There was a Q&A session between Shepard Fairey and Fogg Museum curator Susan Dackerman before the public opening of Fairey’s exhibit at the ICA. The Q&A session had one stipulation-- questions were not allowed from the crowd. Apparently Dackerman asked repetitive questions concerning Fairey’s street art, his Obama campaign contributions, and meeting with Obama-- information that has been regurgitated by the press for months. She failed to ask questions about the recent copyright infringement allegations against the artist and failed to question his view of fair use and copyright in general-- two issues that have long shadowed Fairey‘s career and are as much of his history as an artist as anything else.
Fairey had a great opportunity to tackle issues that fans and critics alike had hoped he would address-- issues concerning fair use and the various copyright allegations against his art in recent years. One can only assume that he intentionally dodged talking about issues that are crucial to understanding his art and the thoughts behind his process. Needless to say, many feel that these issues should have been addressed-- especially since the exhibit covers the entirety of his career.
Fairey did mention what he called “accusations of plagiarism” briefly-- but quickly addressed other topics. He stated, “A lot of my work derives its power from the ways I’ve changed the message,” followed by, “I think it’s an important part of a pop culture dialogue.”. Dackerman failed to push Fairey further on the issue as she had done with other topics during their discussion. Again, questions from the audience were not allowed.
The issue of copyright infringement and debatable claims of fair use that have shadowed Shepard Fairey’s career may have not entered his Q&A session with Susan Dackerman-- but they certainly shadowed him from outside of the ICA. As Shepard Fairey answered soft questions inside the museum a small gathering of artists, photographers, and writers demanded answers concerning allegations of plagiarism and copyright infringement involving Fairey.
The crowd of copyright supporters mentioned that they did not think Shepard Fairey would answer tough questions about his alleged infringement of an AP owned photograph or other copyright infringement allegations involving artists such as Rene Mederos. Needless to say, their questions went unanswered. The voices of the people on the street were not heard by the street artist who comfortably addressed soft questions inside.
Inside Dackerman asked Fairey about why he decided to support the Obama campaign. Fairey replied by saying, “I could not stand by and watch the Bush administration destroy the principles this country was founded on and not say something.” His bold statement was met with applause from the audience. It would have been a good time for Dackerman to press Fairey on allegations of copyright infringement since many of the Founding Fathers of the United States acknowledged the Statute of Anne (1710) and were supportive of the Copyright Clause (1787) of the United States Constitution. She failed. It would have also been a good time for Dackerman to ask Fairey about his opinion concerning President Obama’s support of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)-- which could result in alleged copyright infringers being banned by their Internet Service Provider. Again, she failed.
When asked about his work with corporate clients like Saks and Pepsi Fairey stated that he acknowledges that, “in a capitalist society, art and commerce are always going to need each other” and that his goal is to make marketing art when working with corporate clients. Fairey explained to the audience that the income he receives from the corporate campaigns allows him to have complete freedom when creating art for a gallery or art on the streets. Fairey went on to suggest that artists lacking funds are more apt to bow to market forces.
Shepard Fairey has also been noted as saying “When you do work on the street, the act is one of defiance that’s automatically embedded in the work no matter the content,”. Followed by, “When you go into the gallery, obviously it’s a designated space and the work is not illegal. But there’s still the content of the work that I think communicates my ideas. Even though I spend more time on the gallery stuff, with more depth and layers, it still has the spirit of the street techniques.” during the session.
I asked Joey Krebs aka Joel Jaramillo aka the LA Street Phantom aka The Phantom Street Artist about Shepard Fairey’s statement. Krebs 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 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.”
The Phantom Street Artist then 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 take a risk. 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.” He then shared a video with me in order to stress how real street artists view Shepard Fairey and his art:
All City Crew - Art Basel Miami 2008 from fi5e on Vimeo.
Susan Dackerman failed to ask questions of importance concerning the span of Shepard Fairey’s career. After all, Obama and the influence that Obama had on Fairey’s art is only a recent part of Fairey’s history as an artist. She failed to obtain answers to the questions demanded by the small crowd of copyright supporters outside the ICA. She failed to obtain answers concerning the low opinion that many street artists have of Shepard Fairey. She failed to answer questions that honestly reflect the history of Shepard Fairey’s art. She failed at her task and Shepard Fairey failed to make a stand.
I suppose you could say that Shepard Fairey had answered in the only way he knows how before the opening. After all, Shepard Fairey and his crew ’bombed’ sites around Boston. Street works by Shepard Fairey can be found in both legal and illegal spaces near the ICA. Fairey has stated that he considers the street context of his art to be a crucial aspect of the art that is currently being shown at the ICA. Unfortunately, the street artist who says that people should “question everything” did not allow questions from the Q&A audience. Shepard Fairey failed to answer the questions that so many people have asked or demanded from him.
Some reporters are commenting on how Shepard Fairey appeared calm and collective at the Q&A session and the opening of the exhibit. Some have went as far as to suggest that Fairey is not showing signs of worry concerning copyright infringement allegations or mass criticism of his art and ethics of his practice that has taken place online in recent weeks. However, Shepard Fairey did address issues of plagiarism and copyright infringement days before the opening with the help of some of his associates and the Internet.
A few days ago a commenter tipped me off about an article concerning Shepard Fairey, copyright infringement, appropriation and Mark Vallen’s 2007 critique of Fairey’s art. The article, titled 'The Medium is the Message: Shepard Fairey and the Art of Appropriation', was posted on SuperTouch by J O’Shea-- Jamie O'Shea for those who don't know. The article by O'Shea is critical of Vallen's criticism concerning Shepard Fairey. A link to Jamie O’Shea’s article was posted on Fairey’s ObeyGiant website within minutes of it being published online by SuperTouch.
Before I go any further I want to make it clear that I do not agree with every view that Mark Vallen has concerning Shepard Fairey-- or art for that matter. However, it makes since that Jamie O’Shea, the editor of Super Touch, would support Shepard Fairey considering that Shepard Fairey is listed as an author on SuperTouch. It should also be noted that Jamie O’Shea has followed Fairey’s career extensively-- and has also curated and co-curated art exhibits involving the artist.
Jamie O’Shea started his criticism of Mark Vallen’s article by stating, “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.”. O’Shea suggested that criticism of Shepard Fairey by Mark Vallen and other “detractors” is nothing more than a smear campaign against Fairey-- stating that a, “widespread and baseless internet campaign to smear Shepard Fairey has been going on for some time now“. In other words, O’Shea suggests that mass criticism of Shepard Fairey is nothing more than a smear campaign against the artist. Paranoia or damage control? You be the judge. Calm or worried? Again, you be the judge.
Links of Interest:
Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey: A critique by artist Mark Vallen
www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE: SHEPARD FAIREY AND THE ART OF APPROPRIATION by Jamie O’Shea -- SuperTouch
www.supertouchart.com/2009/02/02/editorial-the-medium-is-the-message-shepard-fairey-and-the-art-of-appropriation/
Jamie O'Shea Obeys Shepard Fairey by Taking Jabs at Mark Vallen by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/jamie-oshea-obeys-shepard-fairey-by.html
More Links of Interest:
ICA Boston Presents First Museum Survey of Street Artist Shepard Fairey -- Artdaily
www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=28819
Shepard Fairey Talks Obama, Plagiarism and Capitalism at ICA by Ryan Weaver -- Bostonist
www.bostonist.com/2009/02/06/shepard_fairey_talks_obama_plagiari.php
Barack attack: Street artist Shepard Fairey’s portrait of Obama opens doors to ICA exhibit by Martin Caballero -- Boston Herald
www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/arts_culture/view.bg?articleid=1150076&srvc=rss
Art Law Professionals weigh-in on Associated Press Copyright Infringement Allegation Against Shepard Fairey by Brian Sherwin -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/art-law-professionals-weigh-in-on.html
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Friday, February 06, 2009
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Social art site myartspace.com to open brick & mortar gallery in Palo Alto, California. Myartspace CEO plans to exhibit members art
www.myartspace.com/nyaxegallery
I am pleased to announce the planned opening of the NYAXE gallery, a venue for myartspace.com artists located in Palo Alto, CA. Premium members of myartspace.com will be able to submit their work for representation consideration at no cost. Standard members will need to pay a $25 fee in order to submit work. The goal is to have several exhibits featuring artist from the myartspace.com community each year. Needless to say, we are focused on helping to launch careers by offering resume building opportunities.
I’ve seen the gallery space and I must say that it is in a wonderful location in Palo Alto. The gallery space itself is relatively large-- 4 meter ceiling with an all-white floor/walls/ceiling. The space is larger than the majority of galleries I’ve visited in Chicago and New York-- so there is more than enough room to feature several artists in an efficient manner. Artists who submit early will be considered for all four shows-- so technically it is possible for an artist to end up adding four exhibits in Palo Alto to their resume. I have no doubt that the three selected artists will be excited upon stepping into the gallery.
As for the ten artists who will be represented digitally-- there are two 47” screens on the wall that will show the digital renditions of their art during the opening show as well as during gallery hours until the show closes. This is a great opportunity for the Premium members of myartspace.com since it is free for them. That said, the $25 submission fee for standard myartspace.com members is not a bad deal concerning the location of the gallery. Now would be a good time to upgrade to Premium-- the founders of the site have some great ideas.
Catherine McCormack-Skiba-- who I consider a great mentor-- has every intention of being an industry leader in art both online and offline. Through myartspace.com, a social network for artists, art collectors, and gallerists, McCormack-Skiba has provided physical parallels, such as shows for artists, and real galleries for its members. Under the direction of McCormack-Skiba myartspace.com serves as a bridge between the real and virtual worlds of art. Her Management Team is dedicated to strengthening this bridge.
For those who don’t know the city of Palo Alto-- home of founders and CEOs of Facebook, Apple, and Google, has a high concentration of wealth. The city of 58,598 includes celebrities and industry leaders as residents. The founders and co-founders of major websites live in or near Palo Alto. Needless to say, the headquarters of several Silicon Valley high-technology companies are located in Palo Alto.
That translates to thousands of people who are on the cutting edge of culture and technology in the United States. In other words, it is a very good thing if people from that community view your art. The invitation list is extensive and the market for art in Palo Alto has yet to be tapped-- myartspace and NYAXE-- under the direction of Catherine McCormack-Skiba and her Management Team -- will change that.
Below is some basic information about the gallery and the submission process:
Announcing the NYAXE GALLERY, a venue for MYARTSPACE artists, located in Palo Alto, CA, heart of Silicon Valley. NYAXE Gallery, located in Palo Alto, California, is having its premier opening on February 26th, 2009... less than a month away. Members of myartspace and NYAXE, as well as the greater art community, are invited to submit work through myartspace for potential representation at the gallery.
Four shows will be hosted at the gallery this year. At least three artists will be selected for each show-- Additionally, 10 artists will be represented digitally for each show. Each group show will run from between 6 and 12 weeks. The exhibits will be sponsored by CatMacArt Corporation, owner of myartspace and NYAXE.
The first deadline February 16, 2009. If selected the creators of myartspace and NYAXE will pay to have your art shipped out to the NYAXE Gallery in time for the show-- as well as return shipping if needed, though some restrictions do apply (See competition terms). Those that submit work early are considered for all 4 group shows. Submission is FREE for myartspace.com Premium members. Submission for standard members is $25. To learn more about Premium service on myartspace.com visit, www.myartspace.com/premium
Winners will be notified on a rolling basis based on the planned group shows. Generally, the submission deadline for the next upcoming show will be four weeks in advance of the show date. Artists to be represented will be notitified about least one week prior to the show. No substitutions will be permitted without consent and approval by CatMacArt Corporation.
To learn more visit: www.myartspace.com/nyaxegallery
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
Art Law Professionals weigh-in on Associated Press Copyright Infringement Allegation Against Shepard Fairey.
A comparison showing Mannie Garcia’s photograph of Obama next to Shepard Fairey’s ‘Progress’ and ‘Hope’ posters. The portrait of Obama by Shepard Fairey is a stencil portrait. Fairey created a stencil over a scanned version of the photograph that was slightly tilted according to various articles.As I’ve mentioned before the issue of Shepard Fairey, Mannie Garcia, and fair use has sparked a debate among the copyright law community online. Now the debate has been taken to the next level due to the fact that the Associated Press has acknowledged their ownership of the photograph and has made it clear that they want compensation from Shepard Fairey as well as some control over how the image is used in the future.
The debate is centered on a press photo of Obama taken by Mannie Garcia that Shepard Fairey used in order to create his stencil portraits of Obama. The story has caused an outrage among photographers and supporters of copyright protection due to the fact that Shepard Fairey did not ask permission to use the photograph. Others claim that Shepard Fairey’s use of the photograph falls under fair use as transformative art. However, fair use is still a predominately untested aspect of art law-- so the results of this case may help to put fair use into perspective. Needless to say, there is a growing concern that individuals and companies are exploiting the intention of fair use.
Fair use implies that the ’new’ image comments or parodies the ’old’ image-- in the case of the Obama photograph the dialogue between the old image and the new image was not established because the majority of people did not make the connection upon viewing Fairey’s various Obama posters which utilized the Obama photograph. In fact, the only defense that many Fairey supporters seem to have concerning Fairey’s fair use is that he was very open about his fair use practice in his book Supply and Demand.
However, many people-- including myself-- don’t think that fair use implies that one need buy a $59.95 book in order to be aware of the dialogue between the original images and Fairey’s work based off of the original images. Thus, if we are to accept Fairey’s idea of fair use it would mean that any image is fair game under fair use-- you just have to pitch a book to defend your intentions. Would Shepard Fairey support an artist if the artist used his images, tilted them slightly, and made a few additions in order to call the image his or her own? I doubt it. He did not like when Baxter Orr did that-- and was quick to send Orr a cease-and-desist letter.
