Forum Topic: Is street art / graffiti art vandalism or should it be considered a right? How free is free speech?

I want to tackle two issues with this entry and hope to obtain feedback from readers. The first-- is street art / graffiti art vandalism or should it be considered a right? The second-- how free is free speech according to the law?

Forum Topic: Is street art / graffiti art vandalism or should it be considered a right?

There has long been a debate concerning illegally placed art on public property. That said, the debate has reached a boiling point in recent months due to Shepard Fairey. I’ve been following Shepard Fairey’s court problems in Boston. The Boston police claim that Fairey illegally posted his artwork on city property in Boston leading up to his exhibit at the ICA and have also brought an outstanding warrant from years ago to the table. Some of the charges have been dropped-- however, Judge Eleanor Coe Sinnott has ruled that Fairey will face 10 counts of felony vandalism charges. Rumor has it that there may be additional charges as well.

The case has spurred debate about the validity of illegally placed works of art. One side feels that illegally placed art should not be considered vandalism and should be considered free speech while the other feels that support for the illegal activity of famous artists, such as Shepard Fairey, will spur others to create art in illegal spaces. Supporters of illegally placed art feel that charging street/graffiti artists with a crime inhibits freedom of speech . Supporters of the law feel that artists should take more responsibility for how they promote themselves and their visual message while acknowledging that public property is just that, public, not the ‘canvas’ for one individual regardless of emotive or aesthetic reasons.

One interesting aspect about this specific case is that Shepard Fairey’s lawyer has stated that the image in question is readily available on the Internet and that anyone could have put the illegally placed works up after downloading the poster in order to paste it or create stencils with it. In fact, Fairey’s www.obeygiant.com offers posters as downloads-- along with warnings about not placing works illegally. Fairey’s lawyer also claims that anyone can buy Obey stickers and that Fairey has no control over how people use them-- which is understandable. However, I think there is more to the story.

On obey giant.com Shepard Fairey states, “Please use common sense and consideration when applying stickers or other propaganda materials. Giant is designed to provoke thought about the mechanics of the system we live in…not to destroy it. Everyone has to live here.”. However, Fairey has also posted video clips of his illegally placed works in progress-- including videos of he and his crew fleeing from police. Apparently those videos are no longer available on the site. Thus, one could say that Shepard Fairey is sending a very mixed message to fans and that his lawyer is trying to pin the illegal activity that occurred in Boston on Obey fans-- rather than Shepard Fairey taking responsibility and standing up for his work.

The issue of responsibility is at the core of this case. One interesting fact is that members of the street art and graffiti community have spoken out against Shepard Fairey’s actions in Boston. For example, Joey Krebs who is known as the LA Phantom and Phantom Street Artist has been very critical of Fairey’s actions-- including the commercialization of street art that has been fueled by Obey Giant Art Inc..

Krebs suggests that if Fairey truly believed in his visual message he would stand up for his work, admit what he has done, and take responsibility for it-- as most street and graffiti artists do in situations like this. In Krebs opinion the fact that Fairey has blamed the public, specifically fans, for his illegally placed works takes away from his street credibility. That said, the Phantom suggests that Shepard Fairey only has respect within the commercial aspect of the street art / graffiti community. He has stated that without risk-- and accepting risk-- street art and graffiti art is without purpose.

As the Phantom Street Artist has pointed out, most street/graffiti artists are not arrested over a dozen times and released so easily. Thus, Krebs feels that Fairey receives ‘get out of jail free cards’ due to his corporate connections and investors. Krebs also suggests that Fairey is speaking the language of corporations and money rather than an authentic message for the masses-- or minority groups that Fairey tends to appropriate images from. In other words, Krebs feels that Fairey is not really a representative of the street art and graffiti art community-- but is instead a representative of the commercialization that has bastardized the movement.

It is evident that many street and graffiti artists understand the law and view that as part of the process-- as a part of their history. In other words, some feel that the commercialization and legalization of all forms of street and graffiti art actually takes away from the movement that so many individuals have taken part in. In a sense, if current illegally places works were to be made legal it would take away from the impact of the works and the message they communicate visually-- in other words it would be a contradiction of the street art and graffiti art movement in general.

With this in mind I would say that most street and graffiti artists do not view their work as vandalism. However, that does not mean they view their work as a right either. In fact, I would say that many would agree that the power of illegally placed work is the fact that the artist is communicating in a way that challenges the law and the limits of free speech. One could suggest that is the very foundation of the movement. In other words, if it becomes lawful for artists to place work anywhere they desire-- if it is considered a right-- doesn’t that mean that both forms of expression would need to be redefined? What are your thoughts? Should all public property be an outlet for creativity? Should it be a right rather than a form of rebellion?

