up by art bloggers-- which stirred debate concerning Fairey’s artwork, the copyright infringement allegations that have shadowed Fairey’s career, and Fairey’s own history of appropriation.

Eventually Orr received a cease-and-desist letter from Obey Giant Art Inc. However, Orr continues to sell his parody, now titled ‘Protect Yourself -- Giant’, for $25.00 on his website, www.baxterorr.bigcartel.com. Oddly enough, some artists have started to parody the situation between Baxter Orr and Shepard Fairey:
A parody of the Orr, Fairey, and Associated Press disputes by Dan Nolan.

I find it odd that Shepard Fairey suggested on NPR that he is fighting for the rights of all artists concerning “fair use” when earlier that month he had sent a cease-and-desist letter to Larkin Werner. After all, supporters of Shepard Fairey have suggested that the Associated Press has “bullied” Fairey-- some have went as far as to suggest that the AP has attacked "fair use". You would think these strong supporters of "fair use" would call Shepard Fairey out just as they have called the AP out concerning "fair use". Right?

One must ask-- where was Lawrence Lessig, Anthony Falzone, the Fair Use Project, and other supporters of extreme interpretations of "fair use" when Shepard Fairey 'bullied' Baxter Orr and Larkin Werner concerning issues involving “fair use”? Is Shepard Fairey truly fighting the good fight for “fair use” or is he, as the Phantom Street Artist suggested, fighting for “Fairey use”?

The contradictions involving Shepard Fairey are widespread. Unfortunately, the major media has barely reported on this aspect of Shepard Fairey and "fair use". Instead, most have conveniently championed Fairey as an advocate for “fair use”-- which is obviously false. If anything, Shepard Fairey is a champion for his own work involving "fair use".

In closing, I think Shepard Fairey needs to realize that artists can, and will, use trademark protected images under “trademark fair use” within the context of their own work. I’m not against “fair use”-- though I do think it should be limited. That said, if Shepard Fairey is allowed to extend the boundaries of “fair use” I think he needs to realize that he is opening the doors for his own work to be exploited by legal gray areas. My guess is that artists and other creative individuals will continue to disobey Shepard Fairey's copyright and trademark-- especially if he wins his case against the Associated Press. Be careful which doors you open Mr. Fairey-- they may lead back to you.

UPDATE: It appears that Shepard Fairey has dropped his cease-and-desist against Cafepress and Larkin Werner's Steelerbaby store. My sources tell me it was dropped on March 10th-- just days after this post. There are three rumors floating around as to why the cease-and-desist was dropped:

1.) Shepard Fairey did not want the negative press going into his case against the Associated Press-- kind of hard to be a champion of "fair use" when you oppose it, true?

2.) Lawrence Lessig, Anthony Falzone, and the Fair Use Project did not want negative press concerning contradictions of "fair use" in regards to their client-- Shepard Fairey. After all, the Fair Use Project supports an extended interpretation of "fair use" in general. It would not look good if their client flip-flops on his opinion of "fair use".

3.) Shepard Fairey did not want negative press-- period. It seems the press honeymoon is over. Recently Shepard Fairey has been ripped apart by the press-- a far cry from the constant praise he received for months due to his work for the Obama campaign.

Werner's 'Obey Steelerbaby' items have returned to Cafepress, www.cafepress.com/steelerbaby

Links of Interest:
Steelerbaby Blues by Chris Young -- Pittsburgh City Paper
www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A59932

Fair Use: Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/fair-use-shepard-fairey-and-baxter-orr.html

Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Damien Hirst & Shepard Fairey / Cartrain & Baxter Orr by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/birds-of-feather-flock-together-damien.html

Artist Cage Match: Fairey vs. Orr by Richard Whittaker -- The Austin Chronicle
www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:625022

Integrity Lost: Lawrence Lessig helps Shepard Fairey by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/integrity-lost-lawrence-lessig-helps.html

The Phantom Street Artist speaks out against Shepard Fairey in Citizen LA by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/03/phantom-street-artist-speaks-out.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com

The Phantom Street Artist speaks out against Shepard Fairey in Citizen LA

The Citizen LA cover is a collaboration between Rick Mendoza and Joey Krebs aka The Phantom Street Artist. www.citizenla.com

As mentioned on the Myartspace Blog the Phantom Street Artist is actively challenging the ‘street cred’ of artist Shepard Fairey. In my article, titled ‘Shepard Fairey Dodges Criticism at ICA: Street Artists and Copyright Advocates Demand Answers‘ , I mentioned that some street artists are furious concerning the commercialization of street art by Shepard Fairey and his business associates. Unfortunately, their voice has not been heard widely-- even on the majority of websites and e-zines dedicated to street art.