What art law professionals are saying about Shepard Fairey’s use of the AP owned Obama photograph:
Anthony Falzone, the executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University and a lecturer at the Stanford Law School has stated, "We believe fair use protects Shepard's right to do what he did here,". It should be noted that Falzone is Fairey’s lawyer.
Robin Gross, an intellectual property attorney who heads the international civil liberties organization IP Justice, has stated, "Fairey's purpose of the use for the photo was political or civic, and this will certainly count in favor of the poster being a fair use,". Gross has also stated, "Nor will the poster diminish the value of the photo, if anything, it has increased the original photo's value beyond measure, another factor counting heavily in favor of fair use.".
Recently Michael Madison, a Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, stated, “Sure, the photo is “transformed” to a sizable extent, which pushes the fair use needle to Fairey’s side. But surely the owner of the copyright could have charged Fairey or the campaign a fee to use the photo. Given the ubiquity of the image, a well-conceived deal might have generated a substantial amount of money. Push that needle back a ways.”
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.”
My take on it:
Was Shepard Fairey’s Obama posters officially endorsed by the Obama campaign or not?
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/was-shepard-faireys-obama-posters.html
Jamie O'Shea Obeys Shepard Fairey by Taking Jabs at Mark Vallen
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/jamie-oshea-obeys-shepard-fairey-by.html
Shepard Fairey: Obey Copyright
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/shepard-fairey-obey-copyright.html
The Intentions of Shepard Fairey Should be Examined
www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/11/intentions-of-shepard-fairey-should-be.html
Obama’s Obedient Artist: Is Shepard Fairey a Farce?
www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/09/obamas-obedient-artist-is-shepard.html
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
What’s the point...? Of Your Website
So you’ve decided that maybe, just maybe, it’s time to get yourself a website. Or perhaps you’ve had a site for some time and need to do a bit of redesigning. Before you get excited about uploading all that great new artwork and design…stop and think. Why are you creating this website?
Whether it’s a website, a blog, or a new artist portfolio or profile, the first step toward good design and future marketing should be the very unglamorous and unexciting planning stage. I’m sorry and I know… I can hear the groans from here. But it’s true... Thinking out the reasons and goals for your online presence is key to your success.
The planning stage is often something that gets lost in the excitement of creating your online presence, but I can tell you, every professional designer will engage in this process before they even put pen to paper in the design stage. Charting a course of action in the beginning stages of your project will prepare your site (and your business) for future updates and additions. It sets the stage for your information architecture (navigation) and marketing initiatives and provides the groundwork for meeting your goals.
The following are some of the questions I ask my clients in my Creative Strategy form. In fact, my creative strategy questionnaire is provided to “would be” clients right with my initial proposal for work. It is provided free of charge and starts the client thinking about his/her online goals whether they choose my proposal or someone else’s. Please feel free to download the form and print it out for future reference and planning.
Why are you creating this website?
What will constitute success for this website/blog?
Who is your target audience? What is their age? What is their geographic profile?
What materials should be included in the creative? (Logo, graphics, colors, fonts, photos, text)
What makes you/your artwork/your business different from the competition?
What is the benefit the website visitor gets from your site?
Once these questions have been answered, we can then begin on the more visual aspects of development. This includes something I call a “brain dump.” With pen and paper in hand, begin by centering your main idea on the paper. From here jot down the keywords, ideas, sequences, software needs, hardware needs, and materials you will need. It doesn’t matter how crazy or outlandish some of these ideas are… the point is to get you thinking and to open up your mind. Some people call this process “mind mapping” or “free thinking”. It works and gets on paper all those little abstract thoughts that will float through your thoughts at 2am. This process should also get you started on the foundation of your Information Architecture for the website which will become the navigation for your site.
Just as a house needs a solid foundation, your website needs one too. While your brain dump will give you all the little parts and pieces of your website it will not put those ideas into any order. A website needs order. The navigation of your site is what the customer will use to find the information he or she needs. It is imperative that this navigation be optimal, easy to use and flexible into the future. You might find that a story board or flow chart might help here. Arrange all the main pages (main navigation sections) on your paper and then place the secondary topics accordingly. It is much like creating that outline your English teacher made you do in high school. A well thought out navigation system will serve you and your customers well because it will allow your website visitor to find what he wants without getting lost and it allows you to update or add on to your site in the future without having to redesign the whole thing from scratch.
Now that you have your creative strategy, your brain dump and your information architecture all set, you can begin assembling your site. The majority of what you have just done has been completed without aid of your computer. Believe me, once you’ve created a website (or any creative piece for that matter) using this planning strategy, you’ll never go back. Everything should be in place and you now have a roadmap to follow as you design graphics, text copy and the pages of your site.
Good luck and have fun!Was Shepard Fairey’s Obama posters officially endorsed by the Obama campaign or not?
A comparison showing Mannie Garcia’s photograph of Obama next to Shepard Fairey’s ‘Progress’ and ‘Hope’ posters.Imagine my surprise when I arrived home to find an article titled ‘Obama ‘Hope‘ poster‘s artist in legal dispute‘ on the front page of Yahoo!. After all, I’ve been calling for the mainstream media to examine the art and intentions of Shepard Fairey for months. Knowing Fairey’s history I was surprised that Barack Obama would choose an artist with a history of copyright infringement allegations to represent his campaign visually-- especially since Obama had by that time been praised as a ’Champion of the arts’.
I was also surprised that the visual art community-- most of whom do not agree with willful copyright infringement -- was for the most part silent on Obama’s choice of using Fairey‘s poster. I suppose making a stand was not a popular option. After all, those who did question the connection between Fairey and Obama were labeled “jealous”, “conservative”, “lazy”, “apathetic”, “right wing” or worse. Thus, the public ended up reading mainstream article after article praising Shepard Fairey with little to no balanced criticism of the copyright infringement allegations that have shadowed his art career or what his connection to the Obama campaign could symbolize in the eyes of those who strongly support copyright and artist rights. Now that the election is over people have time to reflect on these issues. The mainstream media did not take notice of copyright infringement allegations involving Shepard Fairey-- until recently. My guess is that eventually they will focus on Fairey’s connection to Obama’s historic campaign.
I don’t want to appear as if I’m a braggart, but I must say that on some level I expected the truth to be revealed at some point. In fact, I warned about it. In a Myartspace Blog article, titled ‘Obama’s Obedient Artist: Is Shepard Fairey a Farce? (Sept 21, 2008), I stated, “there is a message just under the surface of (Shepard Fairey‘s) ‘HOPE’ that should be examined before hype sways opinions.” concerning Fairey‘s media driven status and the copyright infringement allegations of his past. In the same article I mentioned that selective history-- as in the mainstream media not reporting in a balanced manner concerning Shepard Fairey‘s rise alongside the Obama campaign-- can build a career as long a people don't take notice of it.
I don’t want to appear as if I’m a braggart, but I must say that on some level I expected the truth to be revealed at some point. In fact, I warned about it. In a Myartspace Blog article, titled ‘Obama’s Obedient Artist: Is Shepard Fairey a Farce? (Sept 21, 2008), I stated, “there is a message just under the surface of (Shepard Fairey‘s) ‘HOPE’ that should be examined before hype sways opinions.” concerning Fairey‘s media driven status and the copyright infringement allegations of his past. In the same article I mentioned that selective history-- as in the mainstream media not reporting in a balanced manner concerning Shepard Fairey‘s rise alongside the Obama campaign-- can build a career as long a people don't take notice of it.
Oddly enough, in response to a blog comment I suggested that due to Shepard Fairey’s history of alleged copyright infringement it may turn out that Fairey’s Obama posters are not exactly original-- it looks like I was right. Obviously people are starting to take notice due to the Mannie Garcia / Associated Press (AP) controversy surrounding Shepard Fairey’s alleged copyright infringement of a photograph of Obama taken by Garcia while working for the AP. However, the issue over copyright is not the only thing that needs to be examined.
Upon clicking the Yahoo! News update I read the article-- officially titled ‘AP alleges copyright infringement of Obama image’-- I was not surprised to discover that it contradicted several articles involving statements from key individuals who were directly involved with the production, distribution, and promotion of Shepard Fairey’s ’Hope’ posters. Indeed, the selective history surrounding Shepard Fairey’s Obama posters is still ever-present. Needless to say, I think Shepard Fairey’s connection to the campaign in general needs to be examined further so that the visual history of this historic campaign is documented based on fact instead of hype or emotive reasoning. Thus, I feel that it is important to examine the article in order to help put the puzzle together.
Before I go further I must make the blunt of the Associated Press article clear. The author of the article, Hillel Italie (AP National Writer) states that the Associated Press (AP) owns the copyright of the Mannie Garcia photograph that Shepard Fairey used to create his Obama posters. The article touches on the fact that Shepard Fairey did not credit or compensate Garcia or the AP and claims that he worked within his rights based on fair use. Italie goes on to say that the AP desires to receive credit and compensation from Shepard Fairey. The article also states that the AP is discussing the continued use-- as in gallery exhibits-- and distribution of the poster with Fairey’s attorney. Needless to say, Shepard Fairey does not agree with the opinion of the Associated Press.
Now it is time to explore how the article contradicts statements by Shepard Fairey and others concerning the photograph, the Obama campaign, and if the poster was officially sanctioned by the campaign or not:
Upon clicking the Yahoo! News update I read the article-- officially titled ‘AP alleges copyright infringement of Obama image’-- I was not surprised to discover that it contradicted several articles involving statements from key individuals who were directly involved with the production, distribution, and promotion of Shepard Fairey’s ’Hope’ posters. Indeed, the selective history surrounding Shepard Fairey’s Obama posters is still ever-present. Needless to say, I think Shepard Fairey’s connection to the campaign in general needs to be examined further so that the visual history of this historic campaign is documented based on fact instead of hype or emotive reasoning. Thus, I feel that it is important to examine the article in order to help put the puzzle together.
Before I go further I must make the blunt of the Associated Press article clear. The author of the article, Hillel Italie (AP National Writer) states that the Associated Press (AP) owns the copyright of the Mannie Garcia photograph that Shepard Fairey used to create his Obama posters. The article touches on the fact that Shepard Fairey did not credit or compensate Garcia or the AP and claims that he worked within his rights based on fair use. Italie goes on to say that the AP desires to receive credit and compensation from Shepard Fairey. The article also states that the AP is discussing the continued use-- as in gallery exhibits-- and distribution of the poster with Fairey’s attorney. Needless to say, Shepard Fairey does not agree with the opinion of the Associated Press.
Now it is time to explore how the article contradicts statements by Shepard Fairey and others concerning the photograph, the Obama campaign, and if the poster was officially sanctioned by the campaign or not:
I found one section of the article to be of great interest concerning the connection that the Obama campaign had regarding the photograph and its use by Shepard Fairey. Italie states, “A former Obama campaign official said they were well aware of the image based on the picture taken by Garcia, a temporary hire no longer with the AP, but never licensed it or used it officially. The Obama official asked not to be identified because no one was authorized anymore to speak on behalf of the campaign.” Again, this is interesting because the opposite has been said elsewhere.
In a WIRED article titled ‘Obey’ Street Artist Churns Out ‘Hope’ for Obama (Sept 21, 2008) “Before going into production on his first Obama-inspired print, Fairey, a fan of the senator after seeing him speak in 2004, was careful to seek approval from the campaign. "I didn't want anything I did to be a liability or an unwanted endorsement," said Fairey. "We had the unofficial wink and nod to do an image."" The WIRED article then states, “After the success of the "Progress" print, Fairey says he was contacted by the Obama campaign to create an officially sanctioned poster in the same style -- only this time with a campaign-approved photo and slogan. The new artwork featured the now-famous "Hope" slogan.”. It just does not add up.
In a WIRED article titled ‘Obey’ Street Artist Churns Out ‘Hope’ for Obama (Sept 21, 2008) “Before going into production on his first Obama-inspired print, Fairey, a fan of the senator after seeing him speak in 2004, was careful to seek approval from the campaign. "I didn't want anything I did to be a liability or an unwanted endorsement," said Fairey. "We had the unofficial wink and nod to do an image."" The WIRED article then states, “After the success of the "Progress" print, Fairey says he was contacted by the Obama campaign to create an officially sanctioned poster in the same style -- only this time with a campaign-approved photo and slogan. The new artwork featured the now-famous "Hope" slogan.”. It just does not add up.
Anyone who has seen ‘Progress’ and ‘Hope’ side by side (See Image at Top) knows that the stencil portrait of Obama is the same-- which means that both posters are based on the copyright protected photograph of Obama according to the Associated Press -- so was the AP photograph the “campaign-approved“ photo or not? Did WIRED flub on reporting? Did Shepard Fairey lie to WIRED about ‘Hope’ being “officially sanctioned”? Are individuals involved with the Obama campaign telling the truth about how official or unofficial the poster was? Where is the truth-- how far should this be investigated to discover the truth? I suppose time will tell.
The contradictions don’t stop there. In the article Italie states, “Fairey has said that he first designed the image a year ago after he was encouraged by the Obama campaign to come up with some kind of artwork. Last spring, he showed a letter to The Washington Post that came from the candidate. "Dear Shepard," the letter reads. "I would like to thank you for using your talent in support of my campaign. The political messages involved in your work have encouraged Americans to believe they can help change the status quo. Your images have a profound effect on people, whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign."" Was Shepard Fairey encouraged by the Obama campaign or did he work directly with the Obama campaign? Some past articles may shed some truth…
An article published by LA WEEKLY, titled ‘Yosi Sergant and the Art of Change: The Publicist Behind Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope Posters (Sept 10,2008) claims that Yosi Sergant of Evolutionary Media Group (EMG) -- Sergant and EMG were working as media consultants for the Obama campaign at the time-- brought Shepard Fairey into the Obama campaign. The article states, “Sergant engaged Fairey in a discussion about the upcoming election. And when he found out that the artist was an Obama enthusiast, Sergant asked Fairey if he was doing anything to help the candidate get elected.” This info begs the question-- was Shepard Fairey simply encouraged by the Obama campaign or was he sought out by the Obama campaign as an addition to the campaign pr machine?
