shepard fairy at LAT very interesting

[Deleted]

Mar 30, 2009 5:00:26 GMT 1 Gentle Mental said:

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.

if releasing a print a week for last freaking 400 years is not milking a cash cow I dont know what is...

Shep is to the US what Banksy is to the UK and you're welcome to him - i'll take a couple of relatively inexpensive prints, with wit and ingenuity, over the weekly dirge from across the pond. Shep's work absolutely bores me to death, once in a while there's something worth taking note of, but for the most part its pure unadulterated boring pap.

hEven so, he has to be congratulated on brainwashing a fair few people into eagerly buying this pap every week - wish I could!

of course this is my own opinion and does not mean anyone has to agree with me - good luck to him I say - but he's not for me

[manchestermike]

Mar 30, 2009 15:12:44 GMT 1 mose said:

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.

This isn't used as one word though, it's in a phrase "Obey Steeler Baby"... so Fairey, someone who makes his living from stealing other people's images and re-hashing them now (something I have no problem with) has a problem with someone using a word in a phrase?

If this Steeler Baby had a t-shirt on saying "Obey" he may have a case, but in this case he's just being exceptionally petty and making himself look foolish.

Here's another one for him to go at:
www.weebls-stuff.com/games/Obey+the+Crab/

Maybe he should sue New York transit authority too:

[snausages]

Mar 30, 2009 15:12:44 GMT 1 mose said:

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

Sure, trademarks must be defended. But I still don't understand why Fairey who claims to be all about plundering and taking and recycling and (being generous) 'reinterpreting' would feel the need to trademark the word obey. It's another example of an aspect of his work that seems antithetical to what he's (supposed to be) about.

[artpartment]

emory douglas 1969

[mose]

Mar 30, 2009 15:51:10 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Mar 30, 2009 15:12:44 GMT 1 mose said:

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

Sure, trademarks must be defended. But I still don't understand why Fairey who claims to be all about plundering and taking and recycling and (being generous) 'reinterpreting' would feel the need to trademark the word obey. It's another example of an aspect of his work that seems antithetical to what he's (supposed to be) about.

A man is to be held in lower regard for trademarking the name that represents his life's work? That he 'made'? The name of his artistic brand? That's an interesting one to me. How do Banksy fans feel about his filing for trademarks for everything from paint to jewelry to beer, coffee and tea. Why would Banksy do that? Simple, protection. Without the trademark protection it is far harder to shut down people using and abusing your mark. I don't think it is wrong for either artist to want to protect their life's work from others who might abuse it. But the price to pay for that protection is that you must be vigilant and take action against potential infringements.

[manchestermike]

Mar 30, 2009 16:24:24 GMT 1 mose said:

Mar 30, 2009 15:51:10 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Sure, trademarks must be defended. But I still don't understand why Fairey who claims to be all about plundering and taking and recycling and (being generous) 'reinterpreting' would feel the need to trademark the word obey. It's another example of an aspect of his work that seems antithetical to what he's (supposed to be) about.

A man is to be held in lower regard for trademarking the name that represents his life's work? That he 'made'? The name of his artistic brand? That's an interesting one to me. How do Banksy fans feel about his filing for trademarks for everything from paint to jewelry to beer, coffee and tea. Why would Banksy do that? Simple, protection. Without the trademark protection it is far harder to shut down people using and abusing your mark. I don't think it is wrong for either artist to want to protect their life's work from others who might abuse it. But the price to pay for that protection is that you must be vigilant and take action against potential infringements.

This guy in Pittsburg isn't infringing though... he's using a word in a phrase

[mose]

Mar 30, 2009 16:31:49 GMT 1 manchestermike said:

This guy in Pittsburg isn't infringing though... he's using a word in a phrase

Along with a font commonly-associated with the Obey trademark.

Hey, I'm not saying that this isn't a nit-picky little case. I think it looks like it is. But the lawyers associated with Obey Giant Art, Inc. must have thought there was enough there and the enforcement action does display the required defense of trademark.

It's funny, I get the feeling in this thread that people think Shepard Fairey is sitting at home on a pile of money cackling, "go get that little guy with the weird dolls," when this is a simple corporate legal exercise that is really standard.

[manchestermike]

I think this is a total nit-picky little case.

Wonder what Fairey would do if everyone whose image he'd ripped off came after him...

[dynamixx]

Mar 30, 2009 16:40:00 GMT 1 mose said:

Mar 30, 2009 16:31:49 GMT 1 manchestermike said:

This guy in Pittsburg isn't infringing though... he's using a word in a phrase

Along with a font commonly-associated with the Obey trademark.

