Art Space Talk: Valery Koroshilov

Art critics have stated that Russian-born Valery Koroshilov has developed his own form of “sophisticated realist painting“. Koroshilov is known for creating powerful paintings that reflect compositional skill combined with strict discipline of color. For the last fifteen years Koroshilov has lived in London-- where he has devoted himself entirely to painting. The artist has stated that he finds great inspiration in the paintings of Old Masters, particularly from the Renaissance.

Valery Koroshilov has two Studios: One is located in North London, and the other is located on the Greek Island of Samos. Koroshilov has been involved with over 100 exhibitions worldwide. Exhbits have included Roy Miles, Albermarle, The Mall Galleries, Westminster Gallery, West-Eleven, Llewellyn Alexander, Royal College of Art, the BOC Covent Garden Festival and Olympia.

Study of a Head, II, Oil on canvas, 50 x 50 cm. By Valery Koroshilov

Brian Sherwin: Valery, tell us about your academic background. Did you study art formally? What about influential instructors that you have had? Tell us about your early years as a painter in general.

Valery Koroshilov: I was born in Russia and received an architectural education. I studied in Yekaterinburg, a city in the Southern Urals. The studying was classical, and included drawing, painting, sculpture and the history of art, among other things. Right after graduation in 1984, I began to teach Design Composition at the same school. I then moved to Moscow, where I spent a number of years researching, designing and teaching, and received a PhD in architecture.

I have always been interested and excited about art. I would just draw and paint in whatever free time was available. In 1992, I worked in Amsterdam as a designer for Alberts & Van Huut, who were building very interesting Organic Style structures. It was at that time that I exhibited my artwork publicly for the first time. A small gallery of Arthur Baldinger happened to be literally next door to the house where Rembrandt lived for nearly three decades (it is a museum of his graphic works now). I felt much inspired by this proximity. I regarded my first exhibition a success, there were invitations from three more galleries to show my work. Since then, I began to think of painting as a profession.

In 1994, as a British Council Academic Fellow, I conducted a post-doctoral research at the Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London. We did an interesting project, when the Bartlett students showed their artwork, and the students of the Slade School of Art, showed their work inspired by the architecture. The exchange exhibition took place at the Cloisters of the UCL in 1995, and was curated by Nicola Kalinsky of the College Art Collections, who had just published then a very elegant book on Gainsborough. It is through this project I met the late Euan Uglow, who I now regard as my most influential personal experience.

I was fortunate to have some very helpful instructors at various times, but I also learned a great deal from my fellow students.

The Singer, Oil on canvas, 100 x 80 cm. By Valery Koroshilov

BS: Tell us about the thoughts behind your art. Can you give our readers some insight into any specific themes that you explore?

VK: I believe the context of a painting only matters if it’s inspired by the poetic intuition, and therefore, it is addressed to the poetic perception. I paint simple objects like fruit and bottles, pots and glasses, quietly interacting. I use them to indicate a certain attitude to the human emotion. I find it most challenging to express the subtleties of the human condition in almost any object around. But when it happens, I find it also most exciting. That is where my inspiration comes from.

BS: Concerning your work with the human figure-- is there a specific message you strive to convey to viewers concerning your art?

VK: In the works concerned with the human figure, I try to explore how much different people have in common with each other, and to recognize and celebrate something good in their lives.
The Dreamer, Oil on canvas, 100 x 100 cm. By Valery Koroshilov

BS: What can you tell us about your process in general? Give us some insight into how you work-- as in turning an idea into reality, so to speak? Can you discuss some of the methods that you utilize?

VK: I aim at the elegance and grace, and try to handle the paintwork with utmost subtlety. I consider all my pictures the fragments of one continuous narration. Therefore, the same compositional principles are often used throughout the entire series: larger-than-life scale of objects, high viewpoint, pure color, and semi-abstract background. I paint in oil on canvas or board, working sometimes from life, sometimes from photographs.

BS: What about other influences? For example, are you influenced by any specific artists, world events, or art movements?

VK: I have a feeling that the most profound influence comes from the painters of the early Renaissance, Flemish and Italian. Jan van Eyck, Roger van der Weyden, Hans Memling, Fra Angelico, Mantegna, Ghirlandaio. I sometimes copy the fragments from my favorite masters and include them into my own paintings. I suppose it could be considered as a rather cheeky form of Homage. Of the Russian School of the XX century, I very often look at the paintings of Petrov-Vodkin.

Cassandra, Oil on canvas, 91 x 76 cm. By Valery Koroshilov

BS: Where can your art be viewed at this time? Will you be involved with any upcoming exhibits?

VK: Five large new portraits of the ‘Asian’ series are exhibited now on the walls of the London Branch to the Standard Chartered Bank. Also in the City, a few recent paintings are shown at the Accenture, as a part of the Art Loan scheme. Currently I am completing a large private commission in London, which will be published on my blog shortly.

BS: Do you have any concerns about the art world at this? There has been a lot of debate recently about copyright and the rights of artists. Do you have an opinion on issues such as that?

VK: Quite a few images of my work are held by various agencies, such as Getty Images Seattle. In over a decade they have hardly paid me anything. My opinion on that would be based on the following: Mozart taking a stroll in Vienna and bumping into a street musician playing his tunes. I cannot possibly imagine he would object to such unauthorized use of his music.

St. Francis and an Angel, Oil on canvas, 100 x 80 cm. By Valery Koroshilov

BS: What about the internet? One could say that the art world is starting to catch up-- more galleries are turning to the World Wide Web in order to further exposure for their artists. How do you think the internet will impact the art world in say-- a decade? Can you see a meshing between the traditional market and alternative (online) markets taking shape?

VK: I don’t buy linen for my paintings in the shops anymore. I buy it on-line. However, if it’s a new fabric for me, I will always phone to ask them first to send me the samples. Then I will look and touch, and think, and try. If I like it, I will then order on-line. I would like to believe, it is going to be the same with the market for unique handmade original artworks.

BS: Finally, is there anything else you would like to say about your art or the goals that you have?

VK: No, I think I have said enough. Thank you.

You can learn more about Valery Koroshilov by visiting his website-- www.koroshilov.com. Koroshilov is currently a member of the myartspace.com community. You can read more of my interviews by visiting the following page-- www.myartspace.com/interviews.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

New York Art Exchange

www.nyaxe.com

MINISTRY OF NOMADS: THE CONTEMPORARY IRANIAN AND CUBAN SCENE THROUGH A SUSTAINABLE PORTAL.

Although this period of history is very difficult for many involved in the art world, the situation is proving to be a very interesting catalyst for change in the architecture of the current art world system. An example of a new organization launching next month is MINISTRY OF NOMADS.

An online art gallery is nothing new. We have even seen the auction house appropriated into mainstream cyber space with Artnet’s recent endeavour. What is captivating about ministryofnomads.com is primarily the focus on a sustainable system. This perhaps reflects Google’s model of profitable philanthropy, but it is certainly a new idea for an art world that has been dictated by a somewhat imperialist greed when it has come to emerging markets, most notably China. MON reinvests a large portion of its profits into a foundation that is directly connected to the online gallery.

Ministry of Nomads also does a great job of creating community in that it devotes a third of its real estate to an organic forum that incorporates discussions with the artists. The site works with: critics, curators and collectors alike. Thus, the individuals that have for so long been captive in the gilded ghettoes of an elitist art world become exponentially more accessible.

Of course, the art is of the utmost importance. At the time of launch, Ministry of Nomads will deal with top Iranian and Cuban artists. It will begin by helping the Cuban artists survive through the aftermath of the hurricanes coupled with the economic crisis, as well with education regarding entry into the global art world system. In Iran, similar education will be given to aspiring artists as well as a concentrated support for young conceptual artists that are not necessarily supported by the market. MON will also focus on creating a provocative dialogue between Iran and Cuba through residencies etc. Ministryofnomads.com does not ghettoize its roster by focusing on one region. It is rather concept driven and is interested in creating a cross-cultural dialogue between significant creative and conceptual trajectories that might not yet exist. This is absolute in the dialogue between Cuba and Iran that MON has already begun.

The artists represented on the site are extremely impressive and most definitely were selected with a very critical eye. To be short, the work is very strong and the majority of the artists already have resumes that refer to top institutions around the world.

Cuban artists include Ernesto Leal, Raul Cordero, Michel Perez, Alejandro Gonzalez and Mabel Polet.

Iranian artists include Bita Fayazi, Khosorow Hassanzadeh, Shadi Ghadrian, Ramin Haerizadeh and Shirin Fakhim.

MON has already proved that Internet art sites can now introduce to the world new, relevant and exciting artists to the scene. It is reported the Ministryofnomads.com actually introduced Shirin Fakhim to Charles Saatchi and thus Thadeus Ropac in Paris. Fakhim had never been seen on the art scene before. She is now in “Unveiled: New Art from the Middle East” at the Saatchi Gallery in London and in Thadeus Ropac's current show in the Marais.