The contradictions don’t stop there. In the article Italie states, “Fairey has said that he first designed the image a year ago after he was encouraged by the Obama campaign to come up with some kind of artwork. Last spring, he showed a letter to The Washington Post that came from the candidate. "Dear Shepard," the letter reads. "I would like to thank you for using your talent in support of my campaign. The political messages involved in your work have encouraged Americans to believe they can help change the status quo. Your images have a profound effect on people, whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign."" Was Shepard Fairey encouraged by the Obama campaign or did he work directly with the Obama campaign? Some past articles may shed some truth…
An article published by LA WEEKLY, titled ‘Yosi Sergant and the Art of Change: The Publicist Behind Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope Posters (Sept 10,2008) claims that Yosi Sergant of Evolutionary Media Group (EMG) -- Sergant and EMG were working as media consultants for the Obama campaign at the time-- brought Shepard Fairey into the Obama campaign. The article states, “Sergant engaged Fairey in a discussion about the upcoming election. And when he found out that the artist was an Obama enthusiast, Sergant asked Fairey if he was doing anything to help the candidate get elected.” This info begs the question-- was Shepard Fairey simply encouraged by the Obama campaign or was he sought out by the Obama campaign as an addition to the campaign pr machine?
The article goes on to say, “The next day Fairey called, wondering if he thought the Obama camp would mind if he made a poster. Sergant immediately realized the power an iconic image by Fairey could have and decided that he and Evolutionary Media Group could be more effective if they worked outside the confines of the official Obama campaign and teamed up with Fairey instead.” It should be noted that Yosi Sergant and Evolutionary Media Group had worked six months as media consultants for the Obama campaign. Apparently they left the campaign ‘officially’ once Fairey came into the fold. However, they were obviously still working closely with the Obama campaign based on information that is provided by other articles pertaining to this story.
An article published by the New York Post, titled ‘Paint Misbehavin‘ In Team O‘S ‘Street Art‘, offer more information that suggests that Shepard Fairey, EMG, and the Obama campaign were still working closely together. The article states, “Fairey worked in such close coordination with campaign communications director Scott Goodstein that they discussed the color palette for Fairey's limited-edition Obama print. Within days of going up on Fairey's site, it sold out. Fairey produced two more versions, which also sold out and now fetch up to $1,300 on eBay.” This information is interesting to consider when in the same article Sergant is quoted as saying that he was never commissioned by the campaign to seek out street artists such as Shepard Fairey.
An article published by the New York Post, titled ‘Paint Misbehavin‘ In Team O‘S ‘Street Art‘, offer more information that suggests that Shepard Fairey, EMG, and the Obama campaign were still working closely together. The article states, “Fairey worked in such close coordination with campaign communications director Scott Goodstein that they discussed the color palette for Fairey's limited-edition Obama print. Within days of going up on Fairey's site, it sold out. Fairey produced two more versions, which also sold out and now fetch up to $1,300 on eBay.” This information is interesting to consider when in the same article Sergant is quoted as saying that he was never commissioned by the campaign to seek out street artists such as Shepard Fairey.
In fact, Yosi Sergant claims that the art by Fairey and other street artists was “purely user-generated."-- as in no involvement or guidance from the Obama campaign. The article quotes Yosi Sergant as stating that he never consulted with Scott Goodstein about programs that he worked on during his own time outside of the office. Again, the article quotes Sergant as saying, “The campaign was completely unaware of the art stuff.” I’m not sure who to believe! Are you?
In ‘Paint Misbehavin‘ In Team O‘S ‘Street Art‘’ Sergant states, “The campaign was completely unaware of the art stuff. I never worked out of the GO! [Generation Obama] offices." So which is it? Did the Obama campaign seek out Shepard Fairey? Did the Obama campaign put Yosi Sergant-- who was a media consultant for the campaign at the time-- in charge of recruiting street artists for a stealth pr campaign on the streets? Did Yosi Sergant act without the knowledge of the Obama campaign as he claims in the New York Post article? Or did Fairey contact the Obama campaign directly on his own accord? Which is it?
Oddly enough the article by Italie states, “At first, Obama's team just encouraged him to make an image, Fairey has said. But soon after he created it, a worker involved in the campaign asked if Fairey could make an image from a photo to which the campaign had rights.” Confused? Maybe the mainstream media will finally sort this story out. The public deserves it-- students reading the art history books of tomorrow deserve it. We deserve to know what exactly happened, who was involved, and how it was funded. Don’t we?
Individuals need to take responsibility for the confusion that has dominated this aspect of Obama’s historic campaign. Is the mainstream press at fault? Are former members of the Obama campaign at fault? Should Shepard Fairey take some responsibility? What about President Obama himself?
Links of Interest:
AP Alleges Copyright Infringement of Obama Image by Hillel Italie -- Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_en_ot/obama_poster
Paint Misbehavin’ in Team O’S ‘Street Art’ by Maureen Callahan -- New York Post
www.nypost.com/seven/04242008/news/nationalnews/paint_misbehavin_in_team_os_street_art_107876.htm?page=0
Yosi Sergant and the Art of Change: The Publicist Behind Shepard Fairey's Obama Hope Posters by Seven Mcdonald -- LA Weekly
www.laweekly.com/2008-09-11/columns/yosi-sergant-and-the-art-of-change-the-publicist-behind-shepard-fairey-39-s-obama-hope-posters/
‘Obey’ Street Artist Churns Out ‘Hope’ for Obama by Jenna Wortham -- WIRED Blog Network
http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/09/poster-boy-shep.html
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Art Space Talk: Michael Daks
Michael Daks is an English photographer recently returned to London after 15 years in NYC. His book of nudes JUST GOOD FRIENDS (photographs of his friends naked) is being published in 2009 by adelita. His portraits of Dennis Potter and Kenneth Branagh are in the National Portrait Gallery permanent collection. He has worked for the past 25 years as a fashion and portrait photographer in London, Milan, Paris and New York, with clients including The New York Times Magazine, The Tatler, Cosmopolitan, Esquire, VIBE, Blender, Levi's, SONY, Energie Jeans and The GAP. He is currently working on 'IN HINDSIGHT - A personal landscape' : A 30 year retrospective of his landscape photography. He also teaches a course in fashion and magazine photography at Southampton University, England.
IN HINDSIGHT: Coastal Pipeline by Michael Daks
Brian Sherwin: Michael, you studied at Wolverhampton University and Southport College of Art. Can you tell us about your academic background? Did you have any influential instructors or peers?
Michael Daks: Two significant things happened to me at Southport College of Art. I went there at sixteen, straight from school, and did a two year Foundation Course. Most of the other students were already eighteen, and my friend Pauline and I were by far the youngest. On my first day we had life drawing classes; when the model took off her gown, Pauline fainted, and I discovered my life long love of nudity.
Michael Daks: Two significant things happened to me at Southport College of Art. I went there at sixteen, straight from school, and did a two year Foundation Course. Most of the other students were already eighteen, and my friend Pauline and I were by far the youngest. On my first day we had life drawing classes; when the model took off her gown, Pauline fainted, and I discovered my life long love of nudity.
Then my friend Simon, who was already a very talented photographer, sold me his magic camera: A Yashica TL electro. He told me it was impossible to take a bad photo with this camera providing I only pressed the button when I saw something that was really amazing. It took me three months to finish my first roll of film, but I was hooked.
At Wolverhampton I studied Visual Communication, which is just a fancy way of saying Graphic Design, and then majored in Photography. One of my lecturer's, Michael Chalk, introduced me to French Vogue and the photographers Helmut Newton and Guy Bourdin, and that is how I became a fashion photographer.
At Wolverhampton I studied Visual Communication, which is just a fancy way of saying Graphic Design, and then majored in Photography. One of my lecturer's, Michael Chalk, introduced me to French Vogue and the photographers Helmut Newton and Guy Bourdin, and that is how I became a fashion photographer.
IN HINDSIGHT: Whitesands Stop! #2 by Michael Daks
BS: The photographs for your IN HINDSIGHT series, at least the ones that I observed, have a foreboding quality about them-- there appears to be a sense of danger within this collection of images. Does my perception serve me well? Tell us about this body of work and the themes you explore within it.
MD: 'IN HINDSIGHT - A personal landscape' is my current book project. It's a retrospective of my landscape photography from 1979 -2009. In my introduction I call it "An emotional response to the landscapes of my life."
The book begins in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, where I lived from 2000 until 2007. What struck me immediately about this neighborhood was how much it looked liked a movie set, particularly at night. A lot of movies are in fact shot there, hard boiled movies like Ridley Scott's 'American Gangster', and Scorsese's 'The Departed' were both filmed there shortly before I left (even though 'The Departed' was set in Boston - Scorsese is a New Yorker, and the Park Luncheonette is on the edge of McCarren Park in Greenpoint). There are also a lot of film studios in the area like Silver Cup so there are always productions going on, and a lot of TV shows like 'Third Watch' are also film in the 'hood.
I also lived there during 9/11, which I witnessed first hand and from way too close when I went to drop film off at my lab on 21st street. After witnessing the second plane strike I walked down to Washington Square Park in time to see the first tower collapse. I then walked home to Brooklyn over the Williamsburg Bridge with 50,000 very frightened people. It was so quiet. And there definitely was a sense of foreboding then, like the bridge would explode at any moment.
I sat on my roof for a few days watching the smoke blow across Manhattan and drank a lot of Guinness. But, I didn't take any pictures. It just didn't seem right at the time, at least not for me. Later, when I started to shoot the Greenpoint photo series, I was trying to record that element of danger and suspense; of something about to happen - How real life events had strayed into my movie set life.
The photographs that I took at The White Sands Missile Range Museum in New Mexico certainly had a definite intent: It was shortly after the invasion of Iraq, and seeing the US Army missiles pointing out over the desert sand was a dramatic reminder of recent events. I was trying to make a point about American Imperialism and war mongering. Not that the British are any better. And, we've certainly been doing it for longer.
BS: The photographs for your IN HINDSIGHT series, at least the ones that I observed, have a foreboding quality about them-- there appears to be a sense of danger within this collection of images. Does my perception serve me well? Tell us about this body of work and the themes you explore within it.
MD: 'IN HINDSIGHT - A personal landscape' is my current book project. It's a retrospective of my landscape photography from 1979 -2009. In my introduction I call it "An emotional response to the landscapes of my life."
The book begins in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, where I lived from 2000 until 2007. What struck me immediately about this neighborhood was how much it looked liked a movie set, particularly at night. A lot of movies are in fact shot there, hard boiled movies like Ridley Scott's 'American Gangster', and Scorsese's 'The Departed' were both filmed there shortly before I left (even though 'The Departed' was set in Boston - Scorsese is a New Yorker, and the Park Luncheonette is on the edge of McCarren Park in Greenpoint). There are also a lot of film studios in the area like Silver Cup so there are always productions going on, and a lot of TV shows like 'Third Watch' are also film in the 'hood.
I also lived there during 9/11, which I witnessed first hand and from way too close when I went to drop film off at my lab on 21st street. After witnessing the second plane strike I walked down to Washington Square Park in time to see the first tower collapse. I then walked home to Brooklyn over the Williamsburg Bridge with 50,000 very frightened people. It was so quiet. And there definitely was a sense of foreboding then, like the bridge would explode at any moment.
I sat on my roof for a few days watching the smoke blow across Manhattan and drank a lot of Guinness. But, I didn't take any pictures. It just didn't seem right at the time, at least not for me. Later, when I started to shoot the Greenpoint photo series, I was trying to record that element of danger and suspense; of something about to happen - How real life events had strayed into my movie set life.
The photographs that I took at The White Sands Missile Range Museum in New Mexico certainly had a definite intent: It was shortly after the invasion of Iraq, and seeing the US Army missiles pointing out over the desert sand was a dramatic reminder of recent events. I was trying to make a point about American Imperialism and war mongering. Not that the British are any better. And, we've certainly been doing it for longer.
IN HINDSIGHT: US Army Missile, White Sands NM. by Michael Daks
BS: With JUST GOOD FRIENDS it is my understanding that you had friends pose nude for you. When I view this body of images I sense an awkward distance between some of the models-- your friends-- and you-- the photographer. Did you strive to capture that sense of disconnection?
MD: I wasn't necessarily looking for a sense of disconnection, but obviously, when someone is naked in front of you, no matter how well you know them: the dynamic is changed. After 25 years of photographing strangers for a living I wanted to give my best friends, who mostly work outside the industry, an understanding of what it is like to be photographed by a professional fashion photographer, and hopefully make them look beautiful in the process (because that is the way I feel about them). I just thought it would be more interesting both visually and psychologically if they were naked. (We have already established my obsession with the nude).
BS: With JUST GOOD FRIENDS it is my understanding that you had friends pose nude for you. When I view this body of images I sense an awkward distance between some of the models-- your friends-- and you-- the photographer. Did you strive to capture that sense of disconnection?
MD: I wasn't necessarily looking for a sense of disconnection, but obviously, when someone is naked in front of you, no matter how well you know them: the dynamic is changed. After 25 years of photographing strangers for a living I wanted to give my best friends, who mostly work outside the industry, an understanding of what it is like to be photographed by a professional fashion photographer, and hopefully make them look beautiful in the process (because that is the way I feel about them). I just thought it would be more interesting both visually and psychologically if they were naked. (We have already established my obsession with the nude).
