My Response to Shepard Fairey concerning his ‘AP, Obama, and Referencing’ message on ObeyGiant.com. Part 4

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3


Copyright is very important concerning the market and technology of today. People talk about how “fair use” needs to be extended due to the technology of today-- they feel that an extreme interpretation of “fair use“ is needed to secure creative freedoms. They often forget to mention the ease in which an individual can make reproductions from images found online today and the fact that many of the artists advocating for extended “fair use“, such as Shepard Fairey, profit from the random images they find online.

They are waving the banner of creative freedom when in reality the focus is on profit and profit alone-- their profit. Profit with total disregard for the profit and market of their peers. That is why Shepard Fairey is a target for my criticism-- and why he will continue to receive criticism until he takes responsibility. Unfortunately, he tends to use his charity work as a shield or resorts to having his friends rattle sabers when faced with criticism.

The fact remains that a skilled artist can use computer programs to alter an image they found online in order to suggest that it is his or her own-- or he or she can simply print off copies of the image in order to make changes to it. That is not to suggest that artists using these programs are not artists or that certain aspects of computer based art is of no value. It all comes down to responsibility and respect for other artists.

Shepard Fairey, to me, represents artists who display neither. Those who support his extreme view of “fair use” either don’t care about how hard it is for artists to establish a market for their work or they embrace his practice within their own methods of artistic creation involving works for profit.

My issue with extended views of “fair use” is that an emerging artist can spend months or years working on an oil painting or sculpture only to end up with another artists using an image of that painting or sculpture for a project that may have only taken days to create. In a sense, you could say that the artists working in traditional mediums need to have their work protected from the technology of today. Telling those artists not to upload images online is not the answer.

All artists deserve to gain exposure online knowing that their work is protected by strong copyright. There is room for “fair use” as long as it is limited and does not destroy or burden the business of emerging artists before they have a chance to rise on their own. Unfortunately, copyright is constantly under attack.

As mentioned earlier, more artists than ever are making a living or part of their living from selling their art. These artists need to know that their images are protected. Their collectors need to know that their investment is secure. In other words, artists must be able to defend the exclusive rights to their art-- to their business and legacy. If Shepard Fairey wins against the AP it will be yet another blow to artists who desire to embrace the market aspect of art. Throw the romantic image of 'the artist' aside! The idea that art should not involve business is a fantasy when one consider the art market of today-- Fairey knows this. So do I.

That is why so many art organizations and individuals have stood against orphan works legislation in recent years due to the fact that if passed the legislation would have greatly reduced the ability of living artists to protect and defend their art in court. Those same people should stand against artists like Shepard Fairey who fly false banners of ‘artistic freedom’ and ‘free expression’ during legal cases involving copyright infringement.

After all, the artists who cry ’artistic freedom’ and ’free expression’ when exposed for copyright infringement often do it in order to protect their profit rather than the way in which they work. Look at Shepard Fairey’s lawsuit against the AP-- it makes it clear that he desires to protect the profit made from the image as well as future profit. The issue is not necessarily about the AP-- the fact remains that Fairey could have done this to a fellow artist as he has done in the past.

Again, if the AP loses to Shepard Fairey it will mean that the door will be open further when he decides to ‘reference’ artwork by an emerging artist. If he wins against the AP it will set a precedent that will greatly harm the ability for all artists to defend their copyright in court. I can't stress this enough!

I realize that copyright issues can quickly become a debate between freedom of speech/expression and control. However, suggesting that supporters of strong copyright are attacking creative freedom is not exactly fair considering that the issue of copyright infringement does not become an issue until price tags are involved.

If an artist wants to explore the work of another artist directly, fine-- it becomes an issue when the artist attaches a price to the ‘new’ image or produces prints of the ‘new’ image for profit. We would not be facing this debate if it were not for the fact that some individuals-- Shepard Fairey for example-- think that it is acceptable to profit off of the hard work of others. His case against the AP is not about creative freedom or any of the other similar rhetoric spewing from his lips-- it is about his desire to profit off of others without consequence.

Securing creative freedom is one thing-- the desire to legitimize irresponsible and disrespectful appropriation for profit is another. Creative freedom is not under attack-- the rights of artists to secure their artwork and images of their artwork by copyright is. The ability for artists to protect the market for their art is under attack. Those on the other side of the aisle continue to wave the banner of creative freedom-- I wish they would just come out and say what their battle charge is really about. They want to be able to profit off of the works of others while at the same time protecting their ‘new‘ images from “profiteers“, “mimics“, and “parasites“. They want the best of both worlds. Point that out and those artists will often flee from a debate on this issue.

