Shepard Fairey...plagiarist?

[pcgd]

We were discussing this article here at work today. Its talking about how alot of Fairy's artwork is directly lifted from previous works. I think there is room for both sides of the arguement here... so... discuss:

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

[udubs03]

I wouldn't have as much of a problem if he was using and/or altering images to make some sort of statement, but he's doing it simply to make money by appealing to the "radical chic" crowd, as that article put it.

To me, Fairey seems to be an unimaginative, unoriginal, and lazy designer. Slap and Andre the Giant star on an old poster, change the words to 'Obey' and call it a day.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

It's not really plagiarizing so much as it is appropriating, right? Does Fairey claim to have created the original images? It looks like he makes propaganda hipster-palatable. While that may be incredibly lame, I don't think it counts at passing off the work of others as his own. People are well aware it's all shtick, right?

[MEANS]

you would hope some people were aware but if you read the article Shepard himself is not even aware of the images he uses...i.e. the Nazi skull. I just wish he would acknowledge the people he's ripping off or "appropriating", he even copies a lot of what FUCT did in the early 90's.

[Gothamite]

It's not really plagiarizing so much as it is appropriating, right? Does Fairey claim to have created the original images?

Yes.

By not crediting the original artists of obscure or relatively unknown works, he is passing them off as his own. These aren't images that people should all be expected to recognize (the writer makes a great point with Lichtenstein's "Look Mickey", which presumes that the audience knows who Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are).

People are well aware it's all shtick, right?

No. That's the point of the article.

It's a hard argument to make that people are aware of obscure Czech political posters from the 1960s. Fairey only admits to the source when, in his words, he's "busted."

[DG_ThenNowForever]

It's not really plagiarizing so much as it is appropriating, right? Does Fairey claim to have created the original images?

Yes.

By not crediting the original artists of obscure or relatively unknown works, he is passing them off as his own. These aren't images that people should all be expected to recognize (the writer makes a great point with Lichtenstein's "Look Mickey", which presumes that the audience knows who Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are).

People are well aware it's all shtick, right?

No. That's the point of the article.

It's a hard argument to make that people are aware of obscure Czech political posters from the 1960s. Fairey only admits to the source when, in his words, he's "busted."

That's what I get for only looking at the pictures.

Well then, yes, he's a plagiarist. Please ready the gallows.

[pcgd]

I see a big difference in using imagery thats in the public domain (Uncle Sam, Rosie the Riveter, Andre the Giant) and using some of the things he used.

I get the message and everything, but as I told someone at work, I had no idea that most of these images weren't original works of art. Some of the images I think of when I think of Fairey are some that were mentioned in the article.

I have mixed feelings, mainly because I generally like the work and I think it looks good. Some of the messages, as one poster put it, are radical chic...but I like the look of most of it.

[udubs03]

His laziness really shows in the "Greetings from Iraq" print, where he took the composition of the whole piece from some obscure Yellowstone Park poster that most people have never or will ever see. If he's done this in so many of the examples featured in that article, how can anyone know what's his and what isn't?

[Gothamite]

Well, according to the article, there's no work that's "his." The author makes the point that he doesn't actually design anything on his own, just borrows the work of others and changes some details.

I get the message and everything, but as I told someone at work, I had no idea that most of these images weren't original works of art. Some of the images I think of when I think of Fairey are some that were mentioned in the article.

That's what Fairey's counting on, and that's exactly the problem.

The man is a liar and a thief.

