Lowbrow Meets Highbrow

Issue of Juxtapoz Magazine
Cover art by Shepard Fairy

"A frog is either lowbrow or highbrow.

If you catch it, it's low. If you order it in a French restaurant, it's high."

-Unidentified chef, from Burkhard Bilger's Noodling for Flatheads

In 2007, commenting on the blog PaintersNYC, artist Kelli Williams observed that it's hard to be a Juxtapoz artist "in an ArtForum world." Juxtapoz is a popular magazine dedicated to showcasing contemporary "lowbrow art." It was founded by the artist Robert Williams in 1994. The "ArtForum world" of Kelli William's statement references the magazine of that name, but also the "high art" scene it covers, of which New York City, for the time being, remains an - if not the - epicenter. Until recently, the artwork featured in ArtForum was very different from that seen in the pages of Juxtapoz. Juxtapoz is representative of the Los Angeles art scene, and the U.S. west coast scene more generally, where the aesthetics of pop surrealism, folk art, post-graffiti, or street art are wholly embraced.

But artwork infused by Juxtapoz's colorful spirit is no longer uncommon in New York galleries. Andrew Schoultz, Tim Biskup, and Jeff Soto, talented west coast artists regularly lauded in the pages of Juxtapoz, today exhibit with the Morgan Lehman and Jonathan Levine galleries, and influential post-graffiti artist Barry "Twist" McGee is represented by the renowned Deitch Projects. Jonathan Levine makes plain his dedication to the post-graffiti aesthetic; his gallery's website states that its mission is to exhibit "work influenced by illustration, comic books, graffiti art and pop imagery." Perhaps it's no longer so hard, then, to be a Juxtapoz artist "in an ArtForum world"?

But, more importantly, does lowbrow art require the affirmation of the "high art" world - for easy contrast, let's call it highbrow art - in order to be considered mainstream or legitimate? If so, what exactly is the cultural significance of highbrow art to the world at large?


Jeff Soto
"Purple Heart"
2007
Acrylic on wood
12 x 12 inches
The commercial success of books like Beautiful Losers: Contemporary Art and Street Culture and Wall and Piece, the latest offering from the infamous British artist, Banksy, suggest that pop surrealism, post-graffiti, and street art succeed in connecting with the multitudes. On the other hand, it's an uncontroversial fact that highbrow art generally doesn't move the masses (with the exception of its remarkable ability to offend the religious sensibilities of the Christian Right and certain mayors). But highbrow art doesn't simply fail to connect with the general population; the fact is, most folks sneer at, mistrust, or resent ArtForum's world.

Perhaps because they feel beleaguered by popular tastes, many players in the world of highbrow art - artists, gallerists, critics, and curators alike - reject the influx of pop surrealism and post-graffiti flavor. But their objections will inevitably prove inconsequential; as the Borg of "Star Trek" put it, "resistance is futile." Even if some of the more esoteric subcultures of the Juxtapoz arena - Tiki culture, for example - are unlikely to find a toehold in the world of "high art," the graphic influences common to post-graffiti work already inform the paintings of contemporary art world darlings like Dana Schutz, Marcel Dzama, Trenton Doyle Hancock, Ryan McGuinness, Lisa Yuskavage, Yoshitomo Nara, and Jules de Balincourt. (In fact, Dzama and McGuinness have been featured in Juxtapoz; it won't be long before other celebrated highbrow artists are, too. One wonders if the lowbrow label will be applicable for much longer.) And then there are artists like Judith Schaechter, whose stained glass works were lauded in the pages of Juxtapoz years before her work hung in the Whitney Museum or before she received Guggenheim and National Endowment for the Arts Fellowships.


Judith Schaechter
"Hyena Snake Comet"
2004-2008
Stained glass
30 x 33 inches
Much of the highbrow resistance to pop surrealism and post-graffiti is rooted in the self-identified elites' distrust of populism. Comic books and strips are intended for mass consumption, but graffiti is unquestionably the most populist of the lowbrow tributaries. No art form has fewer barriers to entry; all you need is a can of spray paint and a little chutzpah. Ask someone knowledgeable about the subject to relate the history of modern graffiti, and you'll likely hear an abridged version, one that begins in the 1970s, in and around New York City's Bronx River Houses, and runs parallel to the development of hip hop. City funding for arts and culture programs was pitifully low at the time, and enterprising teens looked for new ways to entertain and express themselves. As Lady Pink, an influential graffiti artist of the late 1970s and 1980s, explains, graffiti was the most available "forum for free speech."