Think of it this way-- many of the artists who support an extended view of “fair use”, such as Shepard Fairey and Joy Garnett, are the same artists who create art utilizing the work of others for profit. They are represented by galleries-- they know the business side of art. So are they really champions of freedom and free-culture? Or are they just protecting their own business by supporting standards that would make it harder for other business-minded artists to protect their images from their use? If it is not about profit you would think they would be more than willing to 'spread the wealth' with the artists and photographers they 'reference'.

Don’t get me wrong, “fair use” is important-- however it should not be extended to the point that a widely known artist can base his or her career working directly from artwork by relatively unknown artists-- and other individuals-- for profit. This is why I have concerns about Shepard Fairey and what he represents. The contradictions and hypocrisy is tiresome. I’m not attacking creative freedom with my opinion-- I’m standing up for what the majority of artists have fought long and hard for. Don’t confuse creative freedom with the need for some artists to profit off of other artists.

To put it bluntly, it is going to be horrible if artists allow their rights to be stamped out in the name of creative freedom when the artists leading this charge, such as Shepard Fairey, are thinking more about their bank accounts than real creative freedom. Since when did creative freedom involve the need to profit from others? Are we defining creative freedom by dollar signs now? Let us not confuse the two! We should examine what Shepard Fairey is really saying when he uses these powerful words-- “creative”, “freedom”, and "expression".

In my opinion, he is seeking the freedom to be creative with the work of other living or recently deceased artists-- and others-- in order to profit without consequences. He desires the freedom to go against their intentions and legacy while expecting others to ‘obey’ his intentions and legacy. He is no different than the people who strongly supported aspects of the recent orphan works legislation which would have harmed the ability of living artists to protect their art. It is as simple as that. If we define ‘artistic freedom’ and ’free expression’ with a dollar sign the arts are truly doomed.

I must stress this-- If Shepard Fairey/ Obey Giant Art Inc. wins against the AP it will set a precedent that will make it easier for individuals and corporations to abuse the copyright of visual artists and other creative professionals. Make a stand-- disobey Shepard Fairey. Let people know that not everyone in the global art community supports Shepard Fairey's extreme interpretation of "fair use" for profit. Think of the past allegations that have shadowed his career-- think about what a victory against copyright could mean for your career. Support the exclusive rights that the majority of artists have fought hard for.

This is a 4 part rant:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Criticism and Arrest of Shepard Fairey Sparks Conspiracy Theories

The arrest of Shepard Fairey in Boston and recent mainstream criticism of Fairey’s art has sparked a number of conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories involving Shepard Fairey range from anonymous comments left by individuals on blogs to lengthy articles posted on SuperTouch and Wooster Collective. I suppose it is time to wear a tin foil hat-- or perhaps it is time for certain individuals to realize that Shepard Fairey is a controversial artist who openly admits to the illegal aspects of some of his work and that debate and criticism is bound to occur concerning his ethics and process.

The Shepard Fairey conspiracy theories involve several angles. Some feel that criticism of Shepard Fairey’s art and ethics is nothing more-- as SuperTouch assumes --than a “widespread and baseless internet campaign to smear Shepard Fairey”. Others, as mentioned on Wooster Collective, feel that his recent arrest was politically motivated-- a way for Boston police to incite a riot in order to get even with the Mayor of Boston over pay issues. Some comments suggest that the mainstream art world is trying to “keep Shepard Fairey down” while others suggest that Shepard Fairey is the victim of an attack on “fair use” spearheaded by the Associated Press.

The conspiracy theories don't stop there-- some individuals have promoted the idea, based on comments left on the The Huffington Post and Boston Globe, that recent criticism and the arrest of Shepard Fairey is nothing more than anti-Obama spin. In fact, some have suggested that President Obama should "pardon" Shepard Fairey of any crimes and make his work "exempt" from copyright and trademark laws in the future. In other words, some view criticism of Shepard Fairey as being criticism against President Obama’s administration and vision of ‘change‘-- and that Fairey should be "protected" because he helped spur Obama's 'change'. Some of those same individuals have suggested that McCain supporters are behind the negative criticism of Shepard Fairey or that Republicans in general are behind it. I’m certain that other conspiracy theories will arise in the coming weeks.