Perhaps, the “credit crunch” is not all that bad in the long run for the structure of the art world. Hopefully, more sustainable businesses will arrive on the scene reflecting the positions and philosophies of social responsibility that most preach. For the moment MINISTRYOFNOMADS.COM is setting a very good example for positive steps forward.

At going to cyberspace, I was notified that Ministry of Nomads will appropriate the Scream Gallery in March on Bourdon Street in Mayfair, London. It will steal the space in its nomadic style and launch with a solo show of Iranian superstar Khosorow Hassanzadeh’s extremely confrontational Prostitute Series. This exhibition will coincide with Hassansadeh's exhibition at the British Museum.

Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Damien Hirst & Shepard Fairey / Cartrain & Baxter Orr

A collage by Cartrain involving Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God'

The story involving Damien Hirst and his copyright infringement allegations against a 16 year old street artist-- known as Cartrain-- has taken a twist. Several influential UK artists have joined forces in order to defend Cartrain. In doing so they have targeted the contradictory nature of Hirst’s decision to seek legal action against Cartrain. After all, Damien Hirst has allegedly infringed on copyright himself-- in one case he settled out of court due to copyright infringement allegations.

The battle charge against Damien Hirst has been spearheaded by Jamie Reid -- widely known for creating the Sex Pistol‘s ‘God Save the Queen‘ cover art, Jimmy Cauty -- a former member of KLF, and Billy Childish -- co-founder and former member of the Stuckists. Reid, Cauty, and Childish have produced a series of skull images which mock copyright regulations in the UK while exploring the contradictions of Damien Hirst concerning copyright in general. A website, Red Rag to a Bull, has been created so that the trio and other artists can sell parodies involving artwork by Hirst and other YBAs.

The works sold on Red Rag to a Bull include a version of Jamie Reid's famous Sex Pistols poster. In the poster the head of the Queen has been replaced with a diamond skull. According to reports, the artists have stated that the money raised from selling the parodies will be used to handle the legal expenses of Cartrain or other artists who are “bullied” by Damien Hirst or other YBAs. The trio have also stated that if enough money is raised they will create a replica of Hirst’s ’For the Love of God’ to serve as the ultimate parody of Hirst‘s work and status. Parodies of Damien Hirst and other YBAs can be purchased at, www.redragtoabull.com.

For those who don’t know about the Damien Hirst / Cartrain situation-- The Design and Artists Copyright Society, of which Damien Hirst is a member, contacted Cartrain after receiving direct instructions from Hirst. The society informed the young artist that he had broken the law by infringing upon Hirst’s copyright. Hirst’s demands were clear-- he demanded the original works and the halt of sales with the threat of legal action. Hirst also demanded the profit that Cartrain had made from selling his collages and prints. Four works were confiscated by DACS from Cartrain’s gallery on November 12th. Reports state that Cartrain only earned about £200 from sales of the work. Cartrain has stated that DACS informed him that Damien Hirst had personally ordered the action.

The situation between Damien Hirst and Cartrain in the UK is very similar to the situation between Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr in the United States. The saying, "Birds of a feather..." comes to mind. Cartrain, like Orr, decided to make a parody of a widely known work of art by a world renowned artist-- in this case Damien Hirst -- in order to make a social comment about Hirst’s art as well as his status in the art world. Damien Hirst, like Shepard Fairey in the case of Baxter Orr, had his legal team send a cease-and-desist letter to Cartain. Again, 'birds of a feather flock together'.

That said, unlike the situation with Baxter Orr and Shepard Fairey-- Cartrain’s parodies and profit were seized by Damien Hirst's legal team. Some reports state that Cartrain’s prints were destroyed in the process. Needless to say, if this had occurred in the United States I would think that Cartrain’s Hirst parody would have been considered “fair use” due to the widely known work he parodied and the social comment he established concerning the global status of Damien Hirst within the art market.

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.

The irony of recent events is that we have two widely known and successful artists-- Damien Hirst and Shepard Fairey --who have defended their use of images created by others-- but are quick to stamp out any work that parodies their world renowned images. One should note the contradictions and hypocrisy that is involved with these issues. Damien Hirst and Shepard Fairey have three things in common-- they have both settled out of court due to infringing on the copyright of others, they both have careers that are shadowed by copyright infringement allegations against them, and they have both threatened legal action against artists who have done something they would otherwise support had they been in their shoes, so to speak. Thus, it seems that the two are only interested in aspects of “fair use” and freedom of expression if they are the ones applying it. Fly, fly, fly.

Concerns over copyright and interpretations of “fair use” is a global issue. I find the views that people take on issues like this to be very interesting-- they are often loaded with contradictions. For example, people are quick to say “It is art!“ when a world renowned artist-- such as Damien Hirst or Shepard Fairey-- allegedly infringes on copyright. However, those same people are apt to say “it is a rip-off!” if a less known artist-- such as Cartrain or Baxter Orr-- utilizes the same avenue of creation. It begs the question-- Does this attitude concerning copyright, and who is right or wrong concerning parody or social comment, convey a new form of elitism as far as art appreciation is concerned?

Furthermore, does it seem that when it comes down to the line only works by successful artists are truly protected-- at least as far as public opinion is concerned? Is there a double standard in the art world concerning appropriation and freedom of expression? Are some birds allowed to fly while others are shot down before having the chance to spread their wings? What say you?

Links of Interest:
For the Love of God: Damien Hirst Threatens Young Artist with Legal Action -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/12/for-love-of-god-damien-hirst-threatens.html

How Damien Hirst Disappointed us --- Guardian
www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/dec/15/damien-hirst-cartrain

God save the Damien Hirst rip-off industry! -- Independent UK
www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/god-save-the-damien-hirst-ripoff-industry-1608219.html

Artists flout copyright law to attack Damien Hirst -- Telegraph UK
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/4609976/Artists-flout-copyright-law-to-attack-Damien-Hirst.html

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

Shepard Fairey sues the Associated Press over photograph of Obama
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/shepard-fairey-sues-associated-press.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
London Calling
www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Good News for Arts in Economic Recovery Bill

Yes We Can! Good news from Americans for The Arts. On Feb, 07, I posted an appeal at ArtLOOK regarding support for the arts in the Economic Recovery Bill. As some of you may know, the Coburn Amendment attempted to ban certain arts groups from receiving economic funding under the Economic Recovery Bill. I'm happy to report that via a press release (Feb 13, 2009) from Americans in the Arts, the U.S. House of Representatives approved their final version of the Economic Recovery bill by a vote of 246-183. Americans for the Arts has confirmed that the package now includes $50 million in direct support for arts jobs through National Endowment for the Arts grants.

This is an important victory for all of you as arts advocates. More than 85,000 letters were sent to Congress, thousands of calls were made, and hundreds of op-eds, letters to the editor, news stories, and blog entries were generated in print and online media about the role of the arts in the economy. Artists, business leaders, mayors, governors, and a full range of national, state, and local arts groups all united together on this advocacy issue. This outcome marks a stunning turnaround of events and exemplifies the power of grassroots arts advocacy.

To read more about this visit ArtLOOK or Americans for the Arts.

Wikipedia Art: A Virtual Fireside Chat Between Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern

Nathaniel Stern recently contacted me about an Internet-based and interventionist project that he and Scott Kildall have been working on. Entitled "Wikipedia Art," the project is art that exists only on Wikipedia. Thus, it is art that anyone can edit-- a mass collaborative project that welcomes all.

Stern explained to me, “The caveat, of course, is that the piece needs to follow the enforced rules on Wikipedia. Any changes to the art must be cited from 'credible' external sources: interviews, blogs, or articles in 'trustworthy' media institutions, which birth and then slowly transform what it is and does and means simply through their writing and talking about it.”. He added, “It may start as an intervention, turn into an object, die and be resurrected, etc, through what we've started calling "performative citations.".

Readers can take part in the project directly-- or support the project by writing about it. Feel free to use excerpts from this article and to include a link to the project itself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art

Wikipedia Art - A Fireside Chat: An edited transcript by Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern

Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern have a virtual two-way interview.

Nathaniel Stern: I was lucky enough to spend some time with Scott Kildall in Second Life last week; Scott works with various forms of digital media (video, prints, performance, sculpture) looking at what he calls “realms of the imaginary.” Around a virtual campfire, we discussed our new collaborative project, Wikipedia Art. Wikipedia Art is an artwork composed solely on Wikipedia, and so is art that anyone can edit - with a few stipulations, of course.

Scott Kildall: I finally got to meet Nathaniel Stern in person last fall at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, where we gave a double lecture about both our bodies of work and practice. Nathaniel works across socially participatory art, interactive installation, digital and traditional print and video. During this conversation, we got a chance lay out the framework for Wikipedia Art.