Of course, the human urge to make marks predates the Bronx River Houses by millennia. Our ancestors depicted their quarry on cave walls and, more recently, citizens of ancient Rome scribbled their political opinions on market stalls (hence the word's etymology, from the Italian graffiare, meaning "to scratch or scribble.") But during the early days of modern graffiti's ascendancy, practitioners prioritized ego over observation or socio-political commentary. The pioneers of the 1970s and 1980s graffiti scenes in New York City and Philadelphia - Taki 183, StayHigh 149, Cat 161, and Cornbread, among others - were primarily known for their "tags," stylized monikers spray painted on walls and subway cars. They vied for renown by tagging as many surfaces as they could, and walls that were difficult to access had a special cache. The competitive behavior of these early graffiti "artists" might be best described as base scent marking, activity essentially indistinguishable from the industry of the bored high school student who scratches "(x) was here" on the wall of the bathroom stall. Fortunately, as more artists entered the nascent graffiti scene, such adolescent "battling" became insufficient impetus; soon, the egotistical tag evolved into something more colorful and complex. Artists added characters, often comic in nature, a result of their limited palettes and time frame, and, before long, these characters evolved into "pieces" (short for masterpieces). The best graffiti artists came to value style and artistry as much as placement.

The conceptual and social strengths of graffiti and street art are rooted in the artists' acceptance of temporality and his or her desire to engage the environment and citizenry directly. As Simon Hattenstone, a features writer for The Manchester Guardian, writes, "Since spotting my first few Banksies I have been desperately seeking out more. They make me smile and feel optimistic about the possibilities of shared dreams and common ownership." Insofar as it is truly democratic, the street artist's approach is fundamentally distinct from that of those who aspire to "high art" success. "Fine artists" are essentially aristocratic in inclination. They are the elites who operate within the context of "high art" institutions; their work is most often viewed in semi-sacred, unlived in spaces, by people who talk about the work in reverent whispers. Street art, by contrast, is viewed by everybody who happens past the artwork. But, today, as the post-graffiti movement sees many of its more celebrated artists entering the "high art" sphere, the populist flavoring of the culture is eroding.


Banksy
"Balloongirl"
Artwork on West Bank barrier between Israel and the West Bank
2005
Is the aesthetic melting pot a bad thing? The answer depends on your perspective, of course; personally, I'm all for it. Like many contemporary artists, I'm not alone in feeling that my artwork and aesthetic inclinations plant a standard somewhere between the poles of Juxtapoz and ArtForum. Just as I feel torn between my rural roots and the creative community and energy of city life, so too am I drawn to elements of both art orbits, east and west, highbrow and lowbrow. I live and work in New York, so I've cultivated an appreciation for the importance of conceptual heft. But I'm also an erstwhile subscriber to Juxtapoz who, in my youth, eagerly thumbed through the pages of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual, read fantasy novels and comic books, and honed my drawing chops by copying from comic strips. Perhaps I'm biased, then, but it seems that aesthetic commingling introduces hybrid vigor into otherwise "inbred" scenes.

Too many circles of the "high art" world are poisoned by intellectual pretension, obscurantism, and exclusivity. The ArtForum world is principally concerned with auction results and art historical significance. In east coast MFA programs, the mills of the contemporary "high art" world, a common question asked of students is, "Where does your work fit in the historical trajectory?" Indeed, at great cost to social legitimacy, the "high art" world has prioritized originality and artistic genealogy.

Much of the "lowbrow" scene, by contrast, is blighted by the artists' focus on disposable pop culture, their willingness to cozy up to the marketing machine, and their populist posturing. In an interview with Juxtapoz, one young artist said,

"When it comes right down to it, I draw the stuff I like, and people can take it all for whatever they want. I would say that 95 percent is liking big boobs and butts, the other five percent is brain farts that end up in a sketchbook that later ends up as a painting or whatever."