Hey, I'm not saying that this isn't a nit-picky little case. I think it looks like it is. But the lawyers associated with Obey Giant Art, Inc. must have thought there was enough there and the enforcement action does display the required defense of trademark.

It's funny, I get the feeling in this thread that people think Shepard Fairey is sitting at home on a pile of money cackling, "go get that little guy with the weird dolls," when this is a simple corporate legal exercise that is really standard.

Corporate is the key word there, it might be standard practice in the corporate world, but this is art we're talking about. Shep's an unashamed capitalist and seller of pretty merchandise, so he is a corporation now, and this is a symptom of that. Pretty far removed from your typical graffiti writer to the point that it's incogruent having them both in the same category, but I guess that's a story for another day.

Banksy trademarked his name as a friendly warning to the makers of all those records we saw produced with his images last year. I think you'd be waiting a long time for him to actually sue someone else for the use of his name/images though.

[They call me Stephen]

Mar 30, 2009 16:24:24 GMT 1 mose said:

How do Banksy fans feel about his filing for trademarks for everything from paint to jewelry to beer, coffee and tea. Why would Banksy do that? Simple, protection.

Agree with dynamixx's above post. Shep is a brand churning out products talking of a revolution for the corporate world. You answer your own question above Mose, the difference is that I can imagine Shep branding them.

Nothing sticks it your teacher like an Obey notepad...

obeygiant.com/store/product.php?productid=57&cat=5&page=1

better still get your jumper, t-shirts, jackets, trousers, bags, bikes etc from him as well to really show your stance against the man

shop.obeyclothing.com/p-659-obey-olympic-89-t-shirt.aspx
shop.obeyclothing.com/p-503-giant-hat.aspx
shop.obeyclothing.com/p-486-city-jungle-backpack.aspx
shop.obeyclothing.com/p-614-fidel-pants.aspx
madebysix.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/obey-bike/

Shep is a product/brand/corporation. Personally, I find more artistic merit in a pair of old Nikes than anything he's released for a long time

[snausages]

Mar 30, 2009 16:40:00 GMT 1 mose said:

Mar 30, 2009 16:31:49 GMT 1 manchestermike said:

This guy in Pittsburg isn't infringing though... he's using a word in a phrase

Hey, I'm not saying that this isn't a nit-picky little case. I think it looks like it is. But the lawyers associated with Obey Giant Art, Inc. must have thought there was enough there and the enforcement action does display the required defense of trademark.

It's funny, I get the feeling in this thread that people think Shepard Fairey is sitting at home on a pile of money cackling, "go get that little guy with the weird dolls," when this is a simple corporate legal exercise that is really standard.

You're talking around the topic and either really reaching for excuses or you can't see the forest through the trees.

His lawyers didn't think there was 'enough there.' Obey giant has to go after the steeler baby for technical reasons, because if he doesn't actively pursue trademark infringements then it becomes harder for them to claim ownership of the trademark in the long run so his team of lawyers I'm sure counsels him to do so. The problem is that he has not so unwittingly evolved into a corporate monster similar to the kind he built a career off of railing against. If he had any amount of ethos he'd do what he thinks is right not what his lawyers tell him to do because they're worried it might cut into sales of Obey brand tshirts and dolls.

[snausages]

Nothing sticks it your teacher like an Obey notepad...

I can't wait for the Obey post it notes. The Obey 3M corporate crossover 'remix.' Stick it to the man with an obey sticky pad. That will really send a message. ;D

Mar 30, 2009 16:55:20 GMT 1 dynamixx said:

Banksy trademarked his name as a friendly warning to the makers of all those records we saw produced with his images last year. I think you'd be waiting a long time for him to actually sue someone else for the use of his name/images though.

Right and in fact Banksy actively encourages others to use and reuse his images, he has a store on his website, everything is free and is suggested that you use his images and put them on things yourself.

If the day ever comes that Banksy starts sending cease and desist letters to people selling products on Etsy that might possibly if your stoned somehow be confused with an original Banksy, trust me I won't be on this forum finding excuses for him.

[jnschicago]

I've heard a lot of people dismiss Shepard Fairey with well-thought critiques on his message(s), his style, etc. And, frankly, I tend to agree with everyone who dismisses him as nothing more than a master of self-promotion.

However, when I read comments from individuals who admire his work, I can't figure out what they like about it. Can someone please explain Shepard Fairey and the whole Obey thing? What am I missing? For me, it looks like nothing more than a guy who knows his way around photoshop. I get absolutely none of the humor, insight or message that I get from other greats like Banksy, etc. Why would I want another red and gold poster that he rolls off his factory line every week?