NS: Places virtual hands out over virtual fire. Nice fire, Scott. Feels good. But not really.

SK: Thanks. I coded it myself. Well, not really. I bought it online.

NS: This kind of playful non-reality re-mix is a common thread in your work. You often slip into roles, re-edit histories, create virtual worlds and characters and performances, to question material and knowledge and ownership.

SK: I believe we are on a precipice of losing what is real, culturally speaking. Our relationship to knowledge and histories has become murky. We see this in places like Second Life where identities are anonymous and copyright law is largely flouted. It’s like the Wild West of digital culture. I think that’s where much of my work has been focused, from performances in virtual worlds, to a recreation of the Apollo 11 moon landing, to videos that capture dream-spaces by using “in-between” shots in Hollywood films.

NS: And this led you to the idea of an intervention on Wikipedia?

SK: Yes, well, that largely came out of our discussions together; but I’m most excited about questions of knowledge and how online institutions – like Wikipedia – frame remembrance. Online histories (and memories) get confused because they can be so easily overwritten. Although it is archived somewhere, the “truth” can get buried in the eighth page return of a Google search, rendering it effectively invisible.

I keep coming back to the strange fact that Wikipedia is an assumed source of authority. Despite the huge amount of information-space on the web, one central repository of encyclopedic information persists. This is wonderful since it is to some extent democratic, but it’s also full of holes and omissions.

What led you to the Wikipedia Art idea?

NS: I’ve been interested in performance and in words for a long time. I used to do slam poetry when I lived in New York, and my first interactive installations asked people to chase or maneuver around text with their bodies. With interactivity more generally, I’m less concerned with how software responds to us, and more with how we physically move in relation to space or words or meaning.

My recent prints are performances as well, where I traverse the landscape with a scanner to make dynamic and time-based images. I think of Wikipedia Art, which is somewhat text-based, as a performance, too. Even more than that, it’s performative.

SK: My spell-checker says performative is not a word.

NS: Performative utterances, or speech acts, perform some kind of action. The most classic example of such an event is a wedding. With the spoken words, “I do,” the speaker is transformed from a single person into a spouse. If I knight thee, you are henceforth Sir Scott; or if I declare war, peacetime has ended between us. These words distinctly change my or your state of being. I (or you or our relationship) become something else the moment I utter them.

SK: Roasting a marshmallow. So how does this lead us to Wikipedia Art?
NS: Well, you’ve noted the inherent tension around notions of truth on Wikipedia. On the one hand, it’s currently the second most visited website in existence. And Google (#1) often lists Wikipedia entries at the top of any given search page. The entire world sources most of its information from Wikipedia. On the other hand, anyone can edit most Wikipedia pages, can say something there for the world to see. So, if I “utter” something on Wikipedia, it becomes “true.” This is classically performative.

SK: Yes, but Wikipedia’s success lies in that it has certain standards that enable it to function as a viable entity. Any Wikipedia articles that do not have citations from credible external sources are removed. Otherwise, anyone could post or change any article. It would be a smorgasbord of fact and fiction.

NS: But even with that regulation, there are still problems.

SK: Right: problems such as perceived lack of authority. After all, who gets to decide what is a “credible” source of information? These sources are granted an authority that winds up influencing reality, the worldly information that we “know” as “true”. The inherent problem here is that Wikipedia is not always true, and never really real. This is Wikipedia’s strength and its weakness. It is currently affecting the real world in tangible ways.

NS: That’s the funny thing. Wikipedia is indeed controlled information - try starting your own page some time and see what happens. Its odd hierarchy grants authority to people who simply have the time and inclination to write and discuss details, who get clout through their ongoing involvement and self-propagation on the site. These folks have a lot of power, and are, both wonderfully and scarily, semi-anonymous.

The artist David Horvitz played with this, with affecting the real world and propagating himself, by editing Wikipedia. Horvitz altered the Wikipedia entry for Ian Curtis – lead singer of Joy Division – to read that in the last moments before Curtis committed suicide, he glanced at one of Horvitz's photographs. The falseness of this tidbit was eventually found out and removed from the page, but not before it became part of the mythic story: many Curtis fan sites still include Horvitz in their account of his death. In other words, Horvitz didn’t just edit Curtis’ Wikipedia page; he edited his story (history).

SK: Good example. These sorts of cases where fake stories are granted a pass in reality have appeared in popular culture as well. Remember the Halloween tale of the person who put razorblades in apples, then passed them out to kids? This never really happened! But we hear it every Halloween, from parents, on the news, from teachers and in emails. (You can verify its untruthfulness on Wikipedia, by the way.)

With online communities, instant access to research and communication, there are more opportunities for ongoing interplay; you can redress propagation stories like these.

NS: And that’s where our project starts. The core “activity” of Wikipedia Art first addresses then plays with the invisible authors and authorities of and on The Web / The Google / The Wiki. It is an artwork that is composed on Wikipedia, and so is art that anyone can edit. If people edit the Wikipedia Art page, then they performatively edit Wikipedia Art itself.

SK: And here’s the rub: before we can publish the Wikipedia Art page for the very first time, we have to be able to cite its existence and “credibility” from external and “reliable” sources of information.

NS: In other words, we have to publish this very interview before we can “birth” Wikipedia Art. They have to come out at the same time. Otherwise, the page may be removed by the powers that be: Wikipedians. (Thank you, Brian Sherwin and MyArtSpace, and all rebloggers and writers elsewhere, for your performativity.)

SK: Chickens and eggs. This is a classically interventionist piece. According to the Wikipedia page on “art interventions,” this is “an interaction with a previously existing artwork, audience or venue/space.” Like Wikipedia and its community. “It has the auspice of conceptual art and is commonly a form of performance art.”

NS: And in addition to being a kind of performance, Wikipedia Art is conceptual art because the idea is more important than the material. In fact there is no material.
Go on then.

SK: “Although intervention by its very nature carries an implication of subversion, it is now accepted as a legitimate form of art and is often carried out with the endorsement of those in positions of authority over the artwork, audience or venue/space to be intervened in. However, unendorsed (i.e. illicit) interventions are common and lead to debate as to the distinction between art and vandalism.”

NS: You’re right about that. I worry about this being seen as vandalism by the Wikipedia community, about the powers that be simply removing the entry. This is where the press and citations act as a kind of doubled gesture: they validate the project while also potentially changing it (and that change also validates the project, because that’s the point of the intervention).

SK: “Performative citations.” We invite bloggers, writers and editors to join in the collaboration and construction, the transformation, the destruction and the resurrection of the work itself – by publishing then citing and thus changing Wikipedia Art.

NS: I have a feeling that there will be many Wikipedians who will see Wikipedia Art as neither valid information, nor art.

SK: Which is also why it’s such a good intervention. Wikipedia Art intervenes in Wikipedia as a venue in the contemporary construction of knowledge and information, and simultaneously intervenes in our understandings of art and the art object.

NS: Like knowledge and like art, Wikipedia Art is always already variable. It is an intervention to be intervened in. It is a project that lacks material, but still has a make up: that of social space, of the social interstice, of its own and our potential.

SK: The layered intervention. You can hijack the intervention itself. Wikipedia has flexible meaning; art has flexible meaning; meaning has flexible meaning. We are problematizing all of this, and asking others to participate in the process, in that performance.

NS: Just as the term “art intervention” alludes to, Wikipedia Art is a subversion from within the dominant paradigm. It uses context and media to speak back to power; it’s a feedback loop between what is, what could be, and who says so. Like Banksy hanging his own art in the Tate without permission; or Duchamp’s submission of a signed urinal to the Society of Independent Artists in New York.

SK: Those examples are from the Wikipedia page on art intervention.

NS: Point illustrated. And for the grand finale: “I now pronounce Wikipedia Art.”

SK: It’s alive! Alive!

Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern conclude their virtual two-way interview.

You can learn more about Scott Kildall by visiting his website-- www.kildall.com. You can learn more about Nathaniel Stern by visiting his website-- www.nathanielstern.com. You can take part in the Kildall and Stern's Wikipedia Art project by clicking here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Art

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com

Group Strives to have Luis Jimenez Sculpture Removed: Bye, Bye Blue Mustang?

Luis Jimenez's 'Blue Mustang' (AP Photo)

Blue Mustang has been deemed an eye sore by Rachel Hultin-- a real estate developer in Denver. The 32-foot sculpture of a wild mustang was the final work of artist Luis Jimenez. In fact, it was finished by his sons after Jimenez was killed during a studio accident involving the sculpture in 2006. The finished sculpture was installed at the Denver International Airport in 2008. Though commissioned the fiberglass sculpture is considered by many to be a tribute to Jimenez’s career and passion for art. However, there are some individuals who do not see Blue Mustang in the same light.