Forum Topic: How free is free speech?

I always find it interesting when the idea of free speech comes up in cases like this. Shepard Fairey is suggesting that he has a right to free speech concerning where he places his art and also for images that he uses without giving credit or compensation to copyright owners-- what he communicates within his art involving those works. That said, how free is free speech in the first place? We all know that there are some things you simply can’t communicate due to laws and other restrictions.

Should all messages, including those that are currently considered to be hate crimes, be free to be spoken verbally or visually in public spaces? My point is that when it comes down to the line there are limitations on freedom of speech no matter how much bravado you display in a court of law or how many sabers you rattle within the art community. Keep in mind that the laws that we have generally reflect the desires of the public. Thus, there will always be limitations and restrictions on free speech even if we don‘t openly admit it. What say you?

The way I see it-- if Shepard Fairey honestly feels that artists should have the right to place works anywhere within the public space and that to restrict artists with laws is an attack on free speech, he should have no problem with street artists placing their work outside his front door-- perhaps on the sidewalk in front of his gallery or in public locations outside of his exhibits at other galleries the same day of his opening. Is that not free speech?

Would he welcome street artists who choose to create works questioning his ethics to place their work on public property near his exhibits or near the Obey Giant Art Inc. HQ? If the Phantom Street Artist and others were to pay those public spaces a visit with visual criticism would Fairey welcome them with a wave and a smile? Would Fairey accept that-- I doubt it. So what is he really asking for? Freedom for his own message? Or freedom for all?

www.myartspace.com/forum

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor

The Phantom Street Artist speaks out against Shepard Fairey in Citizen LA

The Citizen LA cover is a collaboration between Rick Mendoza and Joey Krebs aka The Phantom Street Artist. www.citizenla.com

As mentioned on the Myartspace Blog the Phantom Street Artist is actively challenging the ‘street cred’ of artist Shepard Fairey. In my article, titled ‘Shepard Fairey Dodges Criticism at ICA: Street Artists and Copyright Advocates Demand Answers‘ , I mentioned that some street artists are furious concerning the commercialization of street art by Shepard Fairey and his business associates. Unfortunately, their voice has not been heard widely-- even on the majority of websites and e-zines dedicated to street art.

For that article I asked Joey Krebs aka Joel Jaramillo, aka Caine 2, aka the LA Street Phantom, aka The Phantom Street Artist about some of the statements Shepard Fairey has made about his work for Pepsi, Saks, and other companies. 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.”. Needless to say, The Phantom has been very critical of Shepard Fairey‘s art, practice, and ethics.

For my article The Phantom Street Artist 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 meet his challenge concerning credibility on the streets. 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.”. In a sense, the Phantom Street artists feels that Shepard Fairey, with the help of a media relations machine, has bastardized the street art movement.

The Phantom Street Artist’s “character approved” statement was a jab at the USA Networks “ Character Approved Award ”, an award given by the USA Network to the most “remarkable, imaginative and innovative characters”-- Shepard Fairey won the top slot for the 2009 art category. Needless to say, the Phantom Street Artist does not feel that Shepard Fairey’s art is remarkable, imaginative, or innovative as far as street art is concerned. In fact, he feels that the award given by the USA Network to Shepard Fairey is a prime example of how corporations are claiming street art for profit and marketability with Shepard Fairey serving-- or should I say obeying -- as a corporate spearhead.

The Phantom Street Artist at work.

The words of the Phantom Street Artist have not went unheard. Citizen LA , a monthly arts & lifestyle publication that strives to support and sustain cultural diversity in Los Angeles, has acknowledge the Phantom Street Artist’s criticism of Shepard Fairey and his call for a "cage match" between the two with "street cred" in the balance-- a performance of sorts that would also serve the purpose of raising money for charity. Both artists have experience with fundraising. The Phantom helps to operate Art Saves Lives, www.artsaveslives.net, a non-profit dedicated to helping the homeless through art. Will Shepard Fairey meet the Phantom's challenge?

The Citizen LA article/interview touched on several other issues concerning the Phantom's criticism of Shepard Fairey. Heidi Hutchinson, reporting for Citizen LA, recently conducted an interview with the Phantom Street Artist titled, RAGE AGAINST THE SHEPHERD FAIREY PROPOGANDA MACHINE. In the interview the Phantom Street Artist explains to Hutchinson that Shepard Fairey does not represent the voice of the “populace” and is instead the “voice of the Elitist Media disguised”.

