Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Damien Hirst & Shepard Fairey / Cartrain & Baxter Orr

A collage by Cartrain involving Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God'

The story involving Damien Hirst and his copyright infringement allegations against a 16 year old street artist-- known as Cartrain-- has taken a twist. Several influential UK artists have joined forces in order to defend Cartrain. In doing so they have targeted the contradictory nature of Hirst’s decision to seek legal action against Cartrain. After all, Damien Hirst has allegedly infringed on copyright himself-- in one case he settled out of court due to copyright infringement allegations.

The battle charge against Damien Hirst has been spearheaded by Jamie Reid -- widely known for creating the Sex Pistol‘s ‘God Save the Queen‘ cover art, Jimmy Cauty -- a former member of KLF, and Billy Childish -- co-founder and former member of the Stuckists. Reid, Cauty, and Childish have produced a series of skull images which mock copyright regulations in the UK while exploring the contradictions of Damien Hirst concerning copyright in general. A website, Red Rag to a Bull, has been created so that the trio and other artists can sell parodies involving artwork by Hirst and other YBAs.

The works sold on Red Rag to a Bull include a version of Jamie Reid's famous Sex Pistols poster. In the poster the head of the Queen has been replaced with a diamond skull. According to reports, the artists have stated that the money raised from selling the parodies will be used to handle the legal expenses of Cartrain or other artists who are “bullied” by Damien Hirst or other YBAs. The trio have also stated that if enough money is raised they will create a replica of Hirst’s ’For the Love of God’ to serve as the ultimate parody of Hirst‘s work and status. Parodies of Damien Hirst and other YBAs can be purchased at, www.redragtoabull.com.

For those who don’t know about the Damien Hirst / Cartrain situation-- The Design and Artists Copyright Society, of which Damien Hirst is a member, contacted Cartrain after receiving direct instructions from Hirst. The society informed the young artist that he had broken the law by infringing upon Hirst’s copyright. Hirst’s demands were clear-- he demanded the original works and the halt of sales with the threat of legal action. Hirst also demanded the profit that Cartrain had made from selling his collages and prints. Four works were confiscated by DACS from Cartrain’s gallery on November 12th. Reports state that Cartrain only earned about £200 from sales of the work. Cartrain has stated that DACS informed him that Damien Hirst had personally ordered the action.

The situation between Damien Hirst and Cartrain in the UK is very similar to the situation between Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr in the United States. The saying, "Birds of a feather..." comes to mind. Cartrain, like Orr, decided to make a parody of a widely known work of art by a world renowned artist-- in this case Damien Hirst -- in order to make a social comment about Hirst’s art as well as his status in the art world. Damien Hirst, like Shepard Fairey in the case of Baxter Orr, had his legal team send a cease-and-desist letter to Cartain. Again, 'birds of a feather flock together'.

That said, unlike the situation with Baxter Orr and Shepard Fairey-- Cartrain’s parodies and profit were seized by Damien Hirst's legal team. Some reports state that Cartrain’s prints were destroyed in the process. Needless to say, if this had occurred in the United States I would think that Cartrain’s Hirst parody would have been considered “fair use” due to the widely known work he parodied and the social comment he established concerning the global status of Damien Hirst within the art market.

A comparison of a poster by Shepard Fairey (left) next to a poster by Baxter Orr (right). Orr put a SARs protective mask over the famous Obey Giant image and titled it ‘Protect’. Fair Use? You be the judge.

The irony of recent events is that we have two widely known and successful artists-- Damien Hirst and Shepard Fairey --who have defended their use of images created by others-- but are quick to stamp out any work that parodies their world renowned images. One should note the contradictions and hypocrisy that is involved with these issues. Damien Hirst and Shepard Fairey have three things in common-- they have both settled out of court due to infringing on the copyright of others, they both have careers that are shadowed by copyright infringement allegations against them, and they have both threatened legal action against artists who have done something they would otherwise support had they been in their shoes, so to speak. Thus, it seems that the two are only interested in aspects of “fair use” and freedom of expression if they are the ones applying it. Fly, fly, fly.

Concerns over copyright and interpretations of “fair use” is a global issue. I find the views that people take on issues like this to be very interesting-- they are often loaded with contradictions. For example, people are quick to say “It is art!“ when a world renowned artist-- such as Damien Hirst or Shepard Fairey-- allegedly infringes on copyright. However, those same people are apt to say “it is a rip-off!” if a less known artist-- such as Cartrain or Baxter Orr-- utilizes the same avenue of creation. It begs the question-- Does this attitude concerning copyright, and who is right or wrong concerning parody or social comment, convey a new form of elitism as far as art appreciation is concerned?

Furthermore, does it seem that when it comes down to the line only works by successful artists are truly protected-- at least as far as public opinion is concerned? Is there a double standard in the art world concerning appropriation and freedom of expression? Are some birds allowed to fly while others are shot down before having the chance to spread their wings? What say you?