Articles in the Denver Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Ruidoso News report on a petition that has been circulating due to individuals who desire to see Blue Mustang removed. Rachel Hultin is the spearhead of the petition-- having created a Facebook page, Bye Bye Blue Mustang, in order to rally support for the removal of the sculpture. It has been stated that Hultin would like to see Blue Mustang dismantled or moved to a less prominent location.

Hultin and her supporters view the sculpture as “fiendish” and “heinous”. However, their appreciation -- or should I say lack thereof -- of Blue Mustang does not position well with what Jimenez intended the sculpture to represent. After all, Jimenez desired for Blue Mustang to represent the spirit of Denver-- a vision that is supported by airport officials and the director of the Denver Office of Cultural Affairs. In fact, Erin Trapp-- the director-- has stated that the sculpture will not be able to be removed until 2013 due to a city policy that protects commissioned installations like Blue Mustang.

The sculpture was commissioned in 1992. Luis Jimenez was allocated $300,000 in funding. However, the cost of creating and stalling the controversial sculpture doubled before it was unveiled to the public in 2008. It was finished by the artists sons-- Adan and Orion Jimenez. Needless to say, Rachel Hultin and her supporters may try to press on the issue regardless of city policy.

Consider this an open debate about public commissioned art. Should citizens have a stronger voice in how their money is spent? Should the public be allowed to vote for or against commissions that are intended to reflect the values of their city or state? Do you see art funding of this nature wasteful? Or vital? Should Blue Mustang have extra protection due to the tragic death of Luis Jimenez? What are your thoughts?

Links of Interest:

Sculpture that killed artist controversial -- Ruidoso News
www.ruidosonews.com/ci_11675474?source=most_emailed

Denver Airport's Blue Mustang Draws Wild Reaction
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,489766,00.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
London Calling
www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Red Rag To a Bull vs. Other Criteria?

Cha-Ching!

A report from Bloomberg explains that Damien Hirst has opened a second Other Criteria (www.othercriteria.com) store in London. Some may recall from past Myartspace Blog articles that Other Criteria is Hirst’s publishing and merchandising venture. Of the store Hirst has stated, “I don’t think art has ever been as popular as it is today and Other Criteria aims to sell affordable art of the highest quality to everyone who wants it.” . Apparently the price for Other Criteria art and merchandise ranges from $5 to $5,800.

Some art world insiders view Other Criteria as a jab at the traditional art market. After all, the first Other Criteria store was opened next to Sotheby’s shortly after Hirst’s “Beautiful Inside My Head Forever.” which took place at the auction house. Hirst’s break from the traditional brick & mortar art market stirred shock waves of criticism from gallery owners throughout the world. Needless to say, many gallerists feared that top billed artists would decide to take their art and career into their own hands by following Hirst’s independent lead. You can’t blame Hirst for being an entrepreneur .

On the other side of the UK art spectrum, the Stuckists-- as reported by Bloomberg-- have opened up their own online ‘store’ at www.redragtoabull.com. The site states, “Red Rag To A Bull is a radical institution dedicated to the pursuit of "FREEDOM, TRUTH and JUSTICE in the art world and BEYOND". And also overblown statements.”. The purpose of the site is “for CREATIVE CRITICAL REVIEW and should be treated as such“. The sites goes on to state that, “ALL images and any proposed sale of these images is designed to create critical dialogue and may or may not be what they first appear to be.”

In a sense the site is a conceptual anti-conceptual work in progress-- if there is such a thing. Needless to say, if it had been created by anyone else it would have probably been reviewed in a art magazine or two by now. On a side note: Readers of the Myartspace Blog may recall my interview with Charles Thomson -- Co-Founder of the Stuckists -- which was posted in October of 2006.

A collage by Cartrain involving Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God'. Cha-Ching with an extra Cha.

Viewing the Red Rag To a Bull online store I noticed that one of its directives is to support CarTrain , the 16 year old street artist who was recently threatened by Damien Hirst’s legal team on allegations of copyright infringement. CarTrain, had created, distributed, and sold prints involving a parody of Hirst’s ‘For the Love of God’. It seems that Hirst was not thrilled to discover that a young graffiti artist had profited from prints involving his copyright protected works-- nevermind the fact that he himself has infringed on copyright in the past (reminds one of the Shepard Fairey vs. Baxter Orr issue).

That said, due to the fame of ‘For the Love of God’ I’m sure CarTrain’s Hirst parodies would be considered “fair use”-- at least in the United States. After all, the images by CarTrain served as a social comment about Hirst’s status in UK society as well as the art world in general. I don’t think there was any confusion as to who created what. CarTrain established dialogue with his parody.

Cartrain has some strong support-- Stuckists James Cauty, Jamie Reid, and Billy Childish have created various prints and other products that parody Damien Hirst’s artwork. Parodies of works by D*Face and the Chapman Brothers can also be found on the site.

Links of Interest:

Hirst Opens Second Shop, Defies Slump With 3.50 Pound Keychains -- Bloomberg

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aaThCKzrdQ_w

www.stuckism.com

www.othercriteria.com

www.redragtoabull.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

New York Art Exchange

www.nyaxe.com

London Calling

www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Criticism and Arrest of Shepard Fairey Sparks Conspiracy Theories

The arrest of Shepard Fairey in Boston and recent mainstream criticism of Fairey’s art has sparked a number of conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories involving Shepard Fairey range from anonymous comments left by individuals on blogs to lengthy articles posted on SuperTouch and Wooster Collective. I suppose it is time to wear a tin foil hat-- or perhaps it is time for certain individuals to realize that Shepard Fairey is a controversial artist who openly admits to the illegal aspects of some of his work and that debate and criticism is bound to occur concerning his ethics and process.

The Shepard Fairey conspiracy theories involve several angles. Some feel that criticism of Shepard Fairey’s art and ethics is nothing more-- as SuperTouch assumes --than a “widespread and baseless internet campaign to smear Shepard Fairey”. Others, as mentioned on Wooster Collective, feel that his recent arrest was politically motivated-- a way for Boston police to incite a riot in order to get even with the Mayor of Boston over pay issues. Some comments suggest that the mainstream art world is trying to “keep Shepard Fairey down” while others suggest that Shepard Fairey is the victim of an attack on “fair use” spearheaded by the Associated Press.

The conspiracy theories don't stop there-- some individuals have promoted the idea, based on comments left on the The Huffington Post and Boston Globe, that recent criticism and the arrest of Shepard Fairey is nothing more than anti-Obama spin. In fact, some have suggested that President Obama should "pardon" Shepard Fairey of any crimes and make his work "exempt" from copyright and trademark laws in the future. In other words, some view criticism of Shepard Fairey as being criticism against President Obama’s administration and vision of ‘change‘-- and that Fairey should be "protected" because he helped spur Obama's 'change'. Some of those same individuals have suggested that McCain supporters are behind the negative criticism of Shepard Fairey or that Republicans in general are behind it. I’m certain that other conspiracy theories will arise in the coming weeks.

So far each conspiracy theory lacks one crucial factor-- they all fail to suggest that maybe Shepard Fairey should be responsible for his actions and choices. I think President Obama would support the idea of Shepard Fairey taking responsibility. Instead, these conspiracy theories project excuses for Shepard Fairey. Is it wrong to suggest that Shepard Fairey should be responsible for how he creates his art or for where he places it? Is it wrong for individuals to be concerned when videos posted on ObeyGiant and elsewhere have shown Fairey and his crew speeding off in cars in order to avoid cops in heavy populated areas? If he failed to appear in court in 2000 shouldn’t he be held accountable in the same way that any other citizen would be?

Furthermore, if Shepard Fairey places himself in situations that force individuals to question his ethics-- such as infringing on the copyright of Rene Mederos or sending cease-and-desist letters to artists who parody his widely known images under “fair use” while at the same time defending himself under "fair use" against the Associated Press -- should he not take some responsibility and own up to questions that have been asked of him? After all, we expect politicians and CEOs to be responsible-- so why not artists? Why not Shepard Fairey?

The truth is that there isn’t a mass conspiracy against Shepard Fairey-- in fact, he is to blame for much of the negativity that shadows his career due to his choices and failure to take responsibility for his actions and words. The contradictions are his own-- not created. Instead, there is a lot of paranoia going around and much of it has been spread by longtime supporters of Shepard Fairey. These individuals have spread conspiracy theories on the Internet in order to protect their interest by creating an ‘us versus them‘ scenario among fans of the artist. In other words, they strive to rally support from Shepard Fairey's fan base in order to contain negative criticism and promote the idea that Fairey is a rebel facing unwarranted opposition. After all, that image-- that persona -- helps to sell shirts and other merchandise.

True, you could say my opinion is a conspiracy theory in itself. However, there is consistent evidence to back my claim. Almost all of the major supporters who have fostered conspiracy theories involving Shepard Fairey have a vested interest in his career or a shared interest in his view of “fair use” and other issues-- such as promoting specific causes, selling specific magazines or merchandise, and promoting specific artists or theories about art. These individuals could lose ground in their respected businesses if Shepard Fairey ends up being ridiculed or loathed by the masses. He is their cash cow.