This is my introduction to the book, which I think explains my thought processes quite well.
"Since Eve first took a bite from the apple, nudity in art has been a recurring theme. What is our fascination? Is it the beauty of the human form, or merely titillation? Almost every great artist has at some point put pencil to paper, chisel to stone, or a finger to the button. All in search, perhaps, for the perfect nude.
This project began with a muse. My friend Tara Stiles, a dancer, writer, and yoga guru, who agreed to work with me on a series of nudes; we called them “play dates”, just the two of us, a camera, some lights, and a bottle of scotch. Eventually, it occurred to me that it might be interesting, both visually and psychologically, to photograph all my friends naked.
Some were more easily persuaded than others, of course, but they generally succumbed to my persistent English charm. Trust is obviously a prime factor, as is feeling comfortable, so I built a small studio in my apartment, dyeing canvas drop sheets for the backgrounds. For variety, I sometimes took pictures in their apartments, or at a friend’s house in the Hamptons.
I think that being naked in front of others can be very liberating, after the initial embarrassment wears off. The day after a shoot in the Hamptons my friend Callaghan suggested that we all play Tennis ‘au naturale’: Very Bohemian.
Some of my friends have said that they feel a lot closer to me now that I have seen them naked. Others have even brought their friends over to enjoy the experience. My friend Leah jokingly said, “ Michael, it’s taken three years, but you finally have me naked in your apartment.” A friend, who she had invited over, then stood up, took off her dress, and said, “Yes, Michael, but with me, it only took thirty minutes.”
So here they are, my friends naked.
I wonder what Freud would say?"
JUST GOOD FRIENDS: On The Deck by Michael Daks
BS: Can you tell us about your influences? For example, are you influenced by any specific artists, world events, or movements in art?
MD: As previously mentioned Helmut Newton and Guy Bourdin were early influences, and then Irving Penn, David Bailey, Deborah Turbeville, Sam Haskins, and Peter Lindbergh. Those would be my main influences in terms of fashion photographers, but for my nude, portrait and landscape work I would have to cite Nadav Kander, Jock Sturges, Araki, Albert Watson, Julia Margaret Cameron, and my new favorite Frantisek Drtikol.
BS: Can you tell us about your influences? For example, are you influenced by any specific artists, world events, or movements in art?
MD: As previously mentioned Helmut Newton and Guy Bourdin were early influences, and then Irving Penn, David Bailey, Deborah Turbeville, Sam Haskins, and Peter Lindbergh. Those would be my main influences in terms of fashion photographers, but for my nude, portrait and landscape work I would have to cite Nadav Kander, Jock Sturges, Araki, Albert Watson, Julia Margaret Cameron, and my new favorite Frantisek Drtikol.
These are all photographers, but I have also been influenced by painters and sculptors. I love Rodin and Modigliani for example, and of course Henry Moore, Giacometti, Matisse and Egon Schiele. And movie directors like Jean-Pierre Melville, Wong Kar Wai, and of course Hitchcock.
JUST GOOD FRIENDS: Eddie Stretching by Michael Daks
BS: What can you tell us about your process in general? Give us some insight into how you work; at what point do you know that a specific idea could easily become a series?
MD: I tend to pre-visualize images in my head, and then try to recreate them with my camera. I do a lot of sketches, and write ideas down in my notebooks, but when I actually shoot the photos I don't refer to them at all, but trust that my instincts will take over, and that normally works. The image in my head generally has an imaginary focal length that doesn't seem to exist in the real world. But, I do the best I can.
BS: What can you tell us about your process in general? Give us some insight into how you work; at what point do you know that a specific idea could easily become a series?
MD: I tend to pre-visualize images in my head, and then try to recreate them with my camera. I do a lot of sketches, and write ideas down in my notebooks, but when I actually shoot the photos I don't refer to them at all, but trust that my instincts will take over, and that normally works. The image in my head generally has an imaginary focal length that doesn't seem to exist in the real world. But, I do the best I can.
I am old school, in that I still like to shoot on film, certainly for my personal projects, I then scan the negs at the highest possible dpi, and then do a bit of dodging and burning in photo shop. I still find this a sad turn of events, as I loved to go into the darkroom and print, but my favorite papers are no longer available, and since moving back to London, I no longer have access to a darkroom.
However, it is much easier to do an edition from a digital file and still keep the image consistent, and you can print much bigger and still keep everything looking sharp. Except for portraits, I like to think in terms of a series, probably from watching too many movies, and shooting a lot of eight or ten page fashion spreads.
For IN HINDSIGHT I am currently re-visiting a lot of the places where I used to live, and photographing them now to see how they have changed over the years and how I feel about that. I think it will be interesting to see how these photographs match up to the photographs that I took 20 or 30 years ago when I actually did live in these places.
JUST GOOD FRIENDS: Ashley in her bed by Michael Daks
BS: I understand that you have worked as a fashion and portrait photographer for over 25 years. Your clients have included The New York Times magazine, Cosmopolitan, GAP, Levi's, VIBE, SONY, among others. In other words, you know the business-side of photography. How has that experience helped you as an artist as far as marketing your work?
MD: The world of magazines and advertising is as much about marketing and networking as it is about talent - much like the Art World I am sure. I am lucky in that through my connections I can usually get my work published and hopefully seen by the right people.
The London Sunday Times magazine just did a feature on my book of nudes last weekend (Jan 18th) and the book isn't even due out until November. I have already had a lot of very positive feedback from that, and a few print sales. I am also being featured in the launch issue of xxxxmagazine.com, a new online art and culture magazine that will be on the net in February/March. They are featuring my nudes and my landscape work, combined with music from my friend’s band The Dokteurs, so I am very excited about that.
BS: I understand that you have worked as a fashion and portrait photographer for over 25 years. Your clients have included The New York Times magazine, Cosmopolitan, GAP, Levi's, VIBE, SONY, among others. In other words, you know the business-side of photography. How has that experience helped you as an artist as far as marketing your work?
MD: The world of magazines and advertising is as much about marketing and networking as it is about talent - much like the Art World I am sure. I am lucky in that through my connections I can usually get my work published and hopefully seen by the right people.
The London Sunday Times magazine just did a feature on my book of nudes last weekend (Jan 18th) and the book isn't even due out until November. I have already had a lot of very positive feedback from that, and a few print sales. I am also being featured in the launch issue of xxxxmagazine.com, a new online art and culture magazine that will be on the net in February/March. They are featuring my nudes and my landscape work, combined with music from my friend’s band The Dokteurs, so I am very excited about that.
I am also planning a publicity blitz for when the book is available, and have already spoken to a lot of art editors and art directors about giving the book some good exposure. Art on the Underground has also been in touch about showcasing my work on the London Underground. Although I am not sure how much nudity I can get away with on the tube (subway).
IN HINDSIGHT: Banker ST. (B&W) by Michael Daks
BS: Your work can be found in the permanent collection at the National Portrait Gallery (London) and in private and corporate collections throughout the world. In your opinion, what attracts collectors to your photography?
MD: I am certainly not as well known in the Art world as I am in the commercial world, so hopefully it is the strength of the images that attracts my collectors. Obviously, there is a market for nudes, so that is advantageous, but it is also quite a saturated market, so the work has to stand out.
BS: Your work can be found in the permanent collection at the National Portrait Gallery (London) and in private and corporate collections throughout the world. In your opinion, what attracts collectors to your photography?
MD: I am certainly not as well known in the Art world as I am in the commercial world, so hopefully it is the strength of the images that attracts my collectors. Obviously, there is a market for nudes, so that is advantageous, but it is also quite a saturated market, so the work has to stand out.
The landscape work is very new in terms of public exposure, so I have only really sold prints to people who already know my work, but I have been getting a lot of interest recently now that some of it is out on the net.
BS: Speaking of collectors and collections-- will you be involved with any upcoming exhibits?
MD: I am currently talking to a London gallery about an exhibition in conjunction with the publication of the nude book JUST GOOD FRIENDS, and I also have a friend in Paris who is interested in showing the landscape work. I will be publishing the details once they are finalized.
BS: Speaking of collectors and collections-- will you be involved with any upcoming exhibits?
MD: I am currently talking to a London gallery about an exhibition in conjunction with the publication of the nude book JUST GOOD FRIENDS, and I also have a friend in Paris who is interested in showing the landscape work. I will be publishing the details once they are finalized.
IN HINDSIGHT: "NAM" by Michael Daks
BS: Do you have any concerns about the art world at this time? There has been a lot of debate recently about copyright and the rights of artists. For example, orphan works legislation is bound to return eventually-- as a photographer are you concerned about the current form of the legislation? Do you have an opinion on issues such as that?
MD: Yes, I am very concerned about our rights as Artists and photographers. It is difficult enough making a living as an artist as it is, without your work being used without recompense. I have sued for breach of copyright several times in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. I have had several images copied, or used in advertising campaigns without any acknowledgement or payment; basically stolen. I am also interested in the outcome of the case between Richard Prince and Patrick Cariou, which could have huge repercussions.
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?
MD: Saatchi gallery online springs to mind. The Sunday Times magazine first saw my nudes there, and my friend Michael Callaghan got his first London show from his paintings appearing on that site. It's obviously the way of the future in terms of worldwide exposure and accessibility, although it is probably a better fit for photography than for painting and Sculpture, due to the lack of scale or a sense of texture.
IN HINDSIGHT: A Room with a View by Michael Daks
BS: Do you have any advice for photographers who are just starting out? Any words of wisdom, so to speak?
MD: Trust your instincts, find your own style, be persistent, and as my old friend Simon would say. " Don't press the button until you see something really amazing!"
BS: Do you have any concerns about the art world at this time? There has been a lot of debate recently about copyright and the rights of artists. For example, orphan works legislation is bound to return eventually-- as a photographer are you concerned about the current form of the legislation? Do you have an opinion on issues such as that?
MD: Yes, I am very concerned about our rights as Artists and photographers. It is difficult enough making a living as an artist as it is, without your work being used without recompense. I have sued for breach of copyright several times in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. I have had several images copied, or used in advertising campaigns without any acknowledgement or payment; basically stolen. I am also interested in the outcome of the case between Richard Prince and Patrick Cariou, which could have huge repercussions.
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?
MD: Saatchi gallery online springs to mind. The Sunday Times magazine first saw my nudes there, and my friend Michael Callaghan got his first London show from his paintings appearing on that site. It's obviously the way of the future in terms of worldwide exposure and accessibility, although it is probably a better fit for photography than for painting and Sculpture, due to the lack of scale or a sense of texture.
IN HINDSIGHT: A Room with a View by Michael DaksBS: Do you have any advice for photographers who are just starting out? Any words of wisdom, so to speak?
MD: Trust your instincts, find your own style, be persistent, and as my old friend Simon would say. " Don't press the button until you see something really amazing!"
BS: Finally, is there anything else you would like to say about your art or the goals that you have?
MD: I think it is quite difficult to be taken seriously as an artist after a career as a fashion photographer, but in my opinion some of the best 'Art' photographers were once fashion photographers, or still are. Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, and Helmut Newton for example. Edward Steichen used to shoot for Vogue, and more recently Tierney Gearon who just had a brilliant show at Phillips de Pury in London. She was a model and then a fashion photographer.
Things are improving, but I would like to see the Art world really wake up to the fact that commercial photographers make an important contribution to our culture and archive of imagery. Where would modern art be without Warhol? And he was a commercial illustrator.
I am now planning to shoot a book of portraits on my great grandfather's half plate camera - A Thornton Pickard Ruby Camera from 1907. He used it to photograph Buffalo Bill's Wild West show when it traveled to the North of England. I still have an unopened box of Kodak glass plates, but I have adapted some of the plate holders to take 4x5 film.
You can learn more about Michael Daks by visiting his myartspace.com profile-- www.myartspace.com/michaeldaks. Michael Daks is a seller on the New York Art Exchange-- www.nyaxe.com/michaeldaks. 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
New York Art Exchange
London Calling
Monday, February 02, 2009
Art Space Talk: Cleon Peterson
Cleon Peterson is an LA-based painter and graphic artist. Peterson’s paintings depict a world in chaos-- characters in the paintings are shown committing random acts of violence within environments where riots appear to be the rule of law. These clashing figures symbolize a struggle between power and submission and reflect aspects of social frustration that can be found just under the surface of contemporary society. In his paintings the brutality is raw-- no actions are concealed and there is no fine line between winners and losers. Cleon took some time from his schedule to answer a few questions for the Myartspace Blog.
The Occupation by Cleon Peterson
Brian Sherwin: Cleon, you are an LA based graphic artist and painter. In many ways Los Angeles informs you work, correct? Can you discuss the influence that living in LA-- being a part of the scene-- has had on you?
Cleon Peterson: I'd agree that LA informs my work, but more so its the city and the things that happen in dense environments where people are jammed together and having to deal with each other. Every city I've lived in has had these pockets of mayhem where people are acting out desperation in a primal ways.
I've actually never really thought of myself being involved in a scene. To me the word "scene" implies hanging out in a group that encourages assimilation. I'd say that the small group of friends, artists, and gallery owners I hang out with are really inclusive and open to difference but we all inspire and encourage each-other.
Cleon Peterson
BS: What about other influences? Are you influenced by any specific artists or events? If so, how are those influences reflected in your art?
CP: Right now my brother Leigh Ledare and I are doing a lot of talking. He's a constant source of inspiration to me. He's an artist as well and has been photographing my family for years. We talk about art, life, narrative, how things fall apart and come back together again and a lot of other things. Its really interesting to share the same history with another person and realize that you see the world and process the world in an entirely different light. So we are both making work about our experiences, but the work is very different.
