shepard fairy at LAT very interesting

[artpartment]

latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/03/shepard-fairey.html

"Obey Giant" became a cash cow. "Obama Hope" became the successful campaign's defining image.

The 39-year-old designer on view in the ICA's "Shepard Fairey: Supply and Demand" possesses a limited pictorial vocabulary, while the grandest curatorial claims made for the nearly 250 examples in the galleries are unsupportable. ...
Emily Moore Brouillet, the show's co-curator (with Pedro H. Alonzo), writes in the big catalog: "Obey Giant utilizes the language and aesthetics of advertising, yet advertises nothing." She's half-right. Back when Fairey was unknown, the imagery did possess the power to confuse -- to create the simple question, "What's that?," in a viewer's mind. The absence of an obvious answer, alien to almost all graphic imagery that washes over us in public every day, caused a brain ripple.

But for "Obey Giant" that cognitive dissonance is long gone. Success answered the question, "What's that?," with "That's a Shepard Fairey." Cognitive dissonance got replaced by conventional branding. The existence of a powerful brand is good for business, but it pretty much neuters claims of social nonconformity or underground rebellion for his work

[snausages]

Finally someone not kissing Shepard Fairey's ass and buying into the Obama hype. If you ask me the author was too kind although this is pretty funny: "Obey Giant is now an industry, Hello Kitty with pretensions."

This is partly what I said months ago about the Obama campaign, he mocked this authoritarian style of government propaganda for a long time and then he used this same exact type of propaganda in earnest to promote Obama. It's the same way he mocks consumerism and advertising yet puts his brand on any product he can sell. Ridiculously hypocritical.

But par for the course as his work is conceptually thinner than rice paper. From his 'Manifesto' "The sticker has no meaning but exists only to cause people to react, to contemplate and search for meaning in the sticker. Because OBEY has no actual meaning..." So he claims to 'create' new work (and meaning) by recycling imagery lifted from old sources (and or the AP) yet he also claims that Obey has "no meaning." He's so all over the place on a conceptual level I don't think he has any idea what he's really doing. It's particularly troubling when he takes very politically charged source material (black panthers for example) and inserts it into his campaign about "nothing." Such a horrible devaluation of the original material.

[snausages]

And this statement by Shepard Fairey is pretty obnoxious as well:

I am glad to endure legal headaches if that is the trade-off for Obama being president.

The ego he has to think his poster is the reason Obama is president.

[Francis]

snausages, I don't think you really understand Shepard Fairey's art yet

[wiz]

I fear that also goes for me too Francis, its totally lost on me, my eyes just see posters.

[manchestermike]

I don't usually agree with snausages... but in this case I think he's making pretty valid points

[robinbanks]

Mar 29, 2009 19:56:33 GMT 1 Francis said:

snausages, I don't think you really understand Shepard Fairey's art yet

I would have said he was more of a designer than an artist, although I realise that it is quite often hard to define which is which.

[mose]

20 years from now, books will be written justifying how even the worst Fairey artwork was really brilliant. Think something similar to the intellectual defenses of Warhol's 'Ten Portraits of Jews of the 20th Century'.

Personally, I think he is a legend and that his influence will touch generations of young artists and leave a real mark on popular culture. He was, and remains, a trailblazer and game-changer.

[hermit]

Mar 29, 2009 20:15:21 GMT 1 mose said:

20 years from now, books will be written justifying how even the worst Fairey artwork was really brilliant. Think something similar to the intellectual defenses of Warhol's 'Ten Portraits of Jews of the 20th Century'.

Personally, I think he is a legend and that his influence will touch generations of young artists and leave a real mark on popular culture. He was, and remains, a trailblazer and game-changer.

I agree 100%

[wiz]

I now feel i am missing out on something that i should not be missing out on, time for an in depth crash course, i came to this genre a little late .

[Karl Read]

Mar 29, 2009 20:18:22 GMT 1 hermit said:

Mar 29, 2009 20:15:21 GMT 1 mose said:

20 years from now, books will be written justifying how even the worst Fairey artwork was really brilliant. Think something similar to the intellectual defenses of Warhol's 'Ten Portraits of Jews of the 20th Century'.

Personally, I think he is a legend and that his influence will touch generations of young artists and leave a real mark on popular culture. He was, and remains, a trailblazer and game-changer.

I agree 100%

+1

[dkla]

Shep's stuff doesn't really resonate with me. Way, way back moreso, but not anymore for me.