For that article I asked Joey Krebs aka Joel Jaramillo, aka Caine 2, aka the LA Street Phantom, aka The Phantom Street Artist about some of the statements Shepard Fairey has made about his work for Pepsi, Saks, and other companies. The Phantom Street Artist told me that he and others close to him feel that Shepard Fairey is “buying status and staking claim in a world that refuses to recognize him.” Krebs then told me, "The media does not represent the voice of the street. It represents the money of those who want to be recognized on the street.". He went on to say that Fairey is, “privileged, self entitled and self consumed.”. Needless to say, The Phantom has been very critical of Shepard Fairey‘s art, practice, and ethics.

For my article The Phantom Street Artist mentioned that he would like to “challenge” Shepard Fairey-- stating, “I want to challenge his point of view, his beliefs and his values in a dual of sorts. I want to challenge him physically, mentally, and perceptually.“ Krebs then told me, “This is the chance for him to win the character approved award by his colleagues-- true street artists. The challenge match is a physical as well as a conceptual performance.”.

I then asked the Phantom Street Artist if he felt that Shepard Fairey would meet his challenge concerning credibility on the streets. The Phantom responded, “There is no risk if you do not risk yourself. This is not a game of perception being managed and defined by publicist and public relations officers. These money fed publicists failed to realize that media is nothing other then the perception of opinion formed in management.”. In a sense, the Phantom Street artists feels that Shepard Fairey, with the help of a media relations machine, has bastardized the street art movement.

The Phantom Street Artist’s “character approved” statement was a jab at the USA Networks “ Character Approved Award ”, an award given by the USA Network to the most “remarkable, imaginative and innovative characters”-- Shepard Fairey won the top slot for the 2009 art category. Needless to say, the Phantom Street Artist does not feel that Shepard Fairey’s art is remarkable, imaginative, or innovative as far as street art is concerned. In fact, he feels that the award given by the USA Network to Shepard Fairey is a prime example of how corporations are claiming street art for profit and marketability with Shepard Fairey serving-- or should I say obeying -- as a corporate spearhead.

The Phantom Street Artist at work.

The words of the Phantom Street Artist have not went unheard. Citizen LA , a monthly arts & lifestyle publication that strives to support and sustain cultural diversity in Los Angeles, has acknowledge the Phantom Street Artist’s criticism of Shepard Fairey and his call for a "cage match" between the two with "street cred" in the balance-- a performance of sorts that would also serve the purpose of raising money for charity. Both artists have experience with fundraising. The Phantom helps to operate Art Saves Lives, www.artsaveslives.net, a non-profit dedicated to helping the homeless through art. Will Shepard Fairey meet the Phantom's challenge?

The Citizen LA article/interview touched on several other issues concerning the Phantom's criticism of Shepard Fairey. Heidi Hutchinson, reporting for Citizen LA, recently conducted an interview with the Phantom Street Artist titled, RAGE AGAINST THE SHEPHERD FAIREY PROPOGANDA MACHINE. In the interview the Phantom Street Artist explains to Hutchinson that Shepard Fairey does not represent the voice of the “populace” and is instead the “voice of the Elitist Media disguised”.

In his interview for Citizen LA the Street Phantom goes on to suggest that Shepard Fairey is nothing other then a “consumer being consumed” by buying media time, buying publicity, and buying legal representation. The Phantom states that Fairey has done this to “justify his infringed violations” in order to “present himself as a legit street artist.” The Phantom went on to say that Shepard Fairey and Obey Giant Art, Inc. are “exploitive media whores jacking references from historic cultures for their own selfish interests.”

According to the Citizen LA interview The Phantom is also critical of the ICA retrospective of Shepard Fairey's career. The Phantom feels that the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston “conjured” a 20 year retrospective with total disregard for Shepard Fairy’s “unapologetic infringed actions”. The Phantom views this as “a sign of the degeneration of our society and culture which is being conformed by mediocrity by the likes of Shephard Fairey and OBEY as well as his publication SWINDLE as the true life metaphor to inveigle beliefs systems and values all in the interest of mammon.”.