In that sense, one could say that Shepard Fairey is a problematic figurehead for some of these individuals. If Fairey is a success their business is a success-- if Fairey is a failure their work will be much harder-- he can't be replaced with the same momentum. In other words, Shepard Fairey is a bet that can result in great returns-- a gamble that can make or break their fortune. Thus, it is no surprise to me that the battle cry of support-- these specific conspiracy theories and the viral nature in which they spread -- often originate from their respected websites.

My point is that the words of Jamie O’Shea (SuperTouch) and others who strive to demonize individuals who are critical of Shepard Fairey’s ethics-- or who make up excuses for Fairey's lack of responsibility by placing him in the role of being a victim of “the Man”, “the system”, “conservatives”, “Republicans” or the “elite” -- only do so because of the position they would be in if Shepard Fairey is viewed as a “hack” or “fraud” by the majority of the public. Shepard Fairey’s failure in the eyes of the public would be bad for their business.

Needless to say, the defense of Shepard Fairey-- such as the SuperTouch article -- often appears to be a form of damage control. Under the surface it is nothing more than an attempt to protect a product. For example, the SuperTouch article posted by O’Shea was published on the same day that Dan Wasserman posted an article titled ‘How Phony is Shepard Fairey?’ on the Boston Globe website-- the same day that many were introduced to criticism of Shepard Fairey that they had not been aware of because the mainstream media had failed to report on it up until that time. Wasserman’s article focused on Mark Vallen’s criticism of Shepard Fairey-- it was the first time that Vallen’s critique had been mentioned on a mainstream news source that I'm aware of. It was long overdue. It comes as no surprise that the Fairey camp was quick to respond in kind.

The article by SuperTouch was posted days before Shepard Fairey’s opening at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston-- it ended up as a headline on Shepard Fairey’s ObeyGiant website within minutes of being posted by J O’Shea on SuperTouch. The article by Jamie O’Shea opened with the following introduction:

“As underground art phenomenon Shepard Fairey’s first major museum retrospective prepares to open at the Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston on February 6th, we feel the need to address some of the vicious and unfounded rumors surrounding the originality of Shepard’s artwork that have been floated online in recent years. Though written by a variety of different detractors for a questionable array of reasons, the common thread binding them all—aside from a thinly masked veneer of obvious envy in most cases—is a nearly ubiquitous lack of understanding of the artist’s use of appropriated imagery in his work and the longstanding historical precedent for this mode of creative expression.”.

The introduction alone is a vehicle for damage control and a source for fostering ideas of conspiracy. Again, it should be noted that the SuperTouch article was published on the same day that Dan Wasserman posted an article titled ‘How Phony is Shepard Fairey?’ on the Boston Globe website. Wasserman’s article focused on Mark Vallen’s criticism of Shepard Fairey-- which Vallen had posted in 2007. One could say that the SuperTouch article was more of a response to Wasserman's article than it was to Vallen's critique itself. Damage control.

The main target of Jamie O’Shea’s conspiracy theory is Mark Vallen-- an artist who has been critical of Shepard Fairey’s ethics for years. Oddly enough, Vallen’s article-- titled Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey-- ranks on the first page of Google searches for ‘Shepard Fairey‘. In other words, many people have read the article long before Wasserman mentioned it on the Boston Globe website-- dare I say that could suggest that perhaps many people agree with the views of Mark Vallen? In other words, one could suggest that many desire to see Shepard Fairey take responsibility and to be accountable when he is wrong.

Jamie O’Shea and other Shepard Fairey conspiracy theorists would have you believe that only a handful of people are critical of Shepard Fairey. After all, O’Shea and SuperTouch-- where Shepad Fairey is also an author-- suggests that Mark Vallen and other “detractors” have orchestrated a smear campaign due to being jealous or bitter of Shepard Fairey. Are we to assume that Shepard Fairey is beyond criticism? Are all art critics jealous or bitter if their words about an artist are harsh? Are we to believe that only a small band of individuals question the ethics of Shepard Fairey? To that I would say-- making demons out of people who are critical of Shepard Fairey’s art and practice is not exactly the best way to defend the validity of his work-- or the importance of your business.

Jamie O’Shea has long been a crucial figure in the hype surrounding Shepard Fairey. Thus, his words come off more as concern for his investment than anything else. To put it bluntly, Jamie O’Shea does not want people to view Shepard Fairey as an unethical artist-- an artist who steals from minority artists or social causes for his own financial gain and a stairway to fame as suggested by Mark Vallen. O’Shea and others want to foster the idea that Shepard Fairey is a hero of the people and a revolutionary of visual art. Thus, it makes sense that he and others would want to chip away at Vallen's character and his critique-- to silence criticism of Shepard Fairey before it grows out of hand.

When thinking of this one must put everything in perspective-- indeed, one must question everything. Jamie O’Shea was one of the first individuals to publish reviews and interviews with Shepard Fairey. He has also curated and co-curated exhibits involving Shepard Fairey's art.
Different sources state that O’Shea works as an art consultant for corporate collections-- connecting artists in his favor with corporate art collections. If people question the authenticity of Shepard Fairey they may very well question the authenticity of Jamie O’Shea's opinion and business ventures. Thus, it makes sense that he would want to spread conspiracy theories about a "widespread and baseless internet campaign to smear Shepard Fairey," in order to combat criticism of Shepard Fairey-- his interest, investment, and product.

Consider this an open debate about the responsibility-- or lack thereof -- of Shepard Fairey and the conspiracy theories that place him in a ‘victim’ role. Consider it an open debate about the commercialization of street art-- feel free to discuss ethics-- or the lack thereof. By all means, comment if you feel that my approach is not ethical or responsible.

Links of Interest:

Was Shepard Fairey Arrested To Embarrass The Mayor of Boston? - A First Hand Account -- Wooster Collective: a celebration of street art
http://www.woostercollective.com/2009/02/shepard_faireys_arrest_in_boston_a_first.html
Finally: Shepard Fairey Conspiracy Porn -- Bostonist
http://bostonist.com/2009/02/10/shepard-fairey-bpd-conspiracy.php

How Phony is Shepard Fairey? -- Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/02/how_phony_is_shepard_fairey.html
Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey: A Critique by Artist Mark Vallen
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

The Medium Is The Message: Shepard Fairey And The Art of Appropriation -- SuperTouch
http://www.supertouchart.com/2009/02/02/editorial-the-medium-is-the-message-shepard-fairey-and-the-art-of-appropriation/#respond

Jamie O’Shea Obeys Shepard Fairey by Taking Jabs at Mark Vallen -- Myartspace Blog
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/jamie-oshea-obeys-shepard-fairey-by.html

I Predict a Fairey Right? -- Beautiful Crime
http://beautifulcrime.com/news/i-predict-a-fairey-riot/

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com

Shepard Fairey sues the Associated Press over photograph of Obama

A comparison showing Mannie Garcia’s AP owned photograph of Obama next to Shepard Fairey’s ‘Progress’ and ‘Hope’ posters. The portrait of Obama by Shepard Fairey is a stencil portrait.

The Associated Press situation involving the artist Shepard Fairey and allegations of copyright infringement has taken a twist. Shepard Fairey’s legal team broke settlement negotiations with the AP on Friday. Earlier today the artist filed against the AP in hopes of gaining a supportive decision from a judge concerning his use of the AP owned photograph which served as the base image for three versions of Fairey‘s Obama posters. The AP had agreed not to sue Shepard Fairey up until today. However, they will likely take action now having stated that they believe it is crucial to protect photographers, who are creators and artists. The AP wants to make it clear that works by photographers and artists should not be misappropriated by others.

Shepard Fairey’s legal team has stated that Fairey did not violate copyright law because the posters “dramatically changed the nature of the image”. However, legal experts outside of the case have suggested that Fairey was not in the right. For example, Michael Madison, a Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, has stated that though the photograph is “transformed” to a “sizable extent” the owner of the photographer should have had the right to charge Fairey or the Obama campaign a fee to use the photo.

Jane Ginsburg, a law professor at Columbia University who specializes in copyright cases, has stated, "What makes me uneasy is that it kind of suggests that anybody's photograph is fair game, even if it uses the entire image, and it remains recognizable, and it's not just used in a collage,". Ginsburg does not think that Fairey has a valid fair-use claim and has stated that he should have at least credited the AP.

Bob Clarida, an expert in copyright and intellectual property laws, has stated that, “This would be a tough fair use argument (for Shepard Fairey) to win because the 'transformation' is purely in the look of the work, not the purpose. There's no commentary going on. Also, a large and significant portion of the work is used, and campaign posters are certainly a reasonable and traditional market for licensed uses of photos, so there'd be a strong argument for market harm even if there's been no measurable lost sales by the photographer.”