[artpartment]

work from emory douglas from 1971

[etched]

Mar 29, 2009 22:50:29 GMT 1 artpartment said:

www.moca.org/emorydouglas/
great site for people who think that shepards style was something new

old school

[snausages]

Mar 29, 2009 19:56:33 GMT 1 Francis said:

snausages, I don't think you really understand Shepard Fairey's art yet

I don't think Shepard understands his art yet. But why don't you explain it to us.

[dynamixx]

For anyone still believing in the originality of Shep

www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

That's not to undermine his impact, in fact of all of the artists under the broad umbrella of "Street Art" from the past decade, you can rank him very highly as one of the very few future art historians will be talking about. Long after the masses of other street artists litter the pavements of obscurity on the road to posterity, he will be remembered. So will Banksy, those two are absolute certainties. The fun part is working out who else will join them...

[dynamixx]

Mar 29, 2009 23:52:32 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Mar 29, 2009 19:56:33 GMT 1 Francis said:

snausages, I don't think you really understand Shepard Fairey's art yet

I don't think Shepard understands his art yet. But why don't you explain it to us.

Right place, right time, political populism and good knack for self promotion is Fairey's true talent, the images themselves generally have the profundity of a slab of concrete, but he has a frighteningly high number of hungry consumers in the US, there's too much at stake now for him to ever just be a footnote.

[sfdoddsy]

There's a very similar review in the NYT:

www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/arts/design/18fair.html

I agree with both.

[Gentle Mental]

Like it or no, street art is outdoor advertising - the viewer never asks to look at it, it invades them, like a paid billboard.

And each piece of street art is an ad for the artist and his message.

Because Shep understands the consumers better than most, he is more successful in desiging visuals that gets his point and his "brand" across.

The art works - it moves people, it changes things, it influences and inspires.

AND, it costs 45 dollars for a signed print ed of 450 or 300.

45 dollars, people - for an artist, that is as famous, if not, more famous, than Banksy.

This is not how you milk a cash cow.

[snausages]

Mar 29, 2009 20:15:21 GMT 1 mose said:

20 years from now, books will be written justifying how even the worst Fairey artwork was really brilliant. Think something similar to the intellectual defenses of Warhol's 'Ten Portraits of Jews of the 20th Century'.

Personally, I think he is a legend and that his influence will touch generations of young artists and leave a real mark on popular culture. He was, and remains, a trailblazer and game-changer.

No doubt he has made his mark and he certainly, obviously has visual skill. But this kind of hyperbole means nothing. Talk is cheap and it's easy to say that in 50 years this stuff will be looked upon as brilliant. It's been said on almost every artist on this forum. Who knows how well he'll be regarded in 50 years. But both the LA times and the NY Times articles (That SFDoddsy pointed out) contain very salient points of criticism on the emptiness of Fairey's work. What I've been saying here for a few months. And it's very refreshing to see a more critical look into his work instead of simply praising him about promoting Obama.

Again if you want a well designed attractive poster, Fairey is a great fit, if you're looking for intellectual art keep looking. And I just don't see anyone that's so intellectually questionable being considered a trailblazer in 50 years. But maybe what is appreciated in art will change in 50 years.

[jamesreeve5]

Mar 30, 2009 5:30:49 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Mar 29, 2009 20:15:21 GMT 1 mose said:

20 years from now, books will be written justifying how even the worst Fairey artwork was really brilliant. Think something similar to the intellectual defenses of Warhol's 'Ten Portraits of Jews of the 20th Century'.

Personally, I think he is a legend and that his influence will touch generations of young artists and leave a real mark on popular culture. He was, and remains, a trailblazer and game-changer.

No doubt he has made his mark and he certainly, obviously has visual skill. But this kind of hyperbole means nothing. Talk is cheap and it's easy to say that in 50 years this stuff will be looked upon as brilliant. It's been said on almost every artist on this forum. Who knows how well he'll be regarded in 50 years. But both the LA times and the NY Times articles (That SFDoddsy pointed out) contain very salient points of criticism on the emptiness of Fairey's work. What I've been saying here for a few months. And it's very refreshing to see a more critical look into his work instead of simply praising him about promoting Obama.

Again if you want a well designed attractive poster, Fairey is a great fit, if you're looking for intellectual art keep looking. And I just don't see anyone that's so intellectually questionable being considered a trailblazer in 50 years. But eh, maybe what is appreciated in art will change in 50 years.