The Phantom’s message is clear-- he feels that Shepherd Fairey is no different than the entities he has spoke out against visually. In the Citizen LA interview he describes Shepard Fairey as the “poster boy for Big Brother”-- stating, “The media is run by elitists to manipulate public opinion. They’ve also overtaken the independent media, including Satellite Radio.”.

The Phantom then mentions that the real meaning of Fairey’s art is the power of propaganda as far as branding and commerce is concerned. He explained to Hutchinson, “OBEY has no responsible message other then to brand self promotion in the self interest of commerce.”-- an opinion that is shared by many street artists who are wary that the history of their ’culture’ as well as the power of the messages they leave are threatened by commercialization.

In the Citizen LA interview The Phantom states that Shepard Fairey’s actions is the “epitome of rape,” based on his ravaging of “important historical and revolutionary cultures, ideas, concepts and visions” for profit. According to Citizen LA The Phantom-- born to first generation immigrants from Ecuador-- feels that Shepard Fairey is "demeaning" the integrity of the “referenced” works as well as the voice of disenfranchised cultures from which they emerged by altering images without credit. The Phantom finds it offensive that Fairey has “referenced” works from Latino cultural history for profit-- stating in the Citizen LA interview, “He’s making a novelty out of degrading our historical cultural imagery.”.

Concerning Shepard Fairey’s case against the Associated Press the Phantom stated, “If visual artist or merchandisers like Shepard Fairey can cite “fair use” only in the interest of protecting their corporate interest of profit, we have lost the value of “fair use”. Phantom explained to Citizen LA that people should not sit back while Shepard Fairey exploits “fair use” for profit-- stating, “Fair Use protects language and true social commentary without suffocating independent voices.”. The Phantom went on to suggest that if Shepard Fairey wins his case against the Associated Press it will kick open the door for the exploitation of “fair use” by the rich and powerful.

Needless to say, the Citizen LA interview with the Phantom Street Artist is a must read for anyone who has been following the chaos involving Shepard Fairey. The article gives some great details about the Phantom's upbringing, street roots, and other insightful information about the artist. The Citizen LA website, www.citizenla.com, contains several other stories and interviews of interest. Do check them out.

For those who don’t know, The Phantom Street Artist is a Los Angeles based street artist who is widely known for creating art that was used on the cover of the Rage Against the Machine album titled The Battle of Los Angeles. The Phantom directed two videos for Rage Against the Machine, 'Bulls on Parade', and 'Renegades of Funk,'. Both videos were awarded by MTV. The Rage Against the Machine album and videos feature the Street Phantom’s signature artwork-- a lone silhouette, which the Phantom explains represents the “Public Everyman“.

The Phantom's criticism of Shepard Fairey offers the hope that maybe the voice of the 'everyman' can be powerful enough to go against the grain of media sensationalism and the cult of personality. Personally, I do hope that the Phantom and Shepard Fairey have an 'art bout' for charity. It would be interesting to observe the two match wits and talent for a good cause.

Update: This write-up is a review of the article/interview that the Phantom had sent to me. According to the Phantom, Citizen LA decided to edit most of the content due to "fear of legal retribution". The Phantom suggests that Citizen LA took creative liberties with the presentation as a whole. Perhaps the Fairey Machine runs deeper than first expected-- or maybe there was just a lack of communication between the Phantom and Heidi Hutchinson? As the saying goes, "There are two sides to every story". It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

George Stiehl, the publisher of Citizen LA, has contacted me over the issue. He has stated that there was only one version of the piece. Stiehl suggests that the situation may be due to a misunderstanding or lack of communication. He made it clear that Citizen LA does not intentionally misrepresent their interviewed artists-- and that he hopes to solve the issue in an amicable manner.

That said, the version that was published was enough to spur a reaction. According to my sources an outspoken critic of Shepard Fairey was threatened after mentioning the Citizen LA Phantom piece on Facebook-- she has since pulled her criticism from Facebook out of fear of being physically harmed.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com

Integrity Lost: Lawrence Lessig helps Shepard Fairey

A comparison showing Mannie Garcia’s AP photograph of Obama next to Shepard Fairey’s ‘Progress’ and ‘Hope’ posters.

I noticed something of interest on the Lessig website recently-- be prepared for a rant. Before I get started I feel that I should include some background information about Lessig and some of the organizations he has worked with: Lawrence Lessig is a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. Lessig is the founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is currently supporting Shepard Fairey's case against the Associated Press.