Although I wrote down this quotation without recording the artist's name, I do recall appreciating some of his graphic skill. Still, when I'm confronted with such a thoughtless statement, I can appreciate the animus that brooding, theory-oriented types have for lowbrow art. Where is the evidence of this young artist's vocational mindfulness, his rigorous passion, his poetic sensibility? Of course, his defenders would likely praise his candor, but, in truth, he's posturing as much as the bespectacled, black-clad fellow who insists in his jargon-laden artist statement that Jacques Derrida informs all of his output.


Marcel Dzama
"Untitled"
2005
Watercolor on paper
14 x 11 inches
Despite haughty sneers from individuals on both sides, it seems to me that the transition that so many post-graffiti artists are making, from the streets to the galleries, could (and should) help create a less sectarian art world. The selfish pretensions of the highbrow art world could be tempered by an influx of no-nonsense, illustrative exuberance, and the lowbrow art world could jettison some of their conceptual superficiality by taking the philosophical and moral obligations of their vocation more seriously. That is, in any case, my hope.

Image credits: Juxtapoz cover image ripped from Rotofugi.com;; Jeff Soto image ripped from the Jonathan Levine Gallery website; Judith Schaechter image ripped from the artist's website; Banksy image ripped from the Brian Sewell Art Directory; Marcel Dzama image ripped from David Zwirner website

(Note: This post appeared concurrently on the art blog, Hungry Hyaena.)

Banksy: Did Banksy Reveal His Identity?

Did Banksy Reveal His Identity?

It appears that British street artist Banksy has once again made a visual play on the pop culture mystique surrounding his identity. This time the anonymous-one has allegedly created a self-portrait on the side of an office building in the Shoreditch area of London. The stencil piece involves a necklace wearing rat holding a sign with a face upon it. Some individuals have assumed that the piece is a self-portrait.

Rumor has it that the face upon the sign is from a photo of a man believed to be Banksy that was taken in 2004. The photo, which Banksy allegedly referenced, was taken during a graffiti event in Jamaica. In 2004 the photo spread on the internet like wildfire-- it caused an online media blitz of claims that Banksy’s identity had been revealed. However, if the piece involving the infamous photograph is authentic it is most likely Banksy’s way of poking fun at individuals who try to make his identity known.

The visual play on identity may very well be a response to a recent hoax that involved Banksy’s identity. Earlier this month an elaborate hoax that involved a former chairman of London’s Institute of Contemporary Arts, an actor impersonating British street artist Banksy, and a celebrity dinner hosted by Joan Collins was exposed. The hoax was masterminded by Ivan Massow, former chairman of London’s Institute of Contemporary Art.

Massow hired an actor, Bryan Lawrence, to dupe his longtime friend celebrity Joan Collins. Apparently Massow had hoped to sell footage of the bogus Banksy attending a dinner party hosted by Collins in order to reveal Banksy’s identity to the masses-- and to profit. After being exposed Massow flip-flopped on the issue by suggesting that actor Bryan Lawrence “could be” Banksy.

Banksy's street work often features humorous images that flirt with serious issues. The images often focus on anti-war, anti-capitalist, and anti-establishment messages. His collective work is often described as a prime example of creative freedom and as a visual voice for a public that would otherwise be silent. His work has inspired thousands if not millions of young artists. However, some critics suggest that Banksy profits from war, capitalism, and the establishment-- as well as the cult of celebrity. Or is it the cult of anonymity?

Today it is difficult to be anonymous-- there is little room to be mysterious in our online world. Thus, the fact that Banksy has been able to conceal his identity, at least to the masses, is attractive in our social media driven age. Regardless of who Banksy is the mystique has proven to be a key factor in keeping his visual message on bookstore shelves, in gallery exhibits, and in the news.

Hoaxes and ethical criticism aside, Banksy’s choice of anonymity has fostered debate concerning who is behind the persona. For example, several Banksy theories have been expressed on blogs and art forums. Some comments suggest that he is actually a she while others suggest that Banksy is a group of street artists rather than an individual.