BS: You are predominately self-taught, correct? I did read that you studied at the Art Center and Cranbrook after years of developing your style. How did your education impact your work? Did it?
CP: I don't think I’d claim that I was self-taught. My grandfather was a poet and my mother was a dancer. My mother exposed me to a lot of art and film when I was a kid and I painted and drew all the time. I dropped out of high school when I was 15 and went to a few art colleges early on, but never finished. When I decided to go back to school I went back to study Design.
My undergraduate experience at Art Center was very formal. My graduate schooling at Cranbrook was much more challenging and exciting. The program is run by Elliott Earls-- an excellent debater. Our job as students was to put all the work into critical crisis exposing all the aesthetic and conceptual holes. We'd go back and forth for hours dissecting the most minute details in our art and writing.
The schooling introduced me to a lot of new ideas and got me reading philosophy, sociology, and psychology. I think the education was just a continuation in gaining knowledge and exposure.
Cleon Peterson
Cleon Peterson
BS: In your opinion, how can art… be it on the street or in a gallery… make an impact? Why is it important to make statements visually for the public?
CP: I don't consider myself an instrumentalist or have any desire to work in that mode. I'm just interested in making my work and leave the response to the viewer.
BS: Do you have any other concerns about the art world at this time-- or specific challenges facing the art community as a whole?
CP: The art world is mature and can take care of itself. It definitely doesn't need my policing. All I can concentrate on is doing what's in front of me today.
BS: Do you have any advice for young artists who are just starting out?
CP: No, I try not to give advice. Let them figure it out and I’m sure they'll come up with something we couldn't have anticipated.
The Occupation by Cleon PetersonBrian Sherwin: Cleon, you are an LA based graphic artist and painter. In many ways Los Angeles informs you work, correct? Can you discuss the influence that living in LA-- being a part of the scene-- has had on you?
Cleon Peterson: I'd agree that LA informs my work, but more so its the city and the things that happen in dense environments where people are jammed together and having to deal with each other. Every city I've lived in has had these pockets of mayhem where people are acting out desperation in a primal ways.
I've actually never really thought of myself being involved in a scene. To me the word "scene" implies hanging out in a group that encourages assimilation. I'd say that the small group of friends, artists, and gallery owners I hang out with are really inclusive and open to difference but we all inspire and encourage each-other.
Cleon PetersonBS: What about other influences? Are you influenced by any specific artists or events? If so, how are those influences reflected in your art?
CP: Right now my brother Leigh Ledare and I are doing a lot of talking. He's a constant source of inspiration to me. He's an artist as well and has been photographing my family for years. We talk about art, life, narrative, how things fall apart and come back together again and a lot of other things. Its really interesting to share the same history with another person and realize that you see the world and process the world in an entirely different light. So we are both making work about our experiences, but the work is very different.
BS: You are predominately self-taught, correct? I did read that you studied at the Art Center and Cranbrook after years of developing your style. How did your education impact your work? Did it?
CP: I don't think I’d claim that I was self-taught. My grandfather was a poet and my mother was a dancer. My mother exposed me to a lot of art and film when I was a kid and I painted and drew all the time. I dropped out of high school when I was 15 and went to a few art colleges early on, but never finished. When I decided to go back to school I went back to study Design.
My undergraduate experience at Art Center was very formal. My graduate schooling at Cranbrook was much more challenging and exciting. The program is run by Elliott Earls-- an excellent debater. Our job as students was to put all the work into critical crisis exposing all the aesthetic and conceptual holes. We'd go back and forth for hours dissecting the most minute details in our art and writing.
The schooling introduced me to a lot of new ideas and got me reading philosophy, sociology, and psychology. I think the education was just a continuation in gaining knowledge and exposure.
Cleon PetersonBS: Can you go into further detail about the social implications of your art? When you create personal works what is the message that you strive to convey? Does a specific message dominate your visual language, so to speak?
CP: I feel that everyone views the world through the lens of there past experiences. That being said I've lived a life that has been full of exchanges like the ones you see in my work. I see today’s world as a place where everyone has reverted back to their state of nature doing whatever it takes to get theirs. I think that this perspective resonates with people today in our current economic and political times.
My paintings are a bit dystopian and I'm adamant about not pushing an agenda or trying to get people to read the work in any way. In a sense, the paintings function as a source of dialogue and have an open read. There is also a real comedy in the work. Everything is at the boiling point and absurd. I think there is a place for cynicism and a nihilism in today’s culture and I think that the idea of Hollywood happy endings and the social pressure to be blindly optimistic are a bit disingenuous and hard to stomach today.
BS: Tell us about some of your recent work…
CP: Lately I've been painting larger pieces and have been moving more towards the urban environment and interiors.
BS: You have been involved with several exhibitions, including exhibits at New Image Art in Los Angeles and Deitch Projects in New York. As an artist, what do you enjoy about exhibiting-- about putting your work before the public in a space such as a gallery?
CP: I suppose I enjoy getting peoples unbiased reactions to the work. When you put art out into the world you can’t hide. I enjoy exhibiting because the response from strangers is very informative.
CP: I feel that everyone views the world through the lens of there past experiences. That being said I've lived a life that has been full of exchanges like the ones you see in my work. I see today’s world as a place where everyone has reverted back to their state of nature doing whatever it takes to get theirs. I think that this perspective resonates with people today in our current economic and political times.
My paintings are a bit dystopian and I'm adamant about not pushing an agenda or trying to get people to read the work in any way. In a sense, the paintings function as a source of dialogue and have an open read. There is also a real comedy in the work. Everything is at the boiling point and absurd. I think there is a place for cynicism and a nihilism in today’s culture and I think that the idea of Hollywood happy endings and the social pressure to be blindly optimistic are a bit disingenuous and hard to stomach today.
BS: Tell us about some of your recent work…
CP: Lately I've been painting larger pieces and have been moving more towards the urban environment and interiors.
BS: You have been involved with several exhibitions, including exhibits at New Image Art in Los Angeles and Deitch Projects in New York. As an artist, what do you enjoy about exhibiting-- about putting your work before the public in a space such as a gallery?
CP: I suppose I enjoy getting peoples unbiased reactions to the work. When you put art out into the world you can’t hide. I enjoy exhibiting because the response from strangers is very informative.
Cleon PetersonBS: In your opinion, how can art… be it on the street or in a gallery… make an impact? Why is it important to make statements visually for the public?
CP: I don't consider myself an instrumentalist or have any desire to work in that mode. I'm just interested in making my work and leave the response to the viewer.
BS: Do you have any other concerns about the art world at this time-- or specific challenges facing the art community as a whole?
CP: The art world is mature and can take care of itself. It definitely doesn't need my policing. All I can concentrate on is doing what's in front of me today.
BS: Do you have any advice for young artists who are just starting out?
CP: No, I try not to give advice. Let them figure it out and I’m sure they'll come up with something we couldn't have anticipated.
You can learn more about Cleon Peterson by visiting his website--www.cleonpeterson.com. 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
New York Art exchange
London Calling
Jamie O'Shea Obeys Shepard Fairey by Taking Jabs at Mark Vallen
A commenter tipped me off about an article concerning Shepard Fairey, copyright infringement, appropriation and Mark Vallen’s 2007 critique of Fairey’s art. The article, titled 'The Medium is the Message: Shepard Fairey and the Art of Appropriation', was posted on Supertouch by J O’Shea-- Jamie O'Shea for those who don't know. The article by O'Shea is critical of Vallen's criticism concerning Shepard Fairey.
Before I go any further I want to make it clear that I do not agree with every view that Mark Vallen has concerning Shepard Fairey-- or art for that matter. However, it makes since that Jamie O’Shea, the editor of Super Touch, would support Shepard Fairey considering that Shepard Fairey is listed as an author on SuperTouch. It should also be noted that Jamie O’Shea has followed Fairey’s career extensively-- and has also curated and co-curated art exhibits involving the artist.
One could say that Jamie O'Shea and Shepard Fairey are business associates. In other words, Jamie O’Shea has a vested interest in making sure that Shepard Fairey is seen in a positive light. Articles by J O’Shea concerning positive aspects of Fairey’s career can be found on several websites if you do a search of ‘O’Shea Fairey’ on Google. Apparently Jamie O’Shea, who served ten years as the editor-in-chief of Juxtapoz, is now a creative director serving as a corporate liaison in order to connect artists with corporate culture-- and collections. There is nothing wrong with that-- but again, I’m certain that Mr. O’Shea has a vested interest in Mr. Fairey.
Jamie O'Shea's critical view of Mark Vallen’s critique is not exactly balanced nor is it a surprise. In fact, his support for Fairey is similar to the support Yosi Sergant-- of Evolutionary Media Group-- has shown to the artist. It should be noted that Yosi Sergant also has a vested interest in the success of Shepard Fairey. Thus, it makes since that both O'Shea and Sergant have spoke out against criticism of Shepard Fairey.
Allow me to break down what was said in the blunt of Jamie O‘Shea‘s article titled 'The Medium is the Message: Shepard Fairey and the Art of Appropriation':
Jamie O’Shea started his criticism of Mark Vallen’s article-- titled Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey: A critique by artist Mark Vallen-- by stating, “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.”.
O’Shea goes on to say, “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.”. Based on O'Shea's usage of words one can only assume that he is hoping to strengthen the idea that only "jealous" individiuals criticize Shepard Fairey or any successful artist for that matter-- words and phrases that Fairey himself has used in describing individuals who are critical of his art and practice.
In essence O'Shea's article is an attempt at damage control-- he is aware that people are starting to do research about the copyright allegations surrounding Shepard Fairey's career. It is obvious that O'Shea is nervous about what people may find online during their research. Needless to say, the article by Jamie O’Shea comes off as nothing more than damage control given the fact that so many individuals have been researching allegations of copyright infringement against Shepard Fairey due to his use of Mannie Garcia’s photograph of Obama. Fairey failed to acknowledge or compensate the photographer-- which has stirred a controversy surrounding the ethics of Shepard Fairey's artistic practice.
In the article O’Shea claims that a “widespread and baseless internet campaign to smear Shepard Fairey has been going on for some time now“. In other words, O’Shea suggests that mass criticism of Shepard Fairey is nothing more than a smear campaign against the artist. O’Shea suggests that the alleged smear campaign against Shepard Fairey is based on Mark Vallen’s article as a primary source-- as if there were no detractors of Shepard Fairey’s art and questions of copyright infringement surrounding his career before Vallen’s article was published online.
That suggestion is obviously not grounded in facts considering that art historian Lincoln Cushing had exposed Shepard Fairey for copyright infringement before Vallen‘s article was published-- it was not the first time that Fairey had been exposed for questionable or unethical practices concerning his art. Thus, in my opinion O’Shea’s words are spurred by his own paranoia-- O'Shea can see the castle that he, Fairey, and others have built crumbling if public opinion starts to question the ethics and allegations concerning Fairey’s art. Thus, the article-- based on the implications for O’Shea writing it in the first place (read his introduction)-- is a ploy designed to gain support for Shepard Fairey during a crucial time in his career.
Of Mark Vallen’s article Jamie O’Shea stated, “If this writing were simply a balanced, albeit negative critique, or even an educated “gotcha” piece no one would care, but the article in question is an unabashed and well-disseminated character-assassination attempt, one we thought was finally worthy of our attention here on the pages of Supertouch given Shepard’s recent, and metorical rise to public prominence.”. In my opinion the Vallen article is a “gotcha” piece. Vallen may be harsh in his criticism of Fairey-- I personally don't agree with everything Vallen said--, but who ever said that criticism need be polite? Surely Shepard Fairey can agree with that.
It is not like Mark Vallen was the only person critical of Shepard Fairey in the first place. After all, Mark Vallen worked closely on the article with Lincoln Cushing -- the art historian who discovered Shepard Fairey’s infringement of a Rene Mederos poster in 2007. The infringing image by Shepard Fairey, titled ‘Cuban Rider’, was sold as a shirt in Fairey’s OBEY clothing line. A representative of Shepard Fairey acknowledged the copyright infringement and the shirt involving the image was soon after pulled from production.
One could say that the issue over Rene Mederos is what spurred Mark Vallen to write his critique of Shepard Fairey in the first place. With that in mind, does it seem that the criticism of Shepard Fairey is "baseless"? “Gotcha”, indeed. Oddly enough, Lincoln Cushing's discovery is not mentioned in the O'Shea article nor does the article mention that 'Cuban Rider' was pulled from production for copyright infringement. O'Shea mentions Lincoln Cushing, but does not state why he was involved with the Vallen article to begin with. Why leave out that critical information? I suppose O'Shea will have to answer to that.
Jamie O’Shea continues his criticism of Mark Vallen critique by stating, “The way Vallen tells it, Shepard has based his 20-year art career solely around cashing in on the work of other people. Yet the images that Vallen uses to support this claim are almost all examples of Shepard’s street art from the formative stages of his career (1990s and early 2000s),” What Jamie O’Shea fails to note is that Mark Vallen pointed out that some of the images that Fairey has used do fall under fair use due to the date of the original images.
Vallen makes it clear that some of the images that have served as the origin of Shepard Fairey's art are no longer protected by copyright while others never were in the first place-- anyone can use them. Thus, anyone can make derivative works based on them-- not just Shepard Fairey. In those examples Vallen suggests that it is not ethical for Shepard Fairey (or anyone else for that matter) to claim those specific images as his (their) own. In defense of Vallen I must say that a lot of people agree with his position. However, works that are no longer protected by copyright are indeed fair game, so to speak.