In fact, The Stanford Center for Internet and Society's Fair Use Project (FUP), under the guidance of Executive Director Anthony Falzone, is currently representing Shepard Fairey in his case against the Associated Press. The case stems from the copyright allegations the AP made against Shepard Fairey concerning his use of an Obama photograph that the AP claims ownership of. Needless to say, the lawsuit has spurred debate about copyright law and the rights of artists-- it has spread like wildfire on blogs and art forums.

For those who don't know, the Fair Use Project provides legal support to cases of this nature in order to “clarify, and extend, the boundaries of "fair use" in order to enhance creative freedom.”. Shepard Fairey hopes to “vindicate his rights, and disprove the AP's accusations“ with the help of the Fair Use Project. Thus, both Lessig and Falzone desire to see Shepard Fairey win his case against the Associated Press in order to strengthen their interpretation of “fair use”-- an interpretation that places the rights of visual artists at risk according to artist rights advocates.

It should be noted that Professor Lessig has served on the board of Public Knowledge . Public Knowledge (PK) is a public interest group based in Washington DC. PK’s mission is to defend “citizens' rights in the emerging digital culture.”. The group has been very active in fighting against legislation that strengthens copyright protection for musicians and visual artists. The organization claims that they are upholding the rights of consumers by opposing legislation that would limit or prevent fair use.

Public Knowledge strongly supported the 2008 orphan works legislation-- legislation that was opposed by Brad Holland , co-founder of The Illustrators Partnership of America (IPA). The IPA and over 60 other art organizations were outraged because the legislation would have greatly reduced the ability of a living artist to defend his or her art against copyright infringers. In fact, exclusive rights would have been destroyed if the legislation had passed according to Brad Holland. Holland and his supporters firmly stand on their position that the legislation would have stripped artists of many of the rights they enjoy under current copyright law had it passed.

Now to the task at hand. On February 6th Professor Lawrence Lessig posted an entry titled ‘Shepard Fairey's AP troubles’ on the Lessig.org website. The message stated, “A bunch of you have forwarded to me the story about the AP threatening Shepard Fairey for copyright infringement. The Stanford Center's Fair Use Project is representing Fairey, so I'm a bit constrained about what I can say just now. More when there can be more.”. It is not uncommon for a legal eagle to remain hush, hush until more information is available. However, on February 17th Professor Lessig posted the following message on Twitter, he said, “We could use help on the Shepard Fairey/AP case.”. Needless to say, I decided to click on the link.

Upon clicking on the link I was taken to Professor Lessig’s website and an article titled, ‘Crowd-sourcing a “fair use” case’ . The entry stated, “As mentioned, the Fair Use Project at Stanford's CIS is representing Shepard Fairey in his suit against the AP. To that end, we'd be grateful for some net-based knowledge. How many photos are there "like" the beautiful photograph that Mannie Garcia took?” At the top of the article there is a comparison image that shows two photographs of Obama with Shepard Fairy’s ‘Hope’ in the middle.
From the Lessig website. The photograph on the left was taken by Mannie Garcia and the photograph on the right was taken by Steve Jurvetson. Lessig stresses that Jurvetson’s Obama photograph is a CC licensed photo.

The article by Lessig appears to suggest that the Fair Use Project plans to question if Shepard Fairey had used Mannie Garcia’s AP photograph or not-- or they plan to devalue Mannie Garcia's photograph by comparing it to similar photographs. Why else would Lessig be asking readers to send in similar examples? However, if that is the case the Fair Use Project will surely run into some snags in court. After all, Mannie Garcia states on his website that the owner of Danziger Projects, a gallery that represents Shepard Fairey in New York City, contacted him on January 21st 2009 in order to inform him that his photograph of Obama was the basis of Shepard Fairy’s ‘Hope’ and ’Progress’ posters. On top of that, Shepard Fairey has long suggested that the photograph attracted him because of the power it conveyed. Shepard Fairey chose Mannie Garcia's photograph out of hundreds, if not thousands, of Obama photographs online. Thus, one can assume that for Fairey this specific photograph had a lot of meaning.