On that same note, others have suggested that the ‘real’ Banksy has nothing to do with the commercialization of his work. Some have went as far as to suggest that Banksy’s work has been ‘hijacked’ by art dealers for profit due to the popularity of his art-- or that Banksy was ‘created’ by a group of gallerists in order to ‘legitimize’ street art within the mainstream art world for profit.

The Banksy conspiracy theorists suggest that alleged recordings of Banksy’s voice and his ‘official’ website are not legitimate. Some have noted that the registrant for Banksy’s website (www.banksy.co.uk) is Steve Lazarides-- who happens to be Banksy’s agent/ art dealer-- as ‘evidence’. Could it be that Steve Lazarides is running one of the most profitable art schemes in history? Could it be that Steve Lazarides is in fact Banksy? Perhaps the other artists that Steve Lazarides represents are collectively Banksy? Doubtful.

That said, one could suggest that Banksy-- the individual, the myth, the icon-- has found the perfect recipe for fame and fortune (and more importantly a surefire way to keep people focused on his art and social messages) in that he has been able to keep people guessing. Debates about Banksy tend to focus more on who he is rather than the art itself-- at least at first. The motives behind the mystery seep into the dialogue.

Is Banksy nothing more than a paper-tiger provocateur smothered by contradictions and hypocrisy? Maybe. Is Banksy an artist who is more interested in conveying a visual message to the world than basking in the media spotlight directly? Possibly. One thing is for certain-- we won’t know much about Banksy until he reveals his identity and therefore addresses questions more openly. That said, if Banksy reveals his identity would we continue to care?

Link of Interest:

Fake Banksy Infiltrates Celebrity Dinner
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/05/fake-banksy-infiltrates-celebrity.html

Take care, Stay true,

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

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

Street Art Defacement: Appropriate Media vs. Banksy

Photo: Appropriate Media. www.appropriatemedia.net

An early piece by graffiti artist Banksy has been defaced by a group calling themselves Appropriate Media. The piece, titled The Mild Mild West, was located in Stokes Croft, Bristol. Appropriate Media ‘splashed’ the piece with red paint. The group proclaims that they will continue to deface works by Banksy. Appropriate Media mockingly suggests that they will continue to present ‘alternative versions’ of works by the artist. The works by Banksy are often considered alternative landmarks and have been known to increase the value of property.

The actions of Appropriate Media are eerily similar to an individual-- though later revealed as a group-- known as ‘The Splasher’. The Splasher targeted works by Banksy, Anthony Lister, and other renowned graffiti and street artists on the streets of New York City from 2006 to 2007-- it is believed that two individuals who tried to sabotage a Shepard Fairey exhibit in 2007 by lighting a stink bomb were also members of ‘The Splasher’. At the time Fairey proclaimed that the duo were “just jealous" of his art. The group retaliated by leaving a manifesto at another Shepard Fairey exhibit in NYC.

The Splasher group often left manifestos near the works they defaced. These manifestos detailed the purpose of the group-- which often proclaimed that the ‘commercial driven street art movement’ is a ploy to further gentrification in New York neighborhoods. In other words, members of The Splasher felt that Banksy, Shepard Fairey, and other mainstream accepted graffiti and street artists were working alongside gallery owners and city organizers in order to push low income families out of neighborhoods due to the increased property values that result from more affluent individuals moving into the community.
Photo: Appropriate Media. www.appropriatemedia.net

Oddly enough, Appropriate Media’s manifesto covers some of the same issues. The manifesto, though short, can be found on the Appropriate Media website:

“In the early hours of this morning, Banksy's 'Mild Mild West' on Stokes Croft in Bristol (UK) was repainted by a member of Appropriate Media, presenting an alternative version of this 'alternative Bristol landmark'.

Through this action, Appropriate Media asks? What is the value of street art??. How much time and money will be spent to restore this urban 'masterpiss' by urban masterpisser, Banksy.

Come on, you only care about it cos its a Banksy and he sells his lazy polemics to Hollywood movie stars for big bucks.