So far each conspiracy theory lacks one crucial factor-- they all fail to suggest that maybe Shepard Fairey should be responsible for his actions and choices. I think President Obama would support the idea of Shepard Fairey taking responsibility. Instead, these conspiracy theories project excuses for Shepard Fairey. Is it wrong to suggest that Shepard Fairey should be responsible for how he creates his art or for where he places it? Is it wrong for individuals to be concerned when videos posted on ObeyGiant and elsewhere have shown Fairey and his crew speeding off in cars in order to avoid cops in heavy populated areas? If he failed to appear in court in 2000 shouldn’t he be held accountable in the same way that any other citizen would be?

Furthermore, if Shepard Fairey places himself in situations that force individuals to question his ethics-- such as infringing on the copyright of Rene Mederos or sending cease-and-desist letters to artists who parody his widely known images under “fair use” while at the same time defending himself under "fair use" against the Associated Press -- should he not take some responsibility and own up to questions that have been asked of him? After all, we expect politicians and CEOs to be responsible-- so why not artists? Why not Shepard Fairey?

The truth is that there isn’t a mass conspiracy against Shepard Fairey-- in fact, he is to blame for much of the negativity that shadows his career due to his choices and failure to take responsibility for his actions and words. The contradictions are his own-- not created. Instead, there is a lot of paranoia going around and much of it has been spread by longtime supporters of Shepard Fairey. These individuals have spread conspiracy theories on the Internet in order to protect their interest by creating an ‘us versus them‘ scenario among fans of the artist. In other words, they strive to rally support from Shepard Fairey's fan base in order to contain negative criticism and promote the idea that Fairey is a rebel facing unwarranted opposition. After all, that image-- that persona -- helps to sell shirts and other merchandise.

True, you could say my opinion is a conspiracy theory in itself. However, there is consistent evidence to back my claim. Almost all of the major supporters who have fostered conspiracy theories involving Shepard Fairey have a vested interest in his career or a shared interest in his view of “fair use” and other issues-- such as promoting specific causes, selling specific magazines or merchandise, and promoting specific artists or theories about art. These individuals could lose ground in their respected businesses if Shepard Fairey ends up being ridiculed or loathed by the masses. He is their cash cow.

In that sense, one could say that Shepard Fairey is a problematic figurehead for some of these individuals. If Fairey is a success their business is a success-- if Fairey is a failure their work will be much harder-- he can't be replaced with the same momentum. In other words, Shepard Fairey is a bet that can result in great returns-- a gamble that can make or break their fortune. Thus, it is no surprise to me that the battle cry of support-- these specific conspiracy theories and the viral nature in which they spread -- often originate from their respected websites.

My point is that the words of Jamie O’Shea (SuperTouch) and others who strive to demonize individuals who are critical of Shepard Fairey’s ethics-- or who make up excuses for Fairey's lack of responsibility by placing him in the role of being a victim of “the Man”, “the system”, “conservatives”, “Republicans” or the “elite” -- only do so because of the position they would be in if Shepard Fairey is viewed as a “hack” or “fraud” by the majority of the public. Shepard Fairey’s failure in the eyes of the public would be bad for their business.

Needless to say, the defense of Shepard Fairey-- such as the SuperTouch article -- often appears to be a form of damage control. Under the surface it is nothing more than an attempt to protect a product. For example, the SuperTouch article posted by O’Shea was published on the same day that Dan Wasserman posted an article titled ‘How Phony is Shepard Fairey?’ on the Boston Globe website-- the same day that many were introduced to criticism of Shepard Fairey that they had not been aware of because the mainstream media had failed to report on it up until that time. Wasserman’s article focused on Mark Vallen’s criticism of Shepard Fairey-- it was the first time that Vallen’s critique had been mentioned on a mainstream news source that I'm aware of. It was long overdue. It comes as no surprise that the Fairey camp was quick to respond in kind.

The article by SuperTouch was posted days before Shepard Fairey’s opening at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston-- it ended up as a headline on Shepard Fairey’s ObeyGiant website within minutes of being posted by J O’Shea on SuperTouch. The article by Jamie O’Shea opened with the following introduction:

“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. 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.”.

