Shepard Fairey- Basquiat.

[easycraig]

Feb 11, 2010 5:06:08 GMT 1 Francis said:

Feb 11, 2010 3:10:49 GMT 1 easycraig said:

-its a portrait for christ sake... -think about... its Shep's interpretation.. -its likely that it will have an obey feel to it... -if it didn't.. what the hell has he been working for the past 20 years?
-unless you own or have taken a really good look at his fine art in person... you really shouldn't comment... - just my opinion...

that's where the problem is. it is a filter and not an interpretation. why don't you tell us what his interpretation of Basquiat here is? explain his thought process, what he wanted to communicate, what he wanted the viewer to see. what is his interpretation of jasper johns or jason jessee or paul watson?

you can interchange the subjects in any two of shepard fairey's portraits and it wouldn't make any difference.

and what's up with the snobbery? you want me to take my p***s out and compare?

first... its not a pissing contest and I apologize if you think that came off as snobbery... - it was not my intention.
-with that being said... maybe that 'filter' you speak of is Shepard's interpretation... - I don't know if there an answer to your questions.. -its a portrait... -does there need to be a message communicated? - can't it simply be the artist's take on the subject?

[Grubster]

TRACY MORGAN!!!! Does no one see the resemblance?

[Simococo]

I think its great that provincial museums are showing his work and that plenty of fans get the opportunity to see a number of his seminal pieces under one roof without the madness of a sales driven show.

His use of the stencil and work on the street cements him as being as relevant as Banksy in this movement but I appreciate that his subject matter might not be to everyones tastes and the appropriation of images had lead to a certain degree of controversy.

Saying that on this forum many other significant artists get their fair share of negativity too; KAWS, Parla, Faile, Hutch


Particularly from the art establishment ticket masters

[Cedric Mnich]

Hey guys, someone mentioned the fact that all Shepard Fairey's portraits look alike. Well it might be true but it's mainly because he has his own style which is fairly recognizable : Illustrator style, Black / Red / Orange colors, newspaper stenciled background.
Yeah, he could make any portrait this way without having many differences between portraits. But hey, we could say the same about Warhol. All Warhol did was screenprinting black and white pictures on a colored background.
What annoys me the most about Shep Fairey is the fact that he is pillageing other people's work without even mentioning them. I am pro- fair use and reappropriation to a certain extent but seeing Fairey claiming stuff to be his work is sometimes over the border line. I guess many of you know of the "Art for a Change" anti-Fairey page. But sometimes I find things which really make me thing that Fairey has no honesty and no respect for other artists.
Check this out and tell me what you think :

Shep's work :


Ron Mueck's work :


Shepard's description of his work in Supply and Demand (illustration 270) is even worse : he says he drew the face and applied a mirror effect. But Ron Mueck is never mentioned as the original artist...

I love Shepard Fairey's work and I think reappropriation of photos in the press is ok as far as you have some creative action on it (like Fairey did on Obama's photo). I think AP was wrong on Obama's photo. But if Ron Mueck sued Fairey, or the guy who drew the 1954 Big Brother illustration, I would totally understand the lawsuit this time.
When I started creating my art stuff, I thought Fair-Use and reappropriation was ok but I am progressively reconsidering the question. If you art brings nothing new then maybe it has no reason to be... ?

[Karl Read]

Nothing different from what other street artists do! Including Banksy!

[snausages]

Feb 11, 2010 8:31:06 GMT 1 Simococo said:

Saying that on this forum many other significant artists get their fair share of negativity too; KAWS, Parla, Faile, Hutch

Particularly from the art establishment ticket masters

If you're referring to me as one of the "ticket masters," actually I don't recall saying anything bad about Kaws or Faile. Parla I actually think is "ok" but gets more credit than he deserves. Hutch, I don't know or care enough about him to comment.

-its a portrait... -does there need to be a message communicated? - can't it simply be the artist's take on the subject?

Sure, doesn't need to be a deeper meaning in it, but it's a bit empty because of that eh? Kind of like a lot of his work.