[SDX]

Certainly looks like he has ripped most off, and even though he says he borrows 95% of the people who view the work wont know this and thus will think he is a top artist, and no doubt he'll be making money off it aswell so as Gothamite rightly says 'the man is a liar and a thief' who is exploiting people

[andrewharrington]

While the article is heavily biased, I try to look closely at both sides of something like this. With that said, I can't find any reason to defend Shepard Fairey. He's arrogant and he's sending a tired, juvenile message that so many people have sent before (and in much better and more original fashion). To me, the worst part of it is that he's really trying to make money with art from the public domain. As the article states, artists create work for the public domain so that the work can be used in the future to maintain a degree of social awareness and what have you. He is exploiting the popularity of the artwork in order to make money (under the uber-vague disguise of 'stimulating curiosity' and whatever else it says on his website). It is public domain, so he's not doing anything expressly illegal, but it's more of an unwritten rule that you shouldn't be selling art of the public domain and you certainly should not be trying to trademark it or register it in any way. I browsed one page of the website and found a ripoff of another Ranger Naturalist poster (for Hawaii/Volcanoes Nat'l Park), I looked at the egotistical nature of his body language, his artist statement(s) and his work and I decided that I just don't respect him very much as an artist. He's a smart business man, I suppose, but not a respectable one of those, either. He's claiming all this liberal communist and socialist imagery and ideal, yet he's living his life through an unethical capitalist venture that belittles the work of 'real' artists. I would feel better if he were crediting his sources at the very least, but even that wouldn't make it ethical.

[chuckymack]

The only reason I know who Sheperd Fairey is this:

Anyone else think this is hilarious?! I mean, the guy duped the largest guitar company on the planet into thinking he was legit, then they subsequently poured a boatload of money into the production(and the ensuing advertising onslaught) of these guitars!

Fender Custom Shop guitars ain't cheap. Even the mass-produced ones will cost you at least a grand. With a limited run like these, I'd assume the price is closer to $3000. Just another reason I'm glad I bought a Les Paul and not a Telecaster.

Methinks the fine folks at FMIC won't appreciate having egg on their faces...

[AndrewPF]

Just because something's obscure doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Slickster]

I don't see it as a problem since Fairey makes no claim to own the original art that he alters for his products. All of his works are derivative of an earlier source and he makes no claims to be completely original about it.

That music video someone posted here recently was obviously ripping off famous idents and intros from 70s/80s television programs. Is that work plagiarism too?

[MEANS]

I don't see it as a problem since Fairey makes no claim to own the original art that he alters for his products. All of his works are derivative of an earlier source and he makes no claims to be completely original about it.

That music video someone posted here recently was obviously ripping off famous idents and intros from 70s/80s television programs. Is that work plagiarism too?

"derivative"???? "alters"???? did you not read the article??? It clearly points out that some of his subject matter was not altered at all, check out the Koloman Moser poster..

"Fairey no doubt saw the cover art for Ver Sacrum and created an exact tracing of it, a tracing so precise that when the two versions are put together and held up to the light - all lines match perfectly. Fairey merely altered Moser?s original work with some clumsy border enhancements, a small portrait of Andre the Giant, and the words, "OBEY Propaganda".

and those clumsey borders that you may think he did himself are freakin clip art!!!!!!! we found that exact border here at work on the web from a clip art source.

in your view he may not claim the art as his own(but where on the product does he make this claim, he only makes it after being caught or as he puts it "busted") but he also doesn't acknowledge where he got the art from, be it public domain or not, at least give the original artist credit, maybe your consumers could learn something too.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

Fairey simply attached his portrait of Andre the Giant to these two Soviet prints, added the words "Obey Giant", and then took full credit for the works as original designs. Fairey is selling his rip-off version of Kozlinsky?s Meeting as cellphone wallpaper on the Jamster.com website. Jamster is owned by Newscorp, the corporate media conglomerate founded by right-wing billionaire and owner of the Fox News network, Rupert Murdoch, ]

i stopped reading this article when i saw that.

For the record, he has endorsed Hillary Clinton and has donated money to her campaign. There's your right-wing billionaire.

[Gothamite]

I don't see it as a problem since Fairey makes no claim to own the original art that he alters for his products. All of his works are derivative of an earlier source and he makes no claims to be completely original about it.

You are not correct.

Fairey does not reveal that his work has been lifted from other sources (unless, of course, he gets caught). By hiding this, he is implicitly claiming that the work is entirely his.

I find it hard to justify any claim that he's been honest about his work.