Vallen’s main complaint is that Fairey conceals the history of these images while claiming them as his own (more on that later). However, Vallen also targets images that Fairey created in 2005, 2006, and 2007 that have origins in works that are still protected by copyright. Images that do not exactly fall under fair use as far as parody or social comment is concerned because they are not widely known in the first place. You don’t have to take my word for it-- out of ten art law professionals I’ve spoken with about specific copyright allegations involving Shepard Fairey seven have agreed that Fairey went beyond the line of fair use with some aspects of his appropriation. (A few of those professionals are currently writing about this issue and will allow me to publish their research on the Myartspace Blog. Both sides of the debate will be acknowledged.)
Jamie O’Shea then states that the art from the “formative stages“ of Shepard Fairey‘s career were, “sold only in editions of 100 or 200 at $20 or $25 a pop at the time. Considering that hundreds, maybe thousands of those same posters were pasted up on the street at Fairey’s personal expense, it’s certain the artist never saw a dime of profit from all that printing and in most cases probably failed to even recoup costs.” All I can say to that is that profit is profit no matter how you try to slice the pie. Surely someone who claims to know so much about copyright as Mr. O’Shea would understand that it does not matter how the profit is used as far as copyright infringement is concerned. Profit is profit.
It does not matter if Fairey put all of the profit into printing more images nor does it matter, in recent times, if he donated the profit to political or social causes. Profit is profit where copyright infringement is concerned. In court the emotive reasoning for the decision to infringe is cast aside. In other words, in court you can't always get away with murder even if the person was killed for the greater good nor can you always get away with infringement even if it happened for the greater good. Vallen's concern is that Shepard Fairey is placing a price tag on history and that he is 'murdering' the intentions that people involved with the original art had.
I want to be clear about something. I'm not trying to take away from the good that Shepard Fairey has done. He has done great things for some wonderful causes. However, in my opinion the good that Fairey has done-- the causes, people, and animals that he has helped-- should not be used as a shied to ward off allegations of copyright infringement. Unfortunately, Fairey (in his interview with Mother Jones)-- and now O'Shea-- have done just that. In other words, they have tried to create a distraction concerning questions about copyright infringement by implying that critics are somehow against the causes that Fairey has supported. That is simply not the case-- it is petty for them to try and make monsters out of individuals who are critical of Shepard Fairey's practice. After all, just because someone is critical of Fairey's art does not mean that he or she is critical of the causes that Fairey has stood for. If Shepard Fairey feels that criticism of his art implies criticism of causes he has stood for he must truly be arrogant.
Jamie O’Shea then states, “Furthermore, none of Vallen’s reference points come from the art that Shepard has sold in recent years for substantial profit. It can’t be said whether Vallen tried but couldn’t find any clearly plagiarized imagery in that work, or simply didn’t bother to look, but his claims about cash cows simply do not add up, especially since Shepard didn’t have a single solo gallery show for the first 10 years of his career”. To that I say-- it seems to me that the Hope poster-- which has earned between $400,000 and $800,000 from what I’ve read-- was a “cash cow” even if the profit was donated or used to print more posters-- again, profit is profit no matter how you try to slice the pie.
On a side note: I find it odd that O’Shea forgot to mention the allegations of copyright infringement involving the Hope poster and a photograph taken by photographer Mannie Garcia. After all, O'Shea posted his article today and people have been discussing the Garcia image for over a week. If anything, the alleged infringement of the Mannie Garcia photograph supports Vallen’s claims of Shepard Fairey's ongoing practice of copyright infringement-- which I assume is why O’Shea left that information out of his article.
Jamie O’Shea then attacks the heart of Vallen’s criticism by stating, “In his piece, Vallen defines plagiarism as “the deliberate passing off of someone else’s work as your own,” and claims that the difference between Fairey and Lichtenstein is that the latter never laid claim to Mickey Mouse, while Shepard tries to deceitfully sneak his appropriations past viewers in broad daylight. Of course, that couldn’t be further from the truth (the Shepard part, that is). If Vallen had bothered to open “Supply and Demand,” Shepard’s career retrospective book released more than a year and a half before Vallen published his article on his site, he would have seen many of Fairey’s images reproduced side-by-side with the originals that were appropriated or referenced.”. O'Shea does not understand that just because the images are in a book that has been distributed all over the world does not mean that the 'referenced' images are known the world over.
O’Shea then states, “Clearly there’s no basis to Vallen’s claim that Shepard “filches artworks and hopes no one notices,” when the artist himself is publishing evidence of his appropriation—with accompanying text explaining his process and rationale—and distributing it openly around the world.” There is only one problem with O‘Shea‘s viewpoint-- how many people are going to pay $59.95 to find out who Fairey appropriated from?
Under fair use the general public should know this information off hand from their collective knowledge of contemporary society. In other words, they should know without having to buy a book in order to know. The public should be able to look at ‘Cuban Rider’ and say, “Fairey is commenting on the Rene Mederos poster!”. Unfortunately, Shepard Fairey has failed on that crucial aspect of fair use-- which is why it seems that he attempts to pass works by others off as his own. In that sense, Supply and Demand and the current limited edition of the book is nothing more than a way for Shepard Fairey to defend his work by saying, “See, I made everything clear in this book!” while slapping a price tag upon said knowledge. That is exactly what Mark Vallen's critique of Shepard Fairey is about.
Concerning fair use Vallen’s point is that the character Mickey Mouse is in itself iconic. Mickey Mouse is a household name-- everyone knows Mickey. Thus, one can easily make a parody or social comment about the beloved mouse knowing that people will know exactly what is being parodied or commented on under fair use. The same goes for much of Warhol’s work because he used images that the general public was aware of. You could say that Mickey Mouse and specific brands of soup are in our collective conscious-- we don't have to buy a $59.95 book in order to make the connection when those images are used in art.
That said, using aspects of a photograph or artwork that is not well-known does not exactly fall under fair use as far as parody or social comment is concerned because people will not know-- unless they research the image (in this case buy the book)-- what is being parodied or commented on. Again, when people look at the Hope poster they did not say, “Shepard Fairey has made a comment about Mannie Garcia’s photograph of Obama.”-- even Fairey claimed that he did not know who the photographer was. Oddly enough, a gallery representing Fairey acknowledged to Garcia that indeed the image Fairey had used for Hope was his photograph.
Jamie O’Shea goes on about the issue-- stating, “Overall, the concept of using reference images in the context of modern art seems to have eluded Vallen completely in regards to Fairey’s art. When he claims that Shepard strips away historical meaning and context in his artworks, he’s missing the entire point of referencing: By taking precisely the elements of an image that speak of its historical meaning and original context and incorporating them into a new image, an artist creates a visual comparison, juxtaposing new and old.” It seems to me that Jamie O’Shea is missing the heart of Mark Vallen’s criticism. Viewers are obviously not making a connection between the ‘old’ image and Shepard Fairey’s ‘new’ image-- the dialogue is missing because no dialogue has been established unless-- by O’Shea’s suggestion -- you pay $59.95 to be introduced to what is being commented on. That is not how fair use works.
To put it bluntly, when it comes to supporting fair use within the context of art you can’t simply create a dialogue by publishing a book about the dialogue in order for viewers to understand what is being parodied or commented on within the context of the art. The viewers should know upon viewing the work-- period. The connection should click in their mind-- period. If it does not click-- if a connection is not made-- then one can debate that fair use under parody or social comment has not taken place and that instead the ‘new’ art has infringed on the ‘old’ art-- period. In other words, O'Shea should stop trying to pitch Fairey's book Supply and Demand and instead discuss why people are not making the connection on their own!
O’Shea continues, “Such a contrasting is inherent in the act of referencing, and the intended result is for viewers to consider the relationship of the two images and hopefully spark a dialogue: Are they really distinct, or just symbols of the same phenomenon? Is the artist saying the two images are similarly or differently relevant? Is the older image outdated and in need of an update, or is it a commentary on society’s perverse obsession with overhauling classic works? Does this new recontextualized image make me feel any differently than the old one did?” followed by “These are questions most people consider, usually subconsciously, when looking at images that employ references as visual cues.” Is O'Shea clueless? There are a number of people who did not make the connections until they read Mark Vallen's article. Honestly, I wonder how many people knew about Rene Mederos before reading Vallen's critique?
Again, it seems to me that Jamie O’Shea is missing the heart of Mark Vallen’s criticism. Viewers are obviously not making a connection between the ‘old’ image and Shepard Fairey’s ‘new’ image-- the dialogue is missing because no dialogue has been established unless you pay $59.95 to be introduced to what is being commented on or parodied. In order for fair use to apply-- based on the conversations I’ve had with art law professionals and members of the arts community-- the connection must be obvious from the start or it simply is not fair use. If anything a case could be made against Fairey’s defense of his images as fair use due to the lack of dialogue-- the lack of a connection that should be made by the typical viewer upon viewing Shepard Fairey’s art.
Needless to say, I’m surprised that Jamie O’Shea used Supply and Demand to defend Shepard Fairey’s understanding of fair use. By implication O’Shea is suggesting that the connection and dialogue expected of fair use is being made by the book itself rather than specific images by Shepard Fairey. Again, the typical viewer should not have to pay $59.95 in order to realize these connections. If fair use was used in the way it is designed the viewer would be able to make those connections on their own. In other words, viewers would be aware of the dialogue going on between the ‘old’ image and the ‘new’ image by Fairey without having to read a brief history lesson about the connection.
Thus, Supply and Demand is not exactly the best source of defense for Shepard Fairey concerning alleged infringement. In fact, O’Shea’s viewpoint reveals that their needs to be more dialogue about Fairey’s alleged infringement so that the typical viewer understands the lack of dialogue and connection that is being made when Fairey utilizes fair use so that they can then question if it is fair use at all. I believe that was another point of Mark Vallen's critique as I understand it.
Jamie O’Shea goes on to defend Shepard Fairey by comparing Fairey’s appropriation to the use of appropriation in artworks created by artists in the recent past. O’Shea states, “Vallen must believe the Sex Pistols used the official portrait of the Queen of England and put a safety pin through her lip because they couldn’t do any better on their own and needed an image that would sell.”. Having read the Vallen article I don’t think he is suggesting that at all. In fact, Vallen makes it clear that some forms of appropriation are legitimate. The official portrait of the Queen of England is fair game as far as fair use is concerned due to parody or social comment. That specific image of the Queen, even back then, was known the world over. Thus, comparing the album art to Fairey’s art is not exactly a true comparison as far as fair use is concerned. It should be noted that O’Shea did not bother to mention the name of the artist who created the iconic image for The Sex Pistols-- Jamie Reid.
Jamie O’Shea then attempts to make the issue a conservative versus liberal scenario by stating, “Vallen goes on to question whether Shepard truly supports the left-wing causes he depicts in his work, claiming that it’s “not impossible to view Fairey’s work as right-wing in essence, since it largely ransacks leftist history and imagery while the artist laughs all the way to the bank.”. O’Shea then goes into a rant about how Shepard Fairey would not risk his life spreading a “left-wing” message if in reality he supported “right-wing” views. He then states, “Furthermore, would a true right-wing ideologue have any interest in spreading left-wing imagery, even if he did make a few dollars in the process? Could Vallen really believe an artist who donated all of the proceeds from sales of Obama posters to his presidential campaign (according to public campaign finance information available online, Shepard and his wife, Amanda, donated $300,000 to $400,00 to Obama, the Democratic National Committee Democratic committees in various swing states, and other Democratic “victory funds”) did so only to go home and secretly pray to an altar of George Bush or even worse, Dick Cheney?”. Unfortunately, I think that Jamie O’Shea is taking Mark Vallen’s words way out of context.
Vallen was not commenting on ‘left’ and ‘right’ as in Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative. Instead he was using left wing and right wing beyond just the American interpretation of catch words involved in discussions of two rival political parties in the United States. Vallen was thinking globally by stressing that he feels that Shepard Fairey has exploited artworks from movements that are considered leftist on the global political spectrum, so to speak.
In other words, Vallen feels that Fairey has shown those movements and the artists behind those movement great disrespect by using art works associated with the causes they fought for in a way that the average viewer will most likely not make a connection with. Thus, the history of their struggle is lost in Shepard Fairey’s art-- unless, based on the implications of O’Shea’s words, you buy Supply and Demand for $59.95.
Here is what Mark Vallen said, “Some have, for whatever reason, imagined Fairey to be a progressive political figure, a perception certainly cultivated by the artist; but it’s also not impossible to view Fairey’s work as right-wing in essence, since it largely ransacks leftist history and imagery while the artist laughs all the way to the bank.” Vallen goes on to say, “For me, the question is not what Fairey’s political allegiances may or may not be, but rather, how his work sets a standard that is ultimately damaging to art and leads to its further dissolution. When a will to plagiarize and a love for self-promotion are the only requirements necessary for becoming an artist, then clearly the arts are in deep trouble.”.
My interpretation is that Vallen was simply pointing out that specific images by Shepard Fairey have not made a true connection with the images they are based upon. In that sense, yes-- they take away from the history of the original intent of the source images and the movements they were associated with. Vallen did not mention Bush or Cheney in connection to Shepard Fairey-- he did not even mention conservatism or liberalism or Republican and Democrat. It would appear that O'Shea's view of left and right politics is rather limited.
O’Shea continues, “If Vallen is to be believed, the same must be true in the case of Fairey’s countless donations of artworks and money to causes like the Chiapas Relief Fund, Hope for Darfur, the ACLU, MoveOn, the movement to overturn Prop 8, 11th Hour Action, Hurricane Katrina relief, Southern California fire relief, LA teenage shelters, children’s charities in Iraq and the U.S., Free the West Memphis 3, and Rush Arts for inner-city schools (to name just a few). Fittingly, the most ridiculous aspect of this “stealing from the left to give to the right” argument is that Vallen himself makes—and sells—art depicting left-wing figures and social issues, just like Shepard does. It’s not impossible to view him as a hypocrite.” It looks like once again the shield of charity has been raised!