Shepard Fairey’s lawsuit against the Associated Press was filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Fairey’s legal team acknowledges that the artist used the photograph. However, they have stated that the artist transformed the “literal depiction into a "stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that creates powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message.". Concerning the reason for his lawsuit against the AP Shepard Fairey has stated, "It's a suppression of an artist's freedom of expression.". However, the AP believes it is “crucial to protect photographers, who are creators and artists. Their work should not be misappropriated by others,".

The AP has stated that they are owed credit and compensation for the artist's rendition of the picture. The photograph was taken by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington. The AP has stated that any settlement would be placed in a charitable fund that would benefit AP journalists worldwide who suffer personal loss from conflicts and natural disasters.

Shepard Fairey’s lawsuit against the AP was filed on the same day that the artist appeared in two different Boston courtrooms after having been arrested for vandalizing private and public property with graffiti-- as well as an outstanding warrant from 2000. Fairey pleaded not guilty. Of the charges Fairey has stated, "I'd love to be able to feel like the culture of Boston continues to encourage freedom of expression. If that's not going to be the case, I'll deal with that."

Some individuals feel that Shepard Fairey is revealing his true colors due to the stress of the Associated Press copyright infringement allegations. After all, Fairey often says that people should “question everything”, but questions about various copyright allegations against him were taken off the table at a recent Q&A session. Reports state that during the session the audience was not allowed to ask questions and that the questions asked by a curator were “soft”. Thus, it has been suggested that Fairey is a hypocrite. After all, he settled out of court with the estate of Rene Mederos in 2007 after willfully infringing on a copyright protected poster by Mederos. A poster that Rene Mederos created in 1972.

Shepard Fairey infringed on the copyright of the Rene Mederos estate in 2007. He copied the poster from a book and made a few changes. Fairey titled the image 'Cuban Rider'. Fairey acknowledged the copyright infringement and settled out of court with the Rene Mederos estate. He later suggested in an inteview with Mother Jones that he thought it was acceptable to use the image because Mederos was from Cuba.

In 2008 Shepard Fairey sent an artist, Baxter Orr, a cease-and-desist letter that threatened legal action after Orr had created, distributed, and sold a parody of Fairey’s widely known Obey Giant poster. Orr’s poster was protected by “fair use” under both copyright and trademark laws. Fairey claimed that Orr’s poster was both copyright and trademark infringement. At the time Fairey stated, "I have to deal with the bad end of it(copyright) sometimes. I've had to pay out,". Fairey also stated at the time that the difference between him and Orr is that if he's contacted by a copyright owner, he'll stop using that image.

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.

That said, some individuals have suggested that Shepard Fairey is only interested in “fair use” when he is the one utilizing it-- or if high profit is involved. Regardless of how the AP situation turns out the damage has already been done. In other words, the artist who says that people should “question everything” is being questioned about his ethics-- when will he answer?

Links of Interest:

Calif. artist sues AP over image of Obama by Larry Neumunster -- Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090209/ap_on_re_us/obama_poster

Shepard Fairey Fights Back by Aaron Perry-Zucker -- Fast Company
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/aaron-perry-zucker/new-ideas/supply-demand-shepard-fairey-ica

Fair Use: Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr by Brian Sherwin at MyartspaceBlog

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

Shepard Fairey Doges Criticism at ICA: Street Artists and CopyrightAdvocates Demand Answers by Brian Sherwin at Myartspace Blog

http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/shepard-fairey-dodges-criticism-at-ica.html

Jaime O’Shea Obeys Shepard Fairey by Taking Jabs at Mark Vallen by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog

http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/jamie-oshea-obeys-shepard-fairey-by.html

Shepard Fairey: Obey Copyright by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/shepard-fairey-obey-copyright.html

Shepard Fairey: OBEY my lawyers by Dan Wasserman -- Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/02/fairey_obey_my_lawyers_1.html

How phony is Shepard Fairey by Dan Wasserman -- Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/02/how_phony_is_shepard_fairey.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed6

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

New York Art Exchange

www.nyaxe.com

London Calling

www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Mark Staff Brandl Paintings "Inadvertently" Stolen from Belmar Laboratory of Art and Ideas

The scene of the crime-- or inadvertent crime.

Readers of the Myartspace Blog may remember my interview with Mark Staff Brandl which was posted in June of 2008. Mark is an art critic-- he writes for New York’s Art in America, SharkForum, and London’s The Art Book. He is also an artist. Mark contacted me yesterday about a story that can only be described as an artists nightmare.

The story involved museum visitors taking more than just informative materials and business cards home-- long story short, over 26 paintings were taken by visitors during an exhibit opening. Needless to say, my jaw dropped when I glanced over the article-- it dropped even further when I realized that the paintings that were “inadvertently” stolen belonged to Mark.

Discussing the exhibit and the theft Mark stated, “This is a great place, with many cutting edge shows. The opening for "Out of Sequence" was apparently enormous, more than 900 people and so on. I was not present. I wish I had been, because after the opening, they noticed that somehow 26 of my 31 paintings displayed in an installation/object had disappeared. Why no one noticed during the opening is beyond me.”

Mark continued, “Granted, my art is popular-looking, and my posters are regularly stolen and reappear framed elsewhere. I have grown to accept this as a compliment. But I have exhibited my small "Cover" paintings in circular spin racks in many venues, cities, even various countries, in museums, galleries, Kunsthallen and more, and never lost a single one.”

At this time The Lab is trying to recover the stolen paintings. For more information please read Mark’s article concerning the theft-- Brandl Art "Inadvertently" Stolen from Museum by Mark Staff Brandl -- SharkForum . Feel free to pass this information on.

Take care, Stay true,

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

London Calling

www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

David Ross Suggests Ten Steps that Could Help Renew the Arts in the United States

An article titled ’The ten first steps that Barack Obama could take to renew the arts’ by David A. Ross was recently published on The Art Newspaper website. Mr. Ross, former director of the Whitney Museum, ICA Boston and SFMOMA, offered his suggestions for 10 steps that the Obama administration could take toward renewing the Arts in the United States.

His suggestions are:

1. Support the tax code amendment currently in the works that would give artists tax incentives for donating their work to public museums, and fully restore the tax incentive for gifts of appreciated property to museums and other non-profit educational organisations.

2. Re-establish a programme employing artists in a wide range of cultural institutions.

3. Revive and rebuild the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, de-politicising their processes, and providing them with budgets necessary to support the American cultural community. Nothing less than annual appropriation of $750m (as opposed to $290m today) is needed.

4. Create an independent study of the operating expenses of our museums and libraries, and then fund the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) sufficiently, so that the core costs of our museums and libraries can be properly met. (The same should be done in support of reinvigorating the infrastructure of our institutions of music, dance and theatre.)

5. Invest in art and music education for all school pupils, and ensure that these efforts are coordinated with the increased spending in direct artist support, as well as renewed institutional infrastructure and programme support.

6. Rebuild a new Arts America programme to allow American artists, musicians, dancers and writers to serve as cultural ambassadors and help rebuild the image of the United States around the world.

7. Simplify and expedite the process for obtaining (de-politicised) visas for visiting foreign artists, musicians and academics.

8. Restore direct federal and state grants for artists, musicians and writers (including critics).

9. Establish either a cabinet-level Secretary for Art and Culture, or at the very least, create a White House arts advisory office to coordinate and show presidential support for American culture.

10. Create an emergency bailout fund for cultural institutions in dire need during this current credit crisis. At least $250m will be necessary, but this is a drop in the ocean when compared with the value these institutions return to the nation as a whole. This single act will affirm to all that the federal government will not stand by and allow these great resources to falter.

What are your thoughts on these suggestions by David Ross? Are a few needed more than the rest? What advice would you give to the Obama administration in regards to strengthening the arts in the United States? I want to know what you think.

As for myself, I'm still pondering the steps that Ross mentioned. Off hand I agree with his suggestion of restoring direct federal and state grants for artists, musicians and writers (including critics) as long as the selections are fair and balanced. In other words, the outcome of the grants should reflect a wide range of opinions.

I also support his suggestion of employing artists in a wide range of cultural institutions. Tax incentives for artists who donate art to public museums is also a must in my opinion. That said, I'm wary of the Secretary for Arts and Culture suggestion.

Rumors about said position have been floating around for a few months now. Many who support it state that other countries have a position that is similar in concept-- what they forget is that positions of that nature don't always work as they should. The last thing we need is for the government to dictate what type of art can be exhibited in spaces that receive government funding. In other words, Presidential support for American culture is great-- but not if the art supported ends up reflecting partisan spin.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
London Calling
www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Art Blog Buzz: Recent buzz from the art side of the blogosphere

Showing some support for a few art bloggers I admire. If I missed anyone don't take it personal. Just send me a nasty email or something.