I agree with Snausages here... I think that the relative market exposure that street art got during the economic boom of the last few years allowed it to flourish without the serious critical and institutional support that normal contemporary art usually needs (although some regular old contemporary art got pushed through without these kinds support as well). This economic slump could could lead to a market less dictated by the auction houses of the world, and more dictated by the curators of the world, and I can't help but wonder what that means for the future of the urban art scene. This art world and the academic art world have become strange bedfellows as of late, Shepard Fairey's show brought in mass attendance, but was pretty much admonished by the art critics. I can't help but wonder how many serious art patrons attended the exhibition, and how much revenue this generated for the museum itself.

[moleman]

Hope and change what a joke

[skylarkin]

Mar 30, 2009 5:54:46 GMT 1 jamesreeve5 said:

I agree with Snausages here... I think that the relative market exposure that street art got during the economic boom of the last few years allowed it to flourish without the serious critical and institutional support that normal contemporary art usually needs (although some regular old contemporary art got pushed through without these kinds support as well). This economic slump could could lead to a market less dictated by the auction houses of the world, and more dictated by the curators of the world, and I can't help but wonder what that means for the future of the urban art scene. This art world and the academic art world have become strange bedfellows as of late, Shepard Fairey's show brought in mass attendance, but was pretty much admonished by the art critics. I can't help but wonder how many serious art patrons attended the exhibition, and how much revenue this generated for the museum itself.

I agree to a point that the economic slump will bring curators into play, but the good thing about the street art scene is that it has always been decitated by the people and not some artistic inpersonation of what it is the art world should like. If the image resonates and people enjoy it then the people will buy it and the majority of the art world will be none the wiser. The interesting thing is that as previously pointed out, maybe only Banksy and Fairy having been brought into the Art world, forcing their presence to be acknowledged, maybe given space in the history books, but a vast majority of street art is being produced for the scene by the scene and will slip under the rader of the so called professionals out there trying to make a buck or two out of it. Its my feeing that the street art scene is self perpetuating and will live long and prosper.

I have two of Fairys Prints now and I have to say that the quality of the prints are fantastic and for $75 shipped they reflect to me more of what street art was in the first instance prior to the popularity of the scene which is good quality imagery sensibly priced.

It may even be fair to say that Faiy has kept more too his ideals in this regard then Banksy.

[bonesy]

It may even be fair to say that Faiy has kept more too his ideals in this regard then Banksy.

Are you trying to tell me that Gold and Silver Formica editions of 20 sold by invitation only to friends of the gallery representative is not what its all about?

[bongobongo63]

Theres a good article here about fairey and copyright
www.justseeds.org/blog/2009/03/more_fairey_blues.html

[mose]

Mar 30, 2009 13:41:49 GMT 1 bongobongo63 said:

Theres a good article here about fairey and copyright
www.justseeds.org/blog/2009/03/more_fairey_blues.html

That is not copyright, sorry. That is an issue of trademark.

[bongobongo63]

yea trademark, interesting though

[Happy Shopper]

I have no idea why the issue of copyright, trademark or the "ripping off" of images is still talked about on here.
It's street art. It's part of what he does, and not hidden. He turns stolen images into different things, gives them another message, subverts them... etc...

Those articles comparing the original to his version are hilarious. If you don't know those art references you really need to know a little more art history!

[manchestermike]

So, in essence Fairey wants to sue someone for using a word "Obey" which he lifted from "They Live" in the first place. I'd tell him to fuck right off and maybe get hold of John Carpenter and see if he'll have a go at Fairey for the same...

[mose]

Mar 30, 2009 14:19:19 GMT 1 manchestermike said:

So, in essence Fairey wants to sue someone for using a word "Obey" which he lifted from "They Live" in the first place. I'd tell him to fuck right off and maybe get hold of John Carpenter and see if he'll have a go at Fairey for the same...

I really don't understand your reasoning.

Using another example, the words 'just', 'do', and 'it' have been part of the English language for a long time. People have been saying the phrase, "Just do it" in many different situations for almost as long. But try to put the phrase 'just do it' on a t-shirt, or on product packaging, in advertising, etc., etc. See what happens and definitely do check your mail for the letter you'll be receiving.

Obey, as it relates to clothing and several other applications, is a registered trademark. Trademarks must be defended.