Again, Jamie O’Shea fails to grasp the global implications of Mark Vallen’s use of ‘left’ and ‘right‘. Vallen did not say anything about Shepard Fairey ‘stealing art from the left to give to the right’ as O’Shea suggests. However, if O’Shea wishes to think on those terms I will point out where Vallen offered an example that could be called taking from the right to give to the left-- with a whole lot of ignorance in between. Vallen goes into great detail about an issue involving Shepard Fairey and the Nazi Death’s Head logo of the Gestapo.
Vallen explains, "In 2006 Fairey printed a near exact copy of an already existing skull and crossbones artwork he found, altering the original design only by adding the words "OBEY: Defiant Since '89" along with a small star bearing the face of Andre the Giant. The image was reproduced as a T-shirt and added to Fairey’s OBEY fashion line.
As luck would have it, Wal-Mart plagiarized the master plagiarist, copying and printing Fairey’s rip-off and adding it to the superstore’s own fashion line. A shopper at Wal-Mart recognized the skull motif’s origin and angrily protested - as it was an exact duplication of the infamous logo belonging to the Gestapo, the Nazi "secret state police" that served as personal bodyguards to Adolf Hitler and administered the concentration camps where the genocide of the Jewish people was put into practice.
Unsurprisingly Wal-Mart’s T-shirts became a nationwide controversy, with legions of infuriated citizens insisting the superstore apologize and pull the offensive items from their shelves - a demand that was ultimately met. Eventually it came to light that Shepard Fairey was first responsible for manufacturing and selling the T-shirt, and when confronted by the website, consumerist.com, Fairey offered the following excuse: "When I made that graphic I was referencing a biker logo and it was only brought up to me later that it was the SS skull." First, Fairey openly admits to directly copying an image created by someone else (he calls this "referencing"), and then feigns innocence when faced with the odious background of the original Nazi designers. In the same set of remarks made to consumerist.com, Fairey insists that he is "anti-fascist and pro-peace", but what kind of anti-fascist does not recognize the symbols used by the Nazi regime? Fairey’s only defense here is full-blown ignorance - hardly an attribute expected in artists supposedly dedicated to social commentary.”
I wonder what Jamie O’Shea has to say about that? It seems he forgot to mention that aspect of Mark Vallen’s criticism of Shepard Fairey. Did he leave it out because Vallen was dead on in his criticism of Shepard Fairey?
I could examine the two articles further, but I think it is best to stop for now (I may tackle the second half this week). This is how I see it--- Shepard Fairey has stated the following about his art, "The real message behind most of my work is ‘question everything.". Thus, I would think that Fairey would understand that people are going to question his work-- question everything about it. Is that not what he wanted? Or is the message itself a contradiction?
Shepard Fairey, who embraces the idea of ‘questioning everything’, should not state that people who criticize him are “jealous”, “lazy”, or “full of apathy”-- or any number of attacks that Fairey and his supporters have made against those who question his art, methods, and ethics. In fact, I would say that said choice of words reveals the truth of Mark Vallen’s article. After all, people generally respond with harsh words when there is reason for criticism.
My guess is that from this point on Shepard Fairey will be very careful not to infringe on copyright protected artworks or photographs. After all, his cleanup crew-- people like Jamie O’Shea -- can only do damage control so many times before people start to demand answers in mass. Don’t forget to wring out the mop O’Shea.
Links of Interest:
Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey A critique by artist Mark Vallen
THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE: SHEPARD FAIREY AND THE ART OF APPROPRIATION -- SuperTouch
Lawyers and Law Professionals Weigh-In on Shepard Fairey Copyright Infringement Allegation
Shepard Fairey: Obey Copyright
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
Before I go any further I want to make it clear that I do not agree with every view that Mark Vallen has concerning Shepard Fairey-- or art for that matter. However, it makes since that Jamie O’Shea, the editor of Super Touch, would support Shepard Fairey considering that Shepard Fairey is listed as an author on SuperTouch. It should also be noted that Jamie O’Shea has followed Fairey’s career extensively-- and has also curated and co-curated art exhibits involving the artist.
One could say that Jamie O'Shea and Shepard Fairey are business associates. In other words, Jamie O’Shea has a vested interest in making sure that Shepard Fairey is seen in a positive light. Articles by J O’Shea concerning positive aspects of Fairey’s career can be found on several websites if you do a search of ‘O’Shea Fairey’ on Google. Apparently Jamie O’Shea, who served ten years as the editor-in-chief of Juxtapoz, is now a creative director serving as a corporate liaison in order to connect artists with corporate culture-- and collections. There is nothing wrong with that-- but again, I’m certain that Mr. O’Shea has a vested interest in Mr. Fairey.
Jamie O'Shea's critical view of Mark Vallen’s critique is not exactly balanced nor is it a surprise. In fact, his support for Fairey is similar to the support Yosi Sergant-- of Evolutionary Media Group-- has shown to the artist. It should be noted that Yosi Sergant also has a vested interest in the success of Shepard Fairey. Thus, it makes since that both O'Shea and Sergant have spoke out against criticism of Shepard Fairey.
Allow me to break down what was said in the blunt of Jamie O‘Shea‘s article titled 'The Medium is the Message: Shepard Fairey and the Art of Appropriation':
Jamie O’Shea started his criticism of Mark Vallen’s article-- titled Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey: A critique by artist Mark Vallen-- by stating, “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.”.
O’Shea goes on to say, “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.”. Based on O'Shea's usage of words one can only assume that he is hoping to strengthen the idea that only "jealous" individiuals criticize Shepard Fairey or any successful artist for that matter-- words and phrases that Fairey himself has used in describing individuals who are critical of his art and practice.
In essence O'Shea's article is an attempt at damage control-- he is aware that people are starting to do research about the copyright allegations surrounding Shepard Fairey's career. It is obvious that O'Shea is nervous about what people may find online during their research. Needless to say, the article by Jamie O’Shea comes off as nothing more than damage control given the fact that so many individuals have been researching allegations of copyright infringement against Shepard Fairey due to his use of Mannie Garcia’s photograph of Obama. Fairey failed to acknowledge or compensate the photographer-- which has stirred a controversy surrounding the ethics of Shepard Fairey's artistic practice.
In the article O’Shea claims that a “widespread and baseless internet campaign to smear Shepard Fairey has been going on for some time now“. In other words, O’Shea suggests that mass criticism of Shepard Fairey is nothing more than a smear campaign against the artist. O’Shea suggests that the alleged smear campaign against Shepard Fairey is based on Mark Vallen’s article as a primary source-- as if there were no detractors of Shepard Fairey’s art and questions of copyright infringement surrounding his career before Vallen’s article was published online.
That suggestion is obviously not grounded in facts considering that art historian Lincoln Cushing had exposed Shepard Fairey for copyright infringement before Vallen‘s article was published-- it was not the first time that Fairey had been exposed for questionable or unethical practices concerning his art. Thus, in my opinion O’Shea’s words are spurred by his own paranoia-- O'Shea can see the castle that he, Fairey, and others have built crumbling if public opinion starts to question the ethics and allegations concerning Fairey’s art. Thus, the article-- based on the implications for O’Shea writing it in the first place (read his introduction)-- is a ploy designed to gain support for Shepard Fairey during a crucial time in his career.
Of Mark Vallen’s article Jamie O’Shea stated, “If this writing were simply a balanced, albeit negative critique, or even an educated “gotcha” piece no one would care, but the article in question is an unabashed and well-disseminated character-assassination attempt, one we thought was finally worthy of our attention here on the pages of Supertouch given Shepard’s recent, and metorical rise to public prominence.”. In my opinion the Vallen article is a “gotcha” piece. Vallen may be harsh in his criticism of Fairey-- I personally don't agree with everything Vallen said--, but who ever said that criticism need be polite? Surely Shepard Fairey can agree with that.
It is not like Mark Vallen was the only person critical of Shepard Fairey in the first place. After all, Mark Vallen worked closely on the article with Lincoln Cushing -- the art historian who discovered Shepard Fairey’s infringement of a Rene Mederos poster in 2007. The infringing image by Shepard Fairey, titled ‘Cuban Rider’, was sold as a shirt in Fairey’s OBEY clothing line. A representative of Shepard Fairey acknowledged the copyright infringement and the shirt involving the image was soon after pulled from production.
One could say that the issue over Rene Mederos is what spurred Mark Vallen to write his critique of Shepard Fairey in the first place. With that in mind, does it seem that the criticism of Shepard Fairey is "baseless"? “Gotcha”, indeed. Oddly enough, Lincoln Cushing's discovery is not mentioned in the O'Shea article nor does the article mention that 'Cuban Rider' was pulled from production for copyright infringement. O'Shea mentions Lincoln Cushing, but does not state why he was involved with the Vallen article to begin with. Why leave out that critical information? I suppose O'Shea will have to answer to that.
Jamie O’Shea continues his criticism of Mark Vallen critique by stating, “The way Vallen tells it, Shepard has based his 20-year art career solely around cashing in on the work of other people. Yet the images that Vallen uses to support this claim are almost all examples of Shepard’s street art from the formative stages of his career (1990s and early 2000s),” What Jamie O’Shea fails to note is that Mark Vallen pointed out that some of the images that Fairey has used do fall under fair use due to the date of the original images.
Vallen makes it clear that some of the images that have served as the origin of Shepard Fairey's art are no longer protected by copyright while others never were in the first place-- anyone can use them. Thus, anyone can make derivative works based on them-- not just Shepard Fairey. In those examples Vallen suggests that it is not ethical for Shepard Fairey (or anyone else for that matter) to claim those specific images as his (their) own. In defense of Vallen I must say that a lot of people agree with his position. However, works that are no longer protected by copyright are indeed fair game, so to speak.
Vallen’s main complaint is that Fairey conceals the history of these images while claiming them as his own (more on that later). However, Vallen also targets images that Fairey created in 2005, 2006, and 2007 that have origins in works that are still protected by copyright. Images that do not exactly fall under fair use as far as parody or social comment is concerned because they are not widely known in the first place. You don’t have to take my word for it-- out of ten art law professionals I’ve spoken with about specific copyright allegations involving Shepard Fairey seven have agreed that Fairey went beyond the line of fair use with some aspects of his appropriation. (A few of those professionals are currently writing about this issue and will allow me to publish their research on the Myartspace Blog. Both sides of the debate will be acknowledged.)
Jamie O’Shea then states that the art from the “formative stages“ of Shepard Fairey‘s career were, “sold only in editions of 100 or 200 at $20 or $25 a pop at the time. Considering that hundreds, maybe thousands of those same posters were pasted up on the street at Fairey’s personal expense, it’s certain the artist never saw a dime of profit from all that printing and in most cases probably failed to even recoup costs.” All I can say to that is that profit is profit no matter how you try to slice the pie. Surely someone who claims to know so much about copyright as Mr. O’Shea would understand that it does not matter how the profit is used as far as copyright infringement is concerned. Profit is profit.
It does not matter if Fairey put all of the profit into printing more images nor does it matter, in recent times, if he donated the profit to political or social causes. Profit is profit where copyright infringement is concerned. In court the emotive reasoning for the decision to infringe is cast aside. In other words, in court you can't always get away with murder even if the person was killed for the greater good nor can you always get away with infringement even if it happened for the greater good. Vallen's concern is that Shepard Fairey is placing a price tag on history and that he is 'murdering' the intentions that people involved with the original art had.
I want to be clear about something. I'm not trying to take away from the good that Shepard Fairey has done. He has done great things for some wonderful causes. However, in my opinion the good that Fairey has done-- the causes, people, and animals that he has helped-- should not be used as a shied to ward off allegations of copyright infringement. Unfortunately, Fairey (in his interview with Mother Jones)-- and now O'Shea-- have done just that. In other words, they have tried to create a distraction concerning questions about copyright infringement by implying that critics are somehow against the causes that Fairey has supported. That is simply not the case-- it is petty for them to try and make monsters out of individuals who are critical of Shepard Fairey's practice. After all, just because someone is critical of Fairey's art does not mean that he or she is critical of the causes that Fairey has stood for. If Shepard Fairey feels that criticism of his art implies criticism of causes he has stood for he must truly be arrogant.
Jamie O’Shea then states, “Furthermore, none of Vallen’s reference points come from the art that Shepard has sold in recent years for substantial profit. It can’t be said whether Vallen tried but couldn’t find any clearly plagiarized imagery in that work, or simply didn’t bother to look, but his claims about cash cows simply do not add up, especially since Shepard didn’t have a single solo gallery show for the first 10 years of his career”. To that I say-- it seems to me that the Hope poster-- which has earned between $400,000 and $800,000 from what I’ve read-- was a “cash cow” even if the profit was donated or used to print more posters-- again, profit is profit no matter how you try to slice the pie.
On a side note: I find it odd that O’Shea forgot to mention the allegations of copyright infringement involving the Hope poster and a photograph taken by photographer Mannie Garcia. After all, O'Shea posted his article today and people have been discussing the Garcia image for over a week. If anything, the alleged infringement of the Mannie Garcia photograph supports Vallen’s claims of Shepard Fairey's ongoing practice of copyright infringement-- which I assume is why O’Shea left that information out of his article.