Christopher Reiger discusses the art of Marco Evaristti , worms (kinda), and a number of issues in a post that is by far one of the longest blog entries I’ve ever seen-- even when compared to some of mine. I will read it on the Hungry Hyaena when I have time.

Lisa Mikulski’s ArtLook takes a look at how to increase creativity , shows Americans for the Arts support, and asks the age old question, when can you call yourself an artist?

Dion Archibald’s Art News Blog covers sleep and art, the problem with mass produced paintings from China, and offer yet another example of an art scammer at work.

Edward Winkleman discusses the Maureen Mullarkey Proposition 8 controversy, offers advice for artists seeking gallery representation, and mentions ideas about renewing support for the Arts in the US on the Winkleman Blog .

Paddy Johnson’s Art Fag City discusses some fallacies involving the Brandeis University controversy, mentions Matt Held’s Facebook portrait project , and offers a nice slice of onion .

Take care, Stay true,

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

Fair Use: Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr

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.

Back in 2008 there was a story concerning “fair use” and Shepard Fairey. Followers of the Myartspace Blog may recall that there have been comments concerning the story when art law is discussed. The story involves Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr. Orr created a parody of the iconic Obey Giant image-- which he distributed and sold as his own. Orr-- being cynical of Shepard Fairey -- strived to make a visual statement about Fairey’s art in general. Needless to say, Orr accomplished his goal.

Debate over Orr’s appropriation of Obey Giant spread like wildfire on blogs and forums. Eventually Orr received a cease-and-desist letter from Shepard Fairey’s legal team over his use of the Obey Giant image and was threatened with legal action if he failed to comply. Due to the iconic status of Obey Giant I feel that Orr’s poster was legitimate under “fair use”. In my opinion, Baxter Orr’s use of the image falls under “fair use” more so than Shepard Fairy’s “fair use” claim involving the Associated Press photograph of Obama-- which was taken by Mannie Garcia. After all, the photograph of Obama itself was not widely known-- it was not in itself iconic.

My opinion is that Baxter Orr was working well within the realm of fair use-- or trademark fair use-- when he created, distributed, and sold ‘Protect’. In other words, his image was “fair use” under both copyright and trademark law as far as I‘m concerned. After all, Orr created his parody in 2008-- the Obey Giant poster had been around for 20 years by that time and had already been considered culturally iconic as street art and as a trademarked logo. Fairey’s image of Andre the Giant had been published dozens if not hundreds of times-- in other words, the image was already within the heart of contemporary culture.

The fact that Fairey’s image had been published does not necessarily matter as far as fair use is concerned. However, the fact that it was an art phenomenon before 2008 does-- which is why it had been published in the first place. Baxter Orr simply made a parody of a world renowned image which reflected the very intention of fair use. Thus, I don’t see anything wrong with Orr deciding to make a visual statement about Obey Giant. I have no problem with “fair use” as long as it is used in the way it is intended.

Before I go any further I must stress something-- I realize that some people are suggesting that Baxter Orr was in the wrong because Obey Giant is a trademark. That said, what people are forgetting is that there is “fair use” for copyright and trademark laws. For example, in 1997 Tom Forsythe created ‘Food Chain Barbie’. The series of photographs depicted the Barbie doll in various kitchen situations. Forsythe stated that his goal was to “critique the objectification of women associated with Barbie.”. Forsythe was soon after sued by Mattel-- the manufacturer of Barbie dolls. Mattel claimed that the artist had infringed on the copyright and trademark which the company owned. However, a federal court ruled in favor of Tom Forsythe. The court found that the photographs were protected “fair use” under both trademark and copyright law. The court stressed the importance of critiquing “cultural icons” through art. Thus, I think the court would have sided with Baxter Orr along the same grounds.

There was no mass confusion concerning Shepard Fairey’s art and Baxter Orr’s art in regards to Orr’s ‘Protect’. The connection between Fairey’s image and Orr’s image was obvious to viewers, but it was also obvious that Fairey did not create ‘Protect‘. Orr did not try to conceal the artist of the base image, so to speak. He did not hide the fact that he had used Fairey’s Obey Giant image. In other words, Baxter Orr did not claim that it was a random image that he found online or anything of that nature. He did not try to promote it as work by Shepard Fairey either.

Viewers made the connection between the two images-- there was a visual dialogue going on. For example, online comments from that time ranged from support to furious rants concerning the ethics of Baxter Orr. Orr had achieved what he set out to do in that his poster fueled debate about the commercialization of street art and the contradictions of Shepard Fairey and his fan base.

Thus, Orr’s ’Protect’ was a clear parody of ‘Obey Giant‘ as well as a social comment about criticism that Shepard Fairey and the commercialization of street art had long endured-- and continues to endure today. Unfortunately, the dialogue was-- for a period of time -- cut short by Shepard Fairey's scare tactic in the form of a cease-and-desist letter sent to Orr. The artist who says to “question everything” tried to silence what he considered opposition.

Baxter Orr was aware of “fair use”-- he knew what he was doing… which is why ‘Protect‘ can still be purchased on his site (though he has since renamed the poster ‘Protect Yourself Giant‘-- www.baxterorr.com). Orr selected an image by Shepard Fairey that people would recognize due to its iconic status-- knowing that people would not be confused. By doing so Baxter Orr fostered debate. That is why we have fair use in the first place. Is it not? Orr’s image was both a parody and a social comment. In my opinion, Orr’s visual critique of ‘Obey Giant’ was of great importance to the public concerning Fairey’s iconic poster and the controversy that has shadowed his career for twenty years. In a sense, one could say that Orr gave a visual answer to the artist who often boldly states that people should “question everything”.

According to The Austin Chronicle-- which covered the conflict between Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr in May of 2008 -- Fairey had the following to say about copyright and Baxter Orr at the time-- he stated, . "I have to deal with the bad end of it(copyright) sometimes. I've had to pay out," he said. But, he says, the difference between him and Orr is that if he's contacted by a copyright owner, he'll stop using that image.” In the same article Baxter Orr was quoted about his opinion concerning the cease-and-desist letter he received from Shepard Fairey’s legal team, “It’s ridiculous for someone who built their empire on appropriating other people’s images,” followed by, “Obey Giant has become like Tide and Coca-Cola.”

In hindsight Orr has fully achieved what he set out to do-- Orr’s image was a visual comment on what he viewed as the hypocrisy of Shepard Fairey‘s practice. With what we know today-- the copyright infringement allegations involving Mannie Garcia‘s AP photograph and Fairey‘s ‘Hope’ posters-- perhaps Orr was right all along? If so, he made a powerful visual statement with ‘Protect’.

With that in mind-- I think there is enough information floating around to suggest that Shepard Fairey only cares about fair use when he is the one claiming it. After all, if Fairey is truly willing to “pay out” and stop using an image after being contacted by a copyright/trademark owner-- as he did with the estate of Rene Mederos in 2007 -- why is he not willing to “pay out” to the rightful owner of the Mannie Garcia photograph? Perhaps Shepard Fairey should obey the conviction he expressed over the Baxter Orr situation in 2008-- as in copyright owners being paid when they come forward. Needless to say, I don’t think that will happen.

The difference between Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr is that Fairey is claiming "fair use" of a photograph that was not widely known involving a work of art that failed to establish a connection between the old and new image. After all, how many people said "Shepard Fairey is commenting on Mannie Garcia's AP photograph." when they viewed 'Hope'? It puzzles me that Shepard Fairey views his use of the AP photograph as “fair use’ when in 2008 he did not accept Baxter Orr’s use of Obey Giant as “fair use”-- especially when one considers the iconic status of Obey Giant against the little known photograph that Fairey chose to use for ‘Progress’ and ‘Hope’. Simply put, Shepard Fairey failed at fair use.

Furthermore, Shepard Fairey has stated that he “references” work that inspires him. So why is he against people-- such as Baxter Orr-- “referencing” his work if they are inspired by it? My point being that I don’t like contradictions. You can’t have the best of both worlds without having your integrity questioned. In other words, it is laughable that Shepard Fairey seems to think that it is ok when he “references” photographs and works of art that are not well known while at the same time saying that people can’t “reference” his widely known posters. The hypocrisy is alarming.

To be fair-- it does seem that Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr have a mutual dislike for one another-- at least now. However, emotion does not control “fair use”. Fairey has mentioned that it would not have been an issue if Orr’s work had been pro-OBEY-- he has made it clear that he does not mind people making parodies of his images for their personal use. That said, I think the heart of this matter is that maybe Shepard Fairey did not like the fact that someone was making profit off of works involving Obey Giant. Which begs the question-- If Shepard Fairey does not like it when people profit from use of his work why does he do the exact same thing to other artists and copyright / trademark owners in general?