[RPM]

Feb 10, 2010 20:51:06 GMT 1 Francis said:

shepard fairey portraits suck. why? they say more about the artist than they do about the subject. what good true portraits has he done, where you say, "oh, this middle-aged suburban white boy totally GETS the true essence of this black hero"? or, "THIS reveals so much of the struggles this political figure goes through"? instead, you look at a Fairey portrait and say, that's a shepard fairey portrait....he put patterns on it and s**t and distorted the face and made the hands ugly and collaged paper on it and glued his old checks on it and put it on a t-shirt and chose an image that some other dude created or shot from their artistic perspective

As I never attended art school nor ever took an art theory/appreciation course (I simply buy/collect what I like), I would love to hear a genuine discussion on what makes certain portraits great vs. others that apparently are terrible. I'm not saying I love the Basquiat portrait from Shep, but it is clearly a portrait in Shep's style - which I think is his point/intention. Whether you like his "style" or not, to me, is another discussion entirely.

However, since the topic of portraits was raised, I would love to know why the portraits below would be considered (by many) to be important, while Shep's would not. Personally, when I look at the portraits below, they tell me absolutely nothing about the subject. All I take from them is the particular artist's style or vision.

Not trying to cause a ruckus, but if I'm truly ignorant of something so glaringly obvious, please educate me. Thanks.

RPM

Andy Warhol




Leonardo da Vinci

[jamesreeve5]

The Warhol is important because Andy was attempting to commodify the essence of Marilyn through his portraits. What we are looking at is in fact not a picture of Marilyn the person, but rather a picture of the product of Marilyn Monroe.

[taxidermot]

warhol changed perception
fairey changes the wallpaper?

[Francis]

1. warhol portraits post film career were mostly commissions and he took the photos himself. his portraits 1966 and near there are some of the best ever created.

2. art portraits should convey something to the viewer that the artist wants to portray or show. it could make us see things about the subject we normally would not see without the existence of said portrait.

what fairey does is design the portrait. there is nothing wrong with designing, but don't say it's art and show it in a big gallery.

[Backpack Punk]

Feb 11, 2010 21:41:30 GMT 1 Francis said:

1. warhol portraits post film career were mostly commissions and he took the photos himself. his portraits 1966 and near there are some of the best ever created.

2. art portraits should convey something to the viewer that the artist wants to portray or show. it could make us see things about the subject we normally would not see without the existence of said portrait.

what fairey does is design the portrait. there is nothing wrong with designing, but don't say it's art and show it in a big gallery.

Why can't design be art?

[Simococo]

Feb 11, 2010 17:48:41 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Feb 11, 2010 8:31:06 GMT 1 Simococo said:

Saying that on this forum many other significant artists get their fair share of negativity too; KAWS, Parla, Faile, Hutch

Particularly from the art establishment ticket masters

If you're referring to me as one of the "ticket masters," actually I don't recall saying anything bad about Kaws or Faile. Parla I actually think is "ok" but gets more credit than he deserves. Hutch, seems derivative but I don't know or care enough about him to comment.

-its a portrait... -does there need to be a message communicated? - can't it simply be the artist's take on the subject?

Sure, doesn't need to be a deeper meaning in it, but it's a bit empty because of that eh? Kind of like a lot of his work.

wasn't referring to you snausages just a general reference to anyone working within the established gallery system who views this art form as a passing fad.

[jamesreeve5]

now this is a Fairey portrait...

www.comedycentral.com/images/shows/colbert_report/downloads/colbertOlympicFairey.pdf

[RPM]

Appreciate the interesting comments...

Francis, with regard to your comment that "art portraits should convey something to the viewer that the artist wants to portray or show. it could make us see things about the subject we normally would not see without the existence of said portrait" - do we look to the intent of the artist or the opinion of the viewer in order to judge the work? In other words, who decides whether a portrait is a successful one or not?

This is similar to one of the bigger issues I have with certain types of art in general - Is it art because the so-called artist says so or is it art because someone else deems it so? Not sure if this is making sense, but I've never understood (other than aesthetics and feeling) why certain people can judge one artist as great and another as crap.

As far as your comment, "there is nothing wrong with designing, but don't say it's art and show it in a big gallery" - I, like others, don't understand or see the difference between art and design. To me they can be (and often times are) one and the same. Perhaps you can explain this a bit more.

Anyone want to comment on the Mona Lisa? In other words, why is she so great?

RPM

[Damien]

was always told in school mona lisa was so great because of the expression on her face and look in her eyes and the way its meant to tell you the painting means something more than what your just looking at, somethin like that anyway haha. but actually i dont really know

[Francis]

1. art is an interaction. it is not unilateral.
2. debating subjectivity and opinion is dead end and no-win
3. www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=difference+between+art+and+design&aq=f&aqi=&oq=