On the same page Mannie Garcia states, “In a telephone conversation on the 17th of February, Shepard Fairey acknowledged that my photograph was used and that credit should have been given as such.”. It should be noted that the telephone conversation between Mannie Garcia and Shepard Fairey took place on the same day that Professor Lessig posted ‘Crowd-sourcing a “fair use” case’ on his website. This begs the question-- why would Professor Lessig suggest that Shepard Fairey did not use Mannie Garcia’s photograph or attempt to devalue the importance of Garcia's photograph within the context of the Obama posters knowing that Shepard Fairey had acknowledged the use of the photograph to Garcia earlier that day? Perhaps he was not aware of the conversation between Garcia and Fairey? Either way, the Fair Use Project is going to have a tough time suggesting otherwise.

Professor Lessig’s entry titled, ‘Crowd-sourcing a “fair use” case’ appears to be an act of desperation in my opinion. After all, Lessig calls for readers to send Obama photographs similar to Mannie Garcia’s photograph to shep_use @ pobox.com. Again, this suggests that the Fair Use Project may try to project the idea that Shepard Fairey used a different image all together and that the owner of the base image may never be known-- or is an attempt to devalue Mannie Garcia's photograph by suggesting that it is nothing special or not copyrightable. Either way Fairey has admitted that he used Mannie Garcia’s Obama photograph and has suggested that he chose the image because of the power it conveyed. Could it be that the individuals representing Shepard Fairey are grasping at straw?

On a side note the email address strikes me as amusing-- Shep_use? ‘Shep use’ might be the correct usage for this case because Shepard Fairey’s “fair use” of the Obama photograph was anything but fair in my opinion. It reminds one that Fairey has been exposed for copyright infringement in the past-- such as the case of Rene Mederos . In that situation Shepard Fairey settled out of court with the Mederos estate after being exposed for having used a Mederos poster for a shirt titled ‘Cuban Rider’. Perhaps Lessig and the Fair Use Project is not aware of that?

Untitled Silk-screen poster - Rene Mederos, Cuba, 1972. This double portrait by one of Cuba’s most famous poster artists depicts the revolutionaries Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos as seen on the Art for a Change article. A must read!

In that situation Fairey had printed a copy of the poster from a book about revolutionary art-- the author of the book, a friend of the Mederos family, recognized the image upon viewing Shepard Fairey’s shirt design. Shepard Fairey later claimed-- in an interview with Mother Jones -- that he did not know how to contact Rene Mederos for payment-- he was obviously unaware that Mederos had passed in 1996. A simple internet search would have enlightened Fairey. Fairey stated in the Mother Jones interview, "Well, how would I ever pay this guy anyway because he's in Cuba?". (It just goes to show how much the orphan works legislation would have failed had it passed.)

From Art for a Change-- Screenshot taken from the "Bombing Science" website 7/18/2007, where the Fairey rip-off of the Mederos poster had been sold as a T-shirt.

One interesting aspect of this situation is that Danziger Projects-- the gallery that informed Mannie Garcia that Shepard Fairey had used his photograph of Obama-- has since sold limited prints of Mannie Garcia’s photograph with profit going to Garcia. Anthony Falzone-- the Executive Director of the Fair Use Project who is representing Shepard Fairey directly-- has suggested that the limited edition prints of Garcia’s photograph is proof that the Obama photograph has increased in value. The only problem with this is that the Associated Press claims to own the copyright to the photograph. It also seems just a bit staged in my opinion-- almost as if individuals who are close to the case are trying to create something out of nothing in order to support Shepard Fairey. Hopefully the judge and jury will see past this obvious ploy.

In my opinion Lawrence Lessig and Anthony Falzone should have their integrity questioned. I base my opinion on prior cases they have supported and the contradictions and hypocrisy I observe in their support of Shepard Fairey. For example, in 2008 the Fair Use Project represented the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a case against radio host Michael Savage of the Savage Nation. Savage's character and interpretation of freedom of speech was questioned. I question why the Fair Use Project has failed to place Shepard Fairey under the same critical scope that Savage was placed under. After all, both Shepard Fairey and Michael Savage have tried to stomp on the rights of others-- both have taken action that goes against the mission of the Fair Use Project.

That case involved Savage’s claims that CAIR had infringed on his copyright by posting excerpts of his program on the CAIR website. I think Anthony Falzone’s case was warranted in that situation. However, in a Fair Use Project write-up about the case Falzone suggests that Michael Savage lacks integrity for having tried to block freedom of speech since he makes his living from said freedom. Falzone stated:

“The right to speak and the right to criticize speech you don't like are equally important. You'd think that Savage of all people, who depends on free speech to do what he does for a living, would understand that.”. In the article Falzone goes on to say, “If fair use protects anything, it protects the right to use portions of a copyrighted work to criticize it, so Savage lost his case quickly and decisively.”