In his interview for Citizen LA the Street Phantom goes on to suggest that Shepard Fairey is nothing other then a “consumer being consumed” by buying media time, buying publicity, and buying legal representation. The Phantom states that Fairey has done this to “justify his infringed violations” in order to “present himself as a legit street artist.” The Phantom went on to say that Shepard Fairey and Obey Giant Art, Inc. are “exploitive media whores jacking references from historic cultures for their own selfish interests.”

According to the Citizen LA interview The Phantom is also critical of the ICA retrospective of Shepard Fairey's career. The Phantom feels that the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston “conjured” a 20 year retrospective with total disregard for Shepard Fairy’s “unapologetic infringed actions”. The Phantom views this as “a sign of the degeneration of our society and culture which is being conformed by mediocrity by the likes of Shephard Fairey and OBEY as well as his publication SWINDLE as the true life metaphor to inveigle beliefs systems and values all in the interest of mammon.”.

The Phantom’s message is clear-- he feels that Shepherd Fairey is no different than the entities he has spoke out against visually. In the Citizen LA interview he describes Shepard Fairey as the “poster boy for Big Brother”-- stating, “The media is run by elitists to manipulate public opinion. They’ve also overtaken the independent media, including Satellite Radio.”.

The Phantom then mentions that the real meaning of Fairey’s art is the power of propaganda as far as branding and commerce is concerned. He explained to Hutchinson, “OBEY has no responsible message other then to brand self promotion in the self interest of commerce.”-- an opinion that is shared by many street artists who are wary that the history of their ’culture’ as well as the power of the messages they leave are threatened by commercialization.

In the Citizen LA interview The Phantom states that Shepard Fairey’s actions is the “epitome of rape,” based on his ravaging of “important historical and revolutionary cultures, ideas, concepts and visions” for profit. According to Citizen LA The Phantom-- born to first generation immigrants from Ecuador-- feels that Shepard Fairey is "demeaning" the integrity of the “referenced” works as well as the voice of disenfranchised cultures from which they emerged by altering images without credit. The Phantom finds it offensive that Fairey has “referenced” works from Latino cultural history for profit-- stating in the Citizen LA interview, “He’s making a novelty out of degrading our historical cultural imagery.”.

Concerning Shepard Fairey’s case against the Associated Press the Phantom stated, “If visual artist or merchandisers like Shepard Fairey can cite “fair use” only in the interest of protecting their corporate interest of profit, we have lost the value of “fair use”. Phantom explained to Citizen LA that people should not sit back while Shepard Fairey exploits “fair use” for profit-- stating, “Fair Use protects language and true social commentary without suffocating independent voices.”. The Phantom went on to suggest that if Shepard Fairey wins his case against the Associated Press it will kick open the door for the exploitation of “fair use” by the rich and powerful.

Needless to say, the Citizen LA interview with the Phantom Street Artist is a must read for anyone who has been following the chaos involving Shepard Fairey. The article gives some great details about the Phantom's upbringing, street roots, and other insightful information about the artist. The Citizen LA website, www.citizenla.com, contains several other stories and interviews of interest. Do check them out.

For those who don’t know, The Phantom Street Artist 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 directed two videos for Rage Against the Machine, 'Bulls on Parade', and 'Renegades of Funk,'. Both videos were awarded by MTV. The Rage Against the Machine album and videos feature the Street Phantom’s signature artwork-- a lone silhouette, which the Phantom explains represents the “Public Everyman“.

The Phantom's criticism of Shepard Fairey offers the hope that maybe the voice of the 'everyman' can be powerful enough to go against the grain of media sensationalism and the cult of personality. Personally, I do hope that the Phantom and Shepard Fairey have an 'art bout' for charity. It would be interesting to observe the two match wits and talent for a good cause.

Update: This write-up is a review of the article/interview that the Phantom had sent to me. According to the Phantom, Citizen LA decided to edit most of the content due to "fear of legal retribution". The Phantom suggests that Citizen LA took creative liberties with the presentation as a whole. Perhaps the Fairey Machine runs deeper than first expected-- or maybe there was just a lack of communication between the Phantom and Heidi Hutchinson? As the saying goes, "There are two sides to every story". It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

George Stiehl, the publisher of Citizen LA, has contacted me over the issue. He has stated that there was only one version of the piece. Stiehl suggests that the situation may be due to a misunderstanding or lack of communication. He made it clear that Citizen LA does not intentionally misrepresent their interviewed artists-- and that he hopes to solve the issue in an amicable manner.

That said, the version that was published was enough to spur a reaction. According to my sources an outspoken critic of Shepard Fairey was threatened after mentioning the Citizen LA Phantom piece on Facebook-- she has since pulled her criticism from Facebook out of fear of being physically harmed.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com