Links of Interest:
For the Love of God: Damien Hirst Threatens Young Artist with Legal Action -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/12/for-love-of-god-damien-hirst-threatens.html

How Damien Hirst Disappointed us --- Guardian
www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2008/dec/15/damien-hirst-cartrain

God save the Damien Hirst rip-off industry! -- Independent UK
www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/god-save-the-damien-hirst-ripoff-industry-1608219.html

Artists flout copyright law to attack Damien Hirst -- Telegraph UK
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/4609976/Artists-flout-copyright-law-to-attack-Damien-Hirst.html

Fair Use: Shepard Fairey and Baxter Orr
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/fair-use-shepard-fairey-and-baxter-orr.html

Shepard Fairey sues the Associated Press over photograph of Obama
www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/shepard-fairey-sues-associated-press.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
London Calling
www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Appropriation Art and the Internet

Appropriation Art and the Internet

To appropriate is defined as taking exclusive possession of, to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use, or to take or make use of without authority or right. With the advent of the Internet works based on direct appropriation, as in borrowing the whole of an image in order to produce a new work of art, has taken an entirely different meaning and many observe it as a growing threat as far as displaying art online is concerned. In many cases the appropriation that one can discover online is observed as nothing more than mere theft no matter how the laws define it. Due to recent concerns over copyright issues, such as the Orphan Works bill, I am certain that people will view those specific images with great disdain and the artists behind those works with utter disgust.

Needless to say, appropriation art involves taking possession of an image for ones own use or to “borrow” aspects of a piece in order to create a new work of art. With that said, people need to think about the history of art before arming themselves for battle, so to speak. In a sense, we all appropriate to some degree regardless if we acknowledge it or not. We are influenced by historical works of art and that influence is reflected in the art that we create, true? For example, have you observed a contemporary work of art that reminds you of a piece created by Picasso? It is safe to say that we all have-- and one could say that Picasso was a master of appropriating styles and techniques in his own right.

We all appropriate from our environment and from subjects outside of art to some degree. However, when an artist ‘borrows’ an image that he or she has found online and alters said image digitally for his or her own purpose the act of appropriation often becomes clouded with questions of ethics over the use of the original work and of the integrity of the artist who has ‘trespassed’ on the creative grounds of another artist, so to speak. At that point the acceptance of appropriation throughout the history of art is forgotten-- lost with the concerns that “maybe my art will be stolen next?”.

Is appropriation within the context of visual art a form of theft? If so we are all thieves. To not acknowledge this fact would be like, as they say, the pot calling the kettle black. I think the ease in which someone can appropriate images today is the main source for this frustration and the denial of our own creative trespasses. With the technology of today it is easier than ever to utilize direct appropriation in this manner. One need only save an image from a website in order to print it for physical use or to use it digitally with a program that can alter the work beyond the intention of the artist who created the piece in the first place. That is where the panic is rooted-- and in many cases I’m certain the panic is warranted. At the same time, one must remain rational.

Based on conversations I’ve had with artists and collectors it seems that this ‘ease of use’ is what concerns people the most. One negative aspect of digital forms of art appropriation-- in the opinion of a collector I spoke with about the issue-- is the concern that people will appropriate the work of successful artists in the hopes that they too will have some degree of success riding the coat tails, so to speak. Another concern involves the possibility of original works of art or prints being devalued due to appropriation art based off of them-- which could harm the financial success of the artist involved. One digital artist that I spoke with expressed her concern that appropriation art involving the Internet and image programs cheapens works of digital and computer based art as a whole in the minds of a countless number of individuals. She went on to say that appropriation of this manner-- and the concerns that stem from it-- is one reason why people tend to question the validity of works that have been created with computers in general.

As mentioned, appropriation within the context of art is nothing new. It has been with us since the dawn of human existence. In many ways it is a natural response as far as the urge to create is concerned. However, the term ‘appropriation art’ did not come into common use until the 1970s and 80s. Artists, such as Richard Prince, Sherrie Levine, and Barbara Kruger, addressed the act of appropriating itself as a theme or method-- as a point of creative exploration-- in order to delve into other possibilities via the use of images that had been created by others. Supporters of appropriation art that is based on the application of the Internet will often use these specific artists as a form of validation for the work that they are creating and their use of appropriation. However, as the collector I spoke with mentioned… one could say they are still “riding the coat tails” by enforcing that validation. The question is, are they “riding” more than artists who create art in a more traditional manner-- such as painting, sculpting,.. etc.? Again, we all appropriate to some degree.

Appropriation artists who utilize images that they have found online will often proclaim that it is within their rights to create new works from those images due to fair use or parody. When reminded that original works are copyrighted and that photographs of original works have protection as well they will often spout names of specific artists, like Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons, in order to prove the validation of their work. However, they often are not aware of the fact that Warhol was challenged with several lawsuits involving appropriation and that he was known to settle out of court over those issues. Fair use and parody as a defense does not always work.

When reminded of those facts some appropriation artists utilizing the net will state that their work is “revolutionary” because they have “challenged” the laws. In other words, some feel that appropriation artists attempt to manipulate laws that protect visual artists in general only to lash out at those same laws when their defense is crushed. This is another reason why you will find debates online that are hostile against the idea of appropriating images by digital means. Again, appropriation in general is nothing new… it is not revolutionary as some would have you believe in order to validate their work. The application of appropriation art by utilization of the Internet might be considered revolutionary by some, but the act itself is not in my opinion.

Do you have concerns about this issue? Do you support appropriation artists who utilize the Internet for inspiration? Should an appropriation artist inform other artists that they plan to use their images? Is it ’theft’ if they don’t? Should we observe the historic context of appropriation and art? How can artists combat appropriation art that is considered unethical? Should ethics be an issue? What role will the Orphan Works bill play in the validation of Internet based appropriation art if it is passed? Consider this an open debate about appropriation art and the Internet.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com