Obviously Falzone does not feel that way about his current client. After all, Shepard Fairey has opposed creative freedoms in the past. That is why I have a problem with Anthony Falzone’s opinion in regards to the Fair Use Project supporting Shepard Fairey’s claim of “fair use” concerning the Obama photograph. After all, Shepard Fairey has revealed in the past that he is not a strong supporter of “fair use” in the first place-- if it involves an artist making a profit off of legitimate parodies of his art.

A comparison of a poster by Shepard Fairey (left) next to a poster by Baxter Orr (right). Orr put a SARs protective mask over the famous Obey Giant image and titled it ‘Protect’. Fair Use? You be the judge.

In 2008 Shepard Fairey sent a cease-and-desist letter to artist Baxter Orr after finding out that Orr had made a parody of his Obey Giant image. Having viewed Orr’s parody I would say that it is “fair use” under both copyright and trademark law since by that time the Obey Giant image was known worldwide. There was no confusion about who created what-- people knew upon viewing Orr’s image that it was a parody and they knew who and what the image was commenting on. Let us not forget that Shepard Fairey has made a living off of creating parodies of copyrighted images and trademarks. However, that did not stop Fairey from claiming that Orr's image was not "fair use". Kind of reminds one of the views of Michael Savage concerning CAIR, does it not?

Baxter Orr’s image, titled ‘Protect’, criticized Shepard Fairey’s art as well as his status as a street artist. The image was quickly picked up by bloggers-- which resulted in further criticism of Shepard Fairey’s practice of “referencing” and status concerning the commercialization of street art. It was a prime example of why we have "fair use" in the first place. Apparently that did not sit well with Shepard Fairey. Fairey, as reported by the Austin Chronicle , called Orr a “mimic” and “parasite”. He did not agree that Orr’s image was “fair use”. He went as far as to suggest that it was damaging to the business aspect of his art. I would think that the Fair Use Project would have seen that as a call to arms.

The fact remains that Shepard Fairey tried to stomp out freedom just as Michael Savage had tried. With that in mind, shouldn’t Anthony Falzone and the Fair Use Project be critical of their client? Why did they extend him a helping hand in the first place concerning his past attack against "fair use"? Did they not know? If they did know I would think they would question Shepard Fairey’s integrity as they had suggested the integrity of Michael Savage be questioned. Perhaps they are just selective as far as their mission is concerned. Regardless, there is room to question the ethics and integrity of the Fair Use Project.

The key point can be found in Fairey’s reply on the Austin Chronicle. In the article Fairey states, “I have to deal with the bad end of it(copyright) sometimes. I’ve had to pay out.”-- he went on to say that the difference between him and Baxter Orr is that he will stop using an image once the copyright owner comes forward. In hindsight this opens a few questions-- why did Shepard Fairey not stick to his word concerning the Obama photograph and the Associated Press? Why did the Fair Use Project fail to give support to Baxter Orr when a famous artist trampled on “fair use“? Why is Anthony Falzone and Lawrence Lessig defending someone who trampled on "fair use" just over a year ago? The contradictions and hypocrisy is alarming. Where is the integrity?

Back to the Lessig article-- Professor Lessig’s entry closes with the following words, “please send any favorite examples of photos used as visual references for other works of art. We lawyers don't know much, but we can learn pretty quickly. Thanks for any help.” Help? It is easy to rattle the sabers by making this case into a 'media bully vs. poor artist' scenario. However, if we place the Associated Press aside and consider Shepard Fairey's past thoughts concerning "fair use"-- as well as the contradictions of the Fair Use Project-- it is just as easy to view this case as just another attack against the rights of the majority of living artists. One could also say that it is an attack on photography as a whole.

When evaluating Shepard Fairey's case against the AP remember that it is supported by individuals who have a vested interest in artists such as Shepard Fairey. Remember that it is supported by individuals who have strived to make it so that artists would be unable to challenge copyright infringement in a court of law as they can today. After all, an extended view of "fair use" implies that. Remember that only a small percentage of visual artists benefit from the extreme interpretations of “fair use” that Lessig and the Fair Use Project support.