[bonesy]

For me, it looks like nothing more than a guy who knows his way around photoshop.

Many people say this and it would have some merit if Shepard had some competition in what he does, but he dosent. Surely if it were that easy (picking out obscure images dropping it into photoshop to make them relevant to todays climate and hitting GO) then someone else would be doing it, right? Where?

[Gentle Mental]

At the heart of it, this is what I like about shep -

His craft is dishonest - he steals, he markets, he makes money, he uses photoshop, he designs for Saks - - yes he is, from art snob's perspective, guilty as charged (but who isn't)

However, his art is honest. He really doesn't care about these sins - he stays true to his vision.

Look at his entire body of work - and you'll see, image after image, this man has been slaving, in very fine details, relentlessly, to be true.

Release after release, it's like, i can see his mad passion...like a poor man falling in love with a beautiful whore...


i do ramble... apologies if it doesn't make sense - but it's how i feel...

[jamesreeve5]

Instead of this in-fighting about Shepard Fairey as an artist, this board, WKandy, and the obey giant forum as a whole should be asking themselves why critics, curators, and intellectuals find so much of this kind of art ("urban" "street") unappealing. I think the excuses of "uninformed" and "snobbery" can only go so far.

[Francis]

Mar 30, 2009 19:11:38 GMT 1 jamesreeve5 said:

Instead of this in-fighting about Shepard Fairey as an artist, this board, WKandy, and the obey giant forum as a whole should be asking themselves why critics, curators, and intellectuals find so much of this kind of art unappealing. I think the excuses of "uninformed" and "snobbery" can only go so far.

More than that, I think the question should be why you care so much? History is littered with artists, be it painters, filmmakers, musicians, poets, etc. who never received any critical acclaim when they were living.

Critics and curators have a very narrow-minded view of what is considered praise-worthy and what is not. Things that do not fit into their perceptions will not be written about positively. Furthermore, the naysayers will be kept quiet for fear of career endangerment and ridicule.

In art, you have to be willing to think outside of mainstream thought and take risks and collect in who you believe in.

So why is critical acclaim in an artist so important to you?

[snausages]

>why is critical acclaim in an artist so important to you?<
Critical acclaim isn't important to me but making smart intellectual ethical art is. And they often go hand in hand.

I don't think we're looking at another van gogh here, I don't think people are going to realize his genius when he dies. Like james said instead of continually claiming that critics and curators are narrow minded, maybe you should consider what they say. Critics are critical because they should be, they're smart people—some may be narrow minded—sure there's narrow minded people everywhere, but when you start seeing a pattern of agreement that the work although often visually appealing is intellectually and conceptually vapid and leaves you feeling empty afterwards I think you should look deeper. I think it's a relief to hear this and that smart art is really the goal and that the most extreme praise should be reserved for that and not thrust upon this kind of work that has gotten a huge lift thanks to the success of Obama.

[Prescription Art]

Mar 30, 2009 19:11:38 GMT 1 jamesreeve5 said:

Instead of this in-fighting about Shepard Fairey as an artist, this board, WKandy, and the obey giant forum as a whole should be asking themselves why critics, curators, and intellectuals find so much of this kind of art ("urban" "street") unappealing. I think the excuses of "uninformed" and "snobbery" can only go so far.

Maybe you should ask yourself why the public as a whole finds the art that critics, curators & intellectuals rave about unappealing.

[snausages]

^ Is that why museum attendance and the number of museums is continually growing.

But I hear what you're saying, I think the education level and awareness of the public typically plays a factor in that sentiment when it exists.

[Francis]

My point is....say Fairey never receives a single word of praise from any one in the critical art world. Then what? Everyone who likes and collects his works should all feel ashamed of themselves and burn all of his works? Should they all form a community of art collectors and lovers with bad taste?

What is art? Why does anyone find personal value and connection to any art piece? Why would they seek the validation from any established critical world in order to confirm their love of any art work or artist?

Those questions should be answered first before anyone answers the question posed by James Golding.

[jamesreeve5]

Mar 30, 2009 19:49:25 GMT 1 Prescription Art said:

Maybe you should ask yourself why the public as a whole finds the art that critics, curators & intellectuals rave about unappealing.

Mar 30, 2009 20:00:30 GMT 1 @snausages said:

^ Is that why museum attendance and the number of museums is continually growing.

But I hear what you're saying, I think the education level and awareness of the public typically plays a factor in that sentiment when it exists.