The introduction alone is a vehicle for damage control and a source for fostering ideas of conspiracy. Again, it should be noted that the SuperTouch article was published on the same day that Dan Wasserman posted an article titled ‘How Phony is Shepard Fairey?’ on the Boston Globe website. Wasserman’s article focused on Mark Vallen’s criticism of Shepard Fairey-- which Vallen had posted in 2007. One could say that the SuperTouch article was more of a response to Wasserman's article than it was to Vallen's critique itself. Damage control.

The main target of Jamie O’Shea’s conspiracy theory is Mark Vallen-- an artist who has been critical of Shepard Fairey’s ethics for years. Oddly enough, Vallen’s article-- titled Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey-- ranks on the first page of Google searches for ‘Shepard Fairey‘. In other words, many people have read the article long before Wasserman mentioned it on the Boston Globe website-- dare I say that could suggest that perhaps many people agree with the views of Mark Vallen? In other words, one could suggest that many desire to see Shepard Fairey take responsibility and to be accountable when he is wrong.

Jamie O’Shea and other Shepard Fairey conspiracy theorists would have you believe that only a handful of people are critical of Shepard Fairey. After all, O’Shea and SuperTouch-- where Shepad Fairey is also an author-- suggests that Mark Vallen and other “detractors” have orchestrated a smear campaign due to being jealous or bitter of Shepard Fairey. Are we to assume that Shepard Fairey is beyond criticism? Are all art critics jealous or bitter if their words about an artist are harsh? Are we to believe that only a small band of individuals question the ethics of Shepard Fairey? To that I would say-- making demons out of people who are critical of Shepard Fairey’s art and practice is not exactly the best way to defend the validity of his work-- or the importance of your business.

Jamie O’Shea has long been a crucial figure in the hype surrounding Shepard Fairey. Thus, his words come off more as concern for his investment than anything else. To put it bluntly, Jamie O’Shea does not want people to view Shepard Fairey as an unethical artist-- an artist who steals from minority artists or social causes for his own financial gain and a stairway to fame as suggested by Mark Vallen. O’Shea and others want to foster the idea that Shepard Fairey is a hero of the people and a revolutionary of visual art. Thus, it makes sense that he and others would want to chip away at Vallen's character and his critique-- to silence criticism of Shepard Fairey before it grows out of hand.

When thinking of this one must put everything in perspective-- indeed, one must question everything. Jamie O’Shea was one of the first individuals to publish reviews and interviews with Shepard Fairey. He has also curated and co-curated exhibits involving Shepard Fairey's art.
Different sources state that O’Shea works as an art consultant for corporate collections-- connecting artists in his favor with corporate art collections. If people question the authenticity of Shepard Fairey they may very well question the authenticity of Jamie O’Shea's opinion and business ventures. Thus, it makes sense that he would want to spread conspiracy theories about a "widespread and baseless internet campaign to smear Shepard Fairey," in order to combat criticism of Shepard Fairey-- his interest, investment, and product.

Consider this an open debate about the responsibility-- or lack thereof -- of Shepard Fairey and the conspiracy theories that place him in a ‘victim’ role. Consider it an open debate about the commercialization of street art-- feel free to discuss ethics-- or the lack thereof. By all means, comment if you feel that my approach is not ethical or responsible.

Links of Interest:

Was Shepard Fairey Arrested To Embarrass The Mayor of Boston? - A First Hand Account -- Wooster Collective: a celebration of street art
http://www.woostercollective.com/2009/02/shepard_faireys_arrest_in_boston_a_first.html
Finally: Shepard Fairey Conspiracy Porn -- Bostonist
http://bostonist.com/2009/02/10/shepard-fairey-bpd-conspiracy.php

How Phony is Shepard Fairey? -- Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/02/how_phony_is_shepard_fairey.html
Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey: A Critique by Artist Mark Vallen
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

The Medium Is The Message: Shepard Fairey And The Art of Appropriation -- SuperTouch
http://www.supertouchart.com/2009/02/02/editorial-the-medium-is-the-message-shepard-fairey-and-the-art-of-appropriation/#respond

Jamie O’Shea Obeys Shepard Fairey by Taking Jabs at Mark Vallen -- Myartspace Blog
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/jamie-oshea-obeys-shepard-fairey-by.html

I Predict a Fairey Right? -- Beautiful Crime
http://beautifulcrime.com/news/i-predict-a-fairey-riot/

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com

Shepard Fairey Dodges Criticism at ICA: Street Artists and Copyright Advocates Demand Answers

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

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