The majority of visual artists have a lot to lose if “fair use” continues to be supported in an extreme manner. Should the majority of visual artists sacrifice their rights so that a relatively small number of visual artists can create with total disregard for the works of others? I don't think so. Should we devalue the legal aspect of works of art so that forms of art that rely on extreme interpretations of "fair use" can be secured? I don't think so. After all, it is not just artists like Shepard Fairey that we have to look out for-- I'm certain that many corporations would love it if visual artists were unable to legally defend the ownership of their work.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that some of these individuals would like nothing more than to see copyright made void. In my opinion, cases like this are nothing more than a clever ruse to take away from the rights of all artists. Don’t be fooled by their battle cry of upholding creative freedom. In reality these individuals stand for concepts that put your art and your business at risk. Isn't it hard enough for visual artists to protect their art as it is?

With the technology of today someone like Shepard Fairey can print off and use an image of an oil painting that may have involved months of work in the studio of some yet to be known artist. That said, the beauty of copyright protection is that said artist can defend his or her art knowing that he or she will be acknowledged. That is why copyright is important. Unfortunately, there are key players who hope to destroy that. They strive to take away from your hard work, from your business, and from your dignity. They will do this while waving the banner of creative freedom.

In conclusion, my opinion is that Lawrence Lessig, Anthony Falzone, and Shepard Fairey are going to need a lot of hope in their case against the Associated Press-- they are also going to have to defend some of their past positions, statements, and lack of action. True, “fair use” is needed. After all, artists-- such as Baxter Orr-- have used “fair use” as it is intended. “Fair use” is limited for a reason. If visual artists allow “fair use” to be extended in the extreme they can kiss the business aspect of their art, as well as their legacy, goodbye. If we stand for this I'm concerned that integrity will truly be lost.

Links of Interest:

Public Knowledge and the Orphan Works Bill -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/08/art-space-opinions-public-knowledge-and.html

Brad Holland Responds to Public Knowledge -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/brad-holland-responds-to-public.html

Fair Use: Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/fair-use-shepard-fairey-and-baxter-orr.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com

Looking Beyond the Hype: Is the contemporary art market a fraud?

There has been a hailstorm of questions concerning the art market since the global financial bust. As the art market continues to have ups and downs some art collectors, art dealers, as well as the general public have demanded answers concerning the integrity of the art market as a whole. The focus of the criticism has been placed on the ethical practices of some art dealers and collectors. Needless to say, people are starting to examine the art market closer than they ever had before. At the source there is a great deal of hype to be found.

Many of the questions are common-- some were asked before the recent art world financial meltdown. Were prices inflated? Were novice art collectors duped? Did some gallerists sell 'lemon art' knowing that the investment would only ride as long as the art market continued to advance in a positive direction? Did top art collectors foster a market of excessive prices for their own gain? Are some artists to blame? Is the general public to blame? Who is responsible? The questions build up as each week goes by-- frustration creates an environment of outrage.

This atmosphere of doubt offers the perfect time for individuals to make powerful statements concerning their position within the art market. People desire answers-- in this burdened financial climate a strong answer can easily become a battle cry. However, there is also room for the age old ‘my art is better than your art’ rhetoric that tends to creep out of the woodwork whenever the art market is in peril. Needless to say, I think we should all focus on what is really being said when someone speaks of the art market crises-- especially if they are throwing up a finger of blame. An underlining ploy can often rise to the surface when words are examined next to the position of who is saying them.

A perfect example of this can be found in a recent article in The Independent (UK). The Independent article states that David Nahmad-- an influential Monaco-based art dealer -- has lashed out against the contemporary art market. Nahmad suggests that contemporary art is a “fraud“. In the article Nahmad suggests that a handful of art collectors have artificially increased the value for certain artists work and that art dealers willfully duped novice art collectors into buying high priced art knowing that the art would be of little value after an art market bust.

David Nahmad is not foolish for lashing out. After all, he is aware that others support his view. Those who support Nahmad’s opinion feel that the recent collapse of the art market is “proof” that contemporary art is of little value. Needless to say, most of those critics have a vested interest in the same aspect of the art market that Nahmad deals in. In that sense, Nahmad’s statement is business as usual. In a sense, Nahmad is reacting to hype with hype.

The key point of David Nahmad’s criticism can be summed up with one of his statements, that being, “I would never advise my clients to buy contemporary art.”. Nahmad’s criticism aside-- it should be noted that he deals in modern art and feels that art has not advanced since Francis Bacon. In other words, one could say that his criticism against the contemporary art market is simply a ploy to support his own market.