Good point snausages, the average big-city contemporary art museum is in a tough spot between showing academically challenging works and compliant, more crowd friendly shows that have higher attendance. As one museum employee once told me "It's actually easier to get one person to donate $1 million dollars than it is to get one million people to donate $1 dollar". With that in mind, museums are faced with acquiring a collection and creating a program that is pleasing to their inner-circle of high level donors. These high level donors often times have an education level similar to that of the curators and critics of the art world, and are well aware of "their" museum's prestige in relation to other museums' prestige.

On the other hand, attendance is also important to museums, especially when receiving public funding. For this they need to build programs that are public friendly, and they do this by not only showing art that appeals more to the mass public, but also by complimenting harder to grasp exhibitions with tours guided by docents, weekend family workshop programs, and public forums with the artists exhibited.

On a personal level though, I enjoy being challenged by art. I digest what critics and curators have to say and sometimes I allow it to affect the way that I view art. But that doesn't mean I am being complaisant to a larger system.

[slowmo]

This is a good debate. I like fairey, but think 99 out of 100 of his prints are crap, would never want clothing etc. But in terms of seeing his work up and about, well its every damn where and very recognisable, as a street artist he has cracked it, you know it when you see it, you see it often. In terms of his original work, well, thats bloody amazing to my untrained eye.

I like his re-working of images, the appropriation. Yes many are stolen, but by the time he is finished with them, they are unmistakably his work. As for artistic merit and legacy.......doesn't really matter does it? As far as I am aware he must be THE most prolific street artist there has ever been and that action alone, irrespective of how the message has completely been lost in the trappings of supply and demand (see what I done there) is worth celebrating if you truly do like street art, many would struggle to match his output. Whether you like it or not, particularly art critics, is perhaps irrelevant?

[snausages]

Mar 30, 2009 16:07:21 GMT 1 artpartment said:

emory douglas 1969

Rad

[jamesreeve5]

Mar 30, 2009 20:14:51 GMT 1 Francis said:

Those questions should be answered first before anyone answers the question posed by James Golding.

I am not James Golding.

[jamesreeve5]

Mar 30, 2009 20:14:51 GMT 1 Francis said:

My point is....say Fairey never receives a single word of praise from any one in the critical art world. Then what? Everyone who likes and collects his works should all feel ashamed of themselves and burn all of his works? Should they all form a community of art collectors and lovers with bad taste?

What is art? Why does anyone find personal value and connection to any art piece? Why would they seek the validation from any established critical world in order to confirm their love of any art work or artist?

Those questions should be answered first before anyone answers the question posed by James Golding.

Not saying everyone should be ashamed to own Fairey works. their is a place for every kind of art in the world. What I am trying to explore in this thread is the uneasy relationship that urban/street art shares with the larger contemporary art market. I am just questioning WHY it lacks the critical recognition that apparently so many people on this board believes it deserves.

There are just so many contradictions going on here. First forum members say that critics and curators find street art unappealing because they are narrow minded, and then other forum members say that what the critics and curators rave about the general public finds unappealing. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

So much is going on at once, and round and round we go. I'm just trying to make sense of it all.

[lee3]

I own none of his work though by any standards it is remarkably inexpensive for the level of attention he has achieved. I wish this piece was a part of my collection.



Some day I will grab one and must say that I have enjoyed his shows and have really had fun driving around San Fran over the past few months and noticing different compositions he decorated the city with.

[skylarkin]

Mar 30, 2009 15:51:10 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Mar 30, 2009 15:12:44 GMT 1 mose said:

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

Sure, trademarks must be defended. But I still don't understand why Fairey who claims to be all about plundering and taking and recycling and (being generous) 'reinterpreting' would feel the need to trademark the word obey. It's another example of an aspect of his work that seems antithetical to what he's (supposed to be) about.

My tuppence is that Obey needs to decide if he is a street artist as he proclaims or a capitalist feeder monkey.
I like some of Obeys stuff. Some of the red and black art work he has brought out, mixed with the flock look wallpaper finish works really well, and Im sure will stand the test of time. As for him stealing his ideas, well he is in a long que.
I can understand the reason why Obey is trying to defend his trademark, infact in the land of the lawyer im sure he has been advised till it comes out of his ears, and if nothing else its great publicity. But it to my mind it goes against the grain of street art, and its about time he got off of the streets and into gallerys where that kind of rattle waving belongs.
If he wants to be a brand then feck off and be one, but dont use the street as a canvas to do it becouse its only going to bring the whole system into disripute.
<grin> rant over...please, carry on..