Jamie O’Shea then attacks the heart of Vallen’s criticism by stating, “In his piece, Vallen defines plagiarism as “the deliberate passing off of someone else’s work as your own,” and claims that the difference between Fairey and Lichtenstein is that the latter never laid claim to Mickey Mouse, while Shepard tries to deceitfully sneak his appropriations past viewers in broad daylight. Of course, that couldn’t be further from the truth (the Shepard part, that is). If Vallen had bothered to open “Supply and Demand,” Shepard’s career retrospective book released more than a year and a half before Vallen published his article on his site, he would have seen many of Fairey’s images reproduced side-by-side with the originals that were appropriated or referenced.”. O'Shea does not understand that just because the images are in a book that has been distributed all over the world does not mean that the 'referenced' images are known the world over.
O’Shea then states, “Clearly there’s no basis to Vallen’s claim that Shepard “filches artworks and hopes no one notices,” when the artist himself is publishing evidence of his appropriation—with accompanying text explaining his process and rationale—and distributing it openly around the world.” There is only one problem with O‘Shea‘s viewpoint-- how many people are going to pay $59.95 to find out who Fairey appropriated from?
Under fair use the general public should know this information off hand from their collective knowledge of contemporary society. In other words, they should know without having to buy a book in order to know. The public should be able to look at ‘Cuban Rider’ and say, “Fairey is commenting on the Rene Mederos poster!”. Unfortunately, Shepard Fairey has failed on that crucial aspect of fair use-- which is why it seems that he attempts to pass works by others off as his own. In that sense, Supply and Demand and the current limited edition of the book is nothing more than a way for Shepard Fairey to defend his work by saying, “See, I made everything clear in this book!” while slapping a price tag upon said knowledge. That is exactly what Mark Vallen's critique of Shepard Fairey is about.
Concerning fair use Vallen’s point is that the character Mickey Mouse is in itself iconic. Mickey Mouse is a household name-- everyone knows Mickey. Thus, one can easily make a parody or social comment about the beloved mouse knowing that people will know exactly what is being parodied or commented on under fair use. The same goes for much of Warhol’s work because he used images that the general public was aware of. You could say that Mickey Mouse and specific brands of soup are in our collective conscious-- we don't have to buy a $59.95 book in order to make the connection when those images are used in art.
That said, using aspects of a photograph or artwork that is not well-known does not exactly fall under fair use as far as parody or social comment is concerned because people will not know-- unless they research the image (in this case buy the book)-- what is being parodied or commented on. Again, when people look at the Hope poster they did not say, “Shepard Fairey has made a comment about Mannie Garcia’s photograph of Obama.”-- even Fairey claimed that he did not know who the photographer was. Oddly enough, a gallery representing Fairey acknowledged to Garcia that indeed the image Fairey had used for Hope was his photograph.
Jamie O’Shea goes on about the issue-- stating, “Overall, the concept of using reference images in the context of modern art seems to have eluded Vallen completely in regards to Fairey’s art. When he claims that Shepard strips away historical meaning and context in his artworks, he’s missing the entire point of referencing: By taking precisely the elements of an image that speak of its historical meaning and original context and incorporating them into a new image, an artist creates a visual comparison, juxtaposing new and old.” It seems to me that Jamie O’Shea is missing the heart of Mark Vallen’s criticism. Viewers are obviously not making a connection between the ‘old’ image and Shepard Fairey’s ‘new’ image-- the dialogue is missing because no dialogue has been established unless-- by O’Shea’s suggestion -- you pay $59.95 to be introduced to what is being commented on. That is not how fair use works.
To put it bluntly, when it comes to supporting fair use within the context of art you can’t simply create a dialogue by publishing a book about the dialogue in order for viewers to understand what is being parodied or commented on within the context of the art. The viewers should know upon viewing the work-- period. The connection should click in their mind-- period. If it does not click-- if a connection is not made-- then one can debate that fair use under parody or social comment has not taken place and that instead the ‘new’ art has infringed on the ‘old’ art-- period. In other words, O'Shea should stop trying to pitch Fairey's book Supply and Demand and instead discuss why people are not making the connection on their own!
O’Shea continues, “Such a contrasting is inherent in the act of referencing, and the intended result is for viewers to consider the relationship of the two images and hopefully spark a dialogue: Are they really distinct, or just symbols of the same phenomenon? Is the artist saying the two images are similarly or differently relevant? Is the older image outdated and in need of an update, or is it a commentary on society’s perverse obsession with overhauling classic works? Does this new recontextualized image make me feel any differently than the old one did?” followed by “These are questions most people consider, usually subconsciously, when looking at images that employ references as visual cues.” Is O'Shea clueless? There are a number of people who did not make the connections until they read Mark Vallen's article. Honestly, I wonder how many people knew about Rene Mederos before reading Vallen's critique?
Again, it seems to me that Jamie O’Shea is missing the heart of Mark Vallen’s criticism. Viewers are obviously not making a connection between the ‘old’ image and Shepard Fairey’s ‘new’ image-- the dialogue is missing because no dialogue has been established unless you pay $59.95 to be introduced to what is being commented on or parodied. In order for fair use to apply-- based on the conversations I’ve had with art law professionals and members of the arts community-- the connection must be obvious from the start or it simply is not fair use. If anything a case could be made against Fairey’s defense of his images as fair use due to the lack of dialogue-- the lack of a connection that should be made by the typical viewer upon viewing Shepard Fairey’s art.
Needless to say, I’m surprised that Jamie O’Shea used Supply and Demand to defend Shepard Fairey’s understanding of fair use. By implication O’Shea is suggesting that the connection and dialogue expected of fair use is being made by the book itself rather than specific images by Shepard Fairey. Again, the typical viewer should not have to pay $59.95 in order to realize these connections. If fair use was used in the way it is designed the viewer would be able to make those connections on their own. In other words, viewers would be aware of the dialogue going on between the ‘old’ image and the ‘new’ image by Fairey without having to read a brief history lesson about the connection.
Thus, Supply and Demand is not exactly the best source of defense for Shepard Fairey concerning alleged infringement. In fact, O’Shea’s viewpoint reveals that their needs to be more dialogue about Fairey’s alleged infringement so that the typical viewer understands the lack of dialogue and connection that is being made when Fairey utilizes fair use so that they can then question if it is fair use at all. I believe that was another point of Mark Vallen's critique as I understand it.
Jamie O’Shea goes on to defend Shepard Fairey by comparing Fairey’s appropriation to the use of appropriation in artworks created by artists in the recent past. O’Shea states, “Vallen must believe the Sex Pistols used the official portrait of the Queen of England and put a safety pin through her lip because they couldn’t do any better on their own and needed an image that would sell.”. Having read the Vallen article I don’t think he is suggesting that at all. In fact, Vallen makes it clear that some forms of appropriation are legitimate. The official portrait of the Queen of England is fair game as far as fair use is concerned due to parody or social comment. That specific image of the Queen, even back then, was known the world over. Thus, comparing the album art to Fairey’s art is not exactly a true comparison as far as fair use is concerned. It should be noted that O’Shea did not bother to mention the name of the artist who created the iconic image for The Sex Pistols-- Jamie Reid.
Jamie O’Shea then attempts to make the issue a conservative versus liberal scenario by stating, “Vallen goes on to question whether Shepard truly supports the left-wing causes he depicts in his work, claiming that it’s “not impossible to view Fairey’s work as right-wing in essence, since it largely ransacks leftist history and imagery while the artist laughs all the way to the bank.”. O’Shea then goes into a rant about how Shepard Fairey would not risk his life spreading a “left-wing” message if in reality he supported “right-wing” views. He then states, “Furthermore, would a true right-wing ideologue have any interest in spreading left-wing imagery, even if he did make a few dollars in the process? Could Vallen really believe an artist who donated all of the proceeds from sales of Obama posters to his presidential campaign (according to public campaign finance information available online, Shepard and his wife, Amanda, donated $300,000 to $400,00 to Obama, the Democratic National Committee Democratic committees in various swing states, and other Democratic “victory funds”) did so only to go home and secretly pray to an altar of George Bush or even worse, Dick Cheney?”. Unfortunately, I think that Jamie O’Shea is taking Mark Vallen’s words way out of context.
Vallen was not commenting on ‘left’ and ‘right’ as in Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative. Instead he was using left wing and right wing beyond just the American interpretation of catch words involved in discussions of two rival political parties in the United States. Vallen was thinking globally by stressing that he feels that Shepard Fairey has exploited artworks from movements that are considered leftist on the global political spectrum, so to speak.
In other words, Vallen feels that Fairey has shown those movements and the artists behind those movement great disrespect by using art works associated with the causes they fought for in a way that the average viewer will most likely not make a connection with. Thus, the history of their struggle is lost in Shepard Fairey’s art-- unless, based on the implications of O’Shea’s words, you buy Supply and Demand for $59.95.
Here is what Mark Vallen said, “Some have, for whatever reason, imagined Fairey to be a progressive political figure, a perception certainly cultivated by the artist; but it’s also not impossible to view Fairey’s work as right-wing in essence, since it largely ransacks leftist history and imagery while the artist laughs all the way to the bank.” Vallen goes on to say, “For me, the question is not what Fairey’s political allegiances may or may not be, but rather, how his work sets a standard that is ultimately damaging to art and leads to its further dissolution. When a will to plagiarize and a love for self-promotion are the only requirements necessary for becoming an artist, then clearly the arts are in deep trouble.”.
My interpretation is that Vallen was simply pointing out that specific images by Shepard Fairey have not made a true connection with the images they are based upon. In that sense, yes-- they take away from the history of the original intent of the source images and the movements they were associated with. Vallen did not mention Bush or Cheney in connection to Shepard Fairey-- he did not even mention conservatism or liberalism or Republican and Democrat. It would appear that O'Shea's view of left and right politics is rather limited.
O’Shea continues, “If Vallen is to be believed, the same must be true in the case of Fairey’s countless donations of artworks and money to causes like the Chiapas Relief Fund, Hope for Darfur, the ACLU, MoveOn, the movement to overturn Prop 8, 11th Hour Action, Hurricane Katrina relief, Southern California fire relief, LA teenage shelters, children’s charities in Iraq and the U.S., Free the West Memphis 3, and Rush Arts for inner-city schools (to name just a few). Fittingly, the most ridiculous aspect of this “stealing from the left to give to the right” argument is that Vallen himself makes—and sells—art depicting left-wing figures and social issues, just like Shepard does. It’s not impossible to view him as a hypocrite.” It looks like once again the shield of charity has been raised!
Again, Jamie O’Shea fails to grasp the global implications of Mark Vallen’s use of ‘left’ and ‘right‘. Vallen did not say anything about Shepard Fairey ‘stealing art from the left to give to the right’ as O’Shea suggests. However, if O’Shea wishes to think on those terms I will point out where Vallen offered an example that could be called taking from the right to give to the left-- with a whole lot of ignorance in between. Vallen goes into great detail about an issue involving Shepard Fairey and the Nazi Death’s Head logo of the Gestapo.
Vallen explains, "In 2006 Fairey printed a near exact copy of an already existing skull and crossbones artwork he found, altering the original design only by adding the words "OBEY: Defiant Since '89" along with a small star bearing the face of Andre the Giant. The image was reproduced as a T-shirt and added to Fairey’s OBEY fashion line.
As luck would have it, Wal-Mart plagiarized the master plagiarist, copying and printing Fairey’s rip-off and adding it to the superstore’s own fashion line. A shopper at Wal-Mart recognized the skull motif’s origin and angrily protested - as it was an exact duplication of the infamous logo belonging to the Gestapo, the Nazi "secret state police" that served as personal bodyguards to Adolf Hitler and administered the concentration camps where the genocide of the Jewish people was put into practice.
Unsurprisingly Wal-Mart’s T-shirts became a nationwide controversy, with legions of infuriated citizens insisting the superstore apologize and pull the offensive items from their shelves - a demand that was ultimately met. Eventually it came to light that Shepard Fairey was first responsible for manufacturing and selling the T-shirt, and when confronted by the website, consumerist.com, Fairey offered the following excuse: "When I made that graphic I was referencing a biker logo and it was only brought up to me later that it was the SS skull." First, Fairey openly admits to directly copying an image created by someone else (he calls this "referencing"), and then feigns innocence when faced with the odious background of the original Nazi designers. In the same set of remarks made to consumerist.com, Fairey insists that he is "anti-fascist and pro-peace", but what kind of anti-fascist does not recognize the symbols used by the Nazi regime? Fairey’s only defense here is full-blown ignorance - hardly an attribute expected in artists supposedly dedicated to social commentary.”
I wonder what Jamie O’Shea has to say about that? It seems he forgot to mention that aspect of Mark Vallen’s criticism of Shepard Fairey. Did he leave it out because Vallen was dead on in his criticism of Shepard Fairey?
I could examine the two articles further, but I think it is best to stop for now (I may tackle the second half this week). This is how I see it--- Shepard Fairey has stated the following about his art, "The real message behind most of my work is ‘question everything.". Thus, I would think that Fairey would understand that people are going to question his work-- question everything about it. Is that not what he wanted? Or is the message itself a contradiction?
Shepard Fairey, who embraces the idea of ‘questioning everything’, should not state that people who criticize him are “jealous”, “lazy”, or “full of apathy”-- or any number of attacks that Fairey and his supporters have made against those who question his art, methods, and ethics. In fact, I would say that said choice of words reveals the truth of Mark Vallen’s article. After all, people generally respond with harsh words when there is reason for criticism.
My guess is that from this point on Shepard Fairey will be very careful not to infringe on copyright protected artworks or photographs. After all, his cleanup crew-- people like Jamie O’Shea -- can only do damage control so many times before people start to demand answers in mass. Don’t forget to wring out the mop O’Shea.
Links of Interest:
Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey A critique by artist Mark Vallen
THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE: SHEPARD FAIREY AND THE ART OF APPROPRIATION -- SuperTouch
Lawyers and Law Professionals Weigh-In on Shepard Fairey Copyright Infringement Allegation
Shepard Fairey: Obey Copyright
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)