Thus, one could say that by questioning the integrity of the contemporary art market-- a market Nahmad opposes in the first place --he is also placing his own integrity into question. In other words, the worms tend to rise up if you cut open the surface of a dead beaten horse. In that sense Nahmad has not solidified an answer to the art market crises as much as he has played on the fears, paranoia, and anger that is already present.

In any business fear, paranoia, and anger will arise if the foundation of its respected market starts to crumble. Concerning the art market as a whole-- this fear has driven many to compare key figures within the business of art to organized criminals. I have no doubt that David Nahmad played on those fears when making his statements to The Independent-- he won’t be the last to proclaim that the contemporary aspect of the art market is fraudulent-- while proclaiming that his own niche in the art market is the “real deal". True, some of Nahmad's underlining criticism is warranted. That said, his intentions-- as a whole-- should be examined based on the scope of his words as they apply to his business ventures.

With that in mind, I think it is unfair to suggest that gallerists can be compared to mafia lords as some critics have done. After all, unlike a mafia boss a gallerist makes offers that you can refuse. So in that respect, some of the responsibility falls on novice art collectors themselves for having bought into a market that continued to soar without restraint. Buyers in any market can control the market by their choice to purchase or decline, true? Surely David Nahmad would agree with that. Buying on hype alone is not an investment. Keeping up with Charles Saatchi is not an investment. Sometimes a fool needs to be called a fool.

Not everyone agrees with the criticism of David Nahmad. A columnist for The Art Newspaper, Louisa Buck, responded to Nahmad‘s statements. She said, “There is no doubt that the likes of Rothko, Picasso and Matisse are magisterial figures, but the art world has moved on and to dismiss everything after Bacon is utter nonsense.”. I have to agree with Buck’s statement-- especially since it is obvious that David Nahmad is playing on the current art market crises in order to support the aspect of the market he deals in. That said, I do agree that overpricing-- and inflated prices in general --have been a problem in the art market.

I don’t think it is fair for Nahmad to suggest that it has only happened in recent years nor do I think it is fair for him to suggest that contemporary art is the only aspect of the art market that has involved inflated pricing. One could say that hype pricing, if you will, has been going on for several decades now and has involved works of art by living artists as well as artists who have long passed. In that sense, every aspect of the art market needs to be examined-- including the aspect of the art market that David Nahmad holds dear.

In other words, there is no single villain in this scenario. In many ways we all played a role-- from the artist, to the dealer, to the art collector, to the viewing public who lined up to see the art with their own eyes. We were all caught in the hype that energized the art market just before it crashed. In many ways this decadence-- this vehicle of hype-- reflects the same turmoil that has resulted in our faltering economy. Thus, we should question ourselves.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think that the art market should be looked at with a scope. I do think that some artists, dealers, and collectors use unethical means to establish themselves within the public conscience-- and I say that because I feel that art that is honored should be honored due to merit instead of hype or artificially spurred public interest. Art appreciation should not be dictated or established by these means in my opinion. We should be wary of media hype-- especially where art is concerned. After all, we are talking about art-- something that defines our culture and who we are as a people-- not a new line of car or some other updated consumer good that only has value in the here and now.

It is true that mass publicity can establish an artist beyond the level of acclaim that he or she would have otherwise-- we observed that recently with the artist Shepard Fairey due to his association with a public relations firm that had worked with the Obama campaign. It was not by accident that his ’Hope’ poster ended up being a mainstream news phenomenon. Thus, it is no accident that his artwork is now worth far more than it originally had been. True, the media hype was brilliant from a business standpoint-- but I would like to think that art, including the art market itself, is based more on merit than a carefully planned media campaign established to create buzz for an artist. If anything, that is the problem with the art market at this time-- it is a problem that can be found in every aspect of our society.

That said, I do think that novice art collectors as well as the general public need to take a deeper look at exactly what they are praising-- and if their praise stems from a media bombardment which tells us what is 'good' art or 'bad' art. People need to ask if the artwork they view and purchase is truly groundbreaking, if it truly speaks, if it is authentic, and if it can stand alone without a media bombardment of praise. Only then, in my opinion, will the art market-- and any market for that matter-- have a degree of authenticity and true integrity.

Is the Contemporary art market a fraud? I don't think so. However, I do think there is room for change. What are your thoughts?

Link of Interest:

Contemporary art is a fraud, says top dealer -- The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/contemporary-art-is-a-fraud-says-top-dealer-1628929.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com