Links of Interest:

Shepard Fairey Threatens to Sue Artist for OBEY Giant Parody -- Animal New York
www.animalnewyork.com/news/2008/04/shepard-fairey-threatens-to-su.php

Shepard Fairey Declares Only He Can Copy and Paste -- Animal New York
www.animalnewyork.com/news/2008/04/shepard-fairey-declares-only-h.php

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

Fair Use It or Lose It Copyright owners’ threats erode free expression by Marjorie Heins -- Fair Blog
www.fair.org/index.php?page=3066

Shepard Fairey: OBEY my lawyers by Dan Wasserman -- Boston Globe / Out of Line
www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/02/fairey_obey_my_lawyers_1.html
Take care, Stay true,

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

Art Space Talk: Erin Morrison

Erin Morrison was born in Little Rock, Arkansas February 26, 1985.She attended Memphis College of Art, where she graduated with a BFA, and breifly studied at the California College of Art.Currently living in Seattle, she is represented by the William Bennett Gallery in the SoHo district of New York City. Outside of frequent solo exhibitions at the William Bennett, she participates in group shows and makes private commissions regularly.

Protected Forest: Clement, ID, 24 x 32”, mixed media on paper, 2008

Brian Sherwin: Erin, you studied at Memphis College of Art and California College of Art. Can you tell us about your academic background? Did you have any influential instructors or peers?

Erin Morrison: It all started in the 6th grade at the back of a Hobby Lobby in Little Rock Arkansas. After my parents saw how enthusiastic I became about painting projections of animals from National Geographic with a group of senior citizens that they decided right then to continue encouraging me.

For college I wasn't given enough scholarship to attend any of the larger schools in New York or San Francisco, but MCA was substantially less expensive and would give me the opportunity to spend one semester abroad my third year. It was also small and close to home which was nice.

I had several good teachers in Memphis, but when I took a classes under Barron Storey and Jordan Kantor at CCA, I felt I got a leg up on contemporary concerns in illustration and drawing, which is definitely something I needed at the time.

Metropolitan Park (Spread Your Seed): Seattle, WA, 24 x 32”, mixed media on paper, 2008

BS: My understanding is that you travel between Seattle and New York City. Can discuss the influence that cities have had on your art? What about traveling in general?

EM: I think air travel is a pretty surreal and exhausting experience. I've been up in planes before, but it wasn't till working in the events industry in New York that it became a regular part of my life. I was constantly flying from one city to another to register these haughty businessmen (mostly men) for corporate events.

It was a completely draining experience that was thankfully short-lived, but I started to like the experience being in the air. Although I felt a little guilty with all the pollution trailing behind me, I became a time-traveler of sorts; jumping between reality and the abyss at lightening speed in something I had not control over. And seeing the country on a clear day from an aerial point of view is just overwhelming.

This past year I only took two flights to New York from Seattle for solo exhibition openings at the William Bennett. It was a lot of work for one year (as the gallery is rather large) but definitely worth it.

Untitled (Storm at Sea), 28 x 40”, mixed media on paper, 2008

BS: Can you go into further detail about your interest in nature and the conflict between nature and contemporary society?

EM: Well when you grow up in a place like Arkansas and move to a city like New York, it feels just like opposite scenario of Green Acres. Why did she have to move to the country? I was no Joe Buck, but it was overwhelming to say the least. In New York, nature lost. There was so much control. It wasn't till after living there for several months that I started to miss greenery. It is a city of steel and cement and if your lucky you can visit the giant garden in the center of it on your lunch break.

When my fiance and I started the drive west across the country it really struck me how much things are changing. You start to think about all the land everyone else has that people in New York would pay a fortune for. It made me appreciate the lifestyle I once had a little more. I suppose what has become a constant in my drawing is the resurgence of nature against the obstacles we've created.

I like thinking duality exists in all things and this constant craving for dominance between man and his surroundings is something that can't be avoided. I started to fall into this apocalyptic theme that's been so popular in contemporary art recently, and as much as I don't mind this, I hate to think that under this label my work will not be fully examined. The larger drawings demand more attention as the reflection of light plays a large role in the work as well.
Bipolar Magnetic Field: Elkhart, KS, 24 x 32”, mixed media on paper, 2008

BS: Would you say that your work, or at least those specific bodies of work, are a form of visual protest concerning environmental issues? Or do you try to avoid categorization, labels, what have you?

EM: The one thing that I absolutely love about making drawings is that even if you have no agenda with where the work will be going, at one point in the process you can't help but say something. It is often an accident in my drawings, but it seems the themes in modern aesthetics capitulate so much with how we live. I think at this point, if you make landscapes you can't help but confront environmental issues. I believe Richter was right about something. People will say what they want to about the work, and once it's on the wall it's completely out of your hands.

BS: What is the specific message you strive to convey to viewers concerning your art? Or do you leave the work open to interpretation, so to speak?

EM: I'm going to say that it is open to interpretation. I think if you remain ambivalent you don't paint yourself in a corner, which happens to a lot of people.

Untitled (Mate), 26 x 40”, mixed media on paper, 2007

BS: Can you tell us more about your influences? For example, are you influenced by any specific artists, world events, or movements in art and culture?

EM: Well I suppose Gerard Richter has always been an influence. After reading his "Daily Practice of Painting" I felt the need to never stop experimenting with new media and techniques. My work has changed drastically in the past two years and I think once I've explored an idea to the point of exhaustion it's time to move on. That's what I loved about him. No matter what, with all of that pressure to make the same kind of work, he kept evolving.

There are two contemporary artists whose work I am always drawn to. The way Anna Conway creates the most impossible worst cast scenarios in commercialized spaces is just perfect to me. I'm looking forward to seeing her next show when it's ready. I also enjoy Inka Essenhigh's work. She has such a great approach to making paintings. I think they are a clean step from Francis Bacon's work, which is refreshing. I always like Bacon.

BS: What can you tell us about your process in general? Give us some insight into how you work…

EM: The process is not all that complicated. Lately paper has become my primary surface to work on, and they are comprised of a mixture of drawing and painting materials. Graphite, pigment, ink, color pencils, pens, black gesso, guache. Coffee, tape . . it really just depends on what effect I want to achieve. I like creating the illusion of space with a lot of detailed line work. I've found it's easy for me to ruin a drawing if I work on it for too long, so I live to have several things in progress.

$2300 / 1BR 1B Luxury, Steam Room, City Views: Brooklyn, NY, 24 x 32”, mixed media on paper, 2008

BS: What are your specific concerns about civilization that this time? How is that reflected in your current work?

EM: Well it's a loaded question, but I think my main concern with civilization is how much we pragmatize situations to best fit our own needs at the risk of losing everyone's trust. People are greedy. And what about all of this money floating around? These giant figures . . . $700 billion dollar bailout, all of this money going into the war. I can't even write about it right now. But I am working on a drawing with a giant barge floating in a draining ocean on the way to Moscow loaded with gold. Someone's gonna get it.

BS: You have exhibited at William Bennett Gallery, FECAL FACE DOT GALLERY, NO EXIT Gallery, among other galleries and spaces. Will you be involved with any upcoming exhibits?

EM: I'm trying to get into this group show in London at The Brick Lane Gallery this summer along with another local group show, I just have to work out the funding. Then there will probably be another solo show at the William Bennett in September that I'm pretty excited about if it works happens.

BS: Speaking of exhibiting, do you have any concerns about the art world at this? There has been a lot of debate recently about copyright and the rights of artists. Do you have an opinion on issues such as that?

EM: I'd like to get involved in more group shows but I'm wondering why galleries started charging people for this even though they take a huge commission? I only like to participate in shows that are free, thank you. I think the copyright issue is a little petty in comparison. Besides I always thought copyrights were meant for the design arts. If your bending the line then your asking for the attention.

The Rise of Ouroboros Thunder: Mesa, AZ, 24 x 32”, mixed media on paper, 2008

BS: What about the internet? One could say that the art world is starting to catch up-- more galleries are turning to the World Wide Web in order to further exposure for their artists. How do you think the internet will impact the art world in say… a decade? Can you see a meshing between the traditional market and alternative (online) markets taking shape?

EM: The internet is such a great tool for artists and galleries if it isn't abused. It opens up plenty of opportunity for people, especially internationally. I can't even imagine what will happen in a decade. Faxing art as a safer way of shipping? I guess that falls into teleporting for original works right? As long as people can regain trust in each other an online art market isn't a bad idea.

BS: Finally, is there anything else you would like to say about your art or the goals that you have?

EM: My only goal at this point is to make artwork for the rest of my life and to not run out of ideas. Since I was five I have been pretty ambitious about becoming an artist and I've gotten this far so I'm definitely not stopping now.

You can learn more about Erin Morrison by visiting her website-- www.erinmorrison.com. Erin Morrison is currently a member of the myartspace.com community-- www.myartspace.com/erinmorrison. Her art can be purchased on the New York Art Exchange-- www.nyaxe.com/erinmorrison. You can read more of my interviews by visiting the following page-- www.myartspace.com/interviews.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

New York Art Exchange

www.nyaxe.com