Come on, you only care about it cos makes you feel edgy and urban to tour round the inner city in your 4x4, taking in the tired coffee table subversion that graffiti has become.

Graffiti artists are the copywriters for the capitalist created phenomenon of urban art. Graffiti artists are the performing spray-can monkeys for gentrification.

We call for the appropriate and legitimate use of public and private property.

We are taking matters into our own hands

We will not seek permission

We will retaliate”

Appropriate Media has described Banksy and other mainstream street artists as “poor little middle-class white boys”. The group suggests that mainstream street artists are “self obsessed” and that “Never in the field of human history has so much paint been used by so many to say so little.”. The group also suggests that mainstream street artists have exploited the struggle of minority groups, stating, “are you making parallels between the struggle of black people with centuries of racism and the struggle of poor little middle class white boys with the need to deface private property?”.

Needless to say, members of the group demand that artists, such as Banksy, stay out of their communities and return to their “leafy suburbs“. Again, the words of Appropriate Media are eerily similar to those of The Splasher.

Photo: Appropriate Media. www.appropriatemedia.net

I doubt that The Splasher and Appropriate Media are connected aside from their shared beliefs. After all, one group is located in the US and the other group is located in the UK. However, the fact that two organized groups have challenged world renowned street artists in this manner reveals the unease that some individuals-- even within the street art community-- have for the commercialization of street art and what can result from it.

I think it is naive to write these groups off as “just jealous”. After all, they are anonymous aside from having a collective name. They don’t profit from their actions either. One could say that their actions are selfish-- but the flip-side of that coin is that they can also be viewed as selfless. They are placing themselves at risk for something they believe in-- sound familiar? The only difference is that their actions are the essence of rebellion rather than a form of commercialized rebellion involving the fame and wealth of an individual. Food for thought.

It is common for people to compare mainstream street artists-- such as Banksy and Shepard Fairey-- to ‘Robin Hood’. With that in mind, one could say that groups like The Splasher and Appropriate Media are like Robin Hood as well. After all, they are driven by passion and take action for what they view as an attack on low income communities. In their eyes they are 'stealing' something from the rich in order to show support for the poor. The only problem with this is that these two groups have, in a sense, stolen from everyone. Or have they? What say you?

Consider this an open topic on street art, the commercialization of street art, gentrification, and the defacement of art as protest.

Links of Interest:

Banksy backlash as protest defaces 'middle class' grafitti -- Telegraph UK
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/5124049/Banksy-backlash-as-protest-defaces-middle-class-grafitti.html

Somerville’s only Shepard Fairey mural vandalized -- Wicked Local
www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/news/x549598518/Somerville-s-only-Shepard-Fairey-mural-ruined

The Splasher -- Myartspace blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2007/05/art-space-news-splasher.html

Banksy Splashed Out in Melbourne -- Banksy
www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/12/banksy-splashed-out-in-melbourne.html

This gag sure stinks: Artist turns up nose as bomb ploy flops -- NY Daily News
www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/06/23/2007-06-23_this_gag_sure_stinks_artist_turns_up_nos.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

Myartspace Blog on Twitter

www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Art Space Talk: D*Face

D*Face (Dean Stockton) is a London-based street artist who has received international acclaim for his outdoor and indoor art. One could say that D*Face uses London as his own personal gallery and the world as his personal art museum by utilizing spray paint, stickers, posters, stencils and aspects of sculpting in order to spread his visual message directly to the public.

D*Face held his first major London solo exhibition, titled Death & Glory, at the Stolenspace gallery in October 2006-- it was a sold out exhibit that placed D on the radar of the mainstream art world.

Cli Che by D*Face

Brian Sherwin: D*Face, In the past you found yourself in a cell-- a work desk to be exact. My understanding is that at the time you doodled in order to express your individuality. In time the doodles became drawings on various materials. Eventually you created stickers, posters-- your art became something more than just a way to escape your day job. It turned into a message that defines you-- a voice.

Today your day job of old is just a memory. Can you reflect on those early years? What motivated you to take the leap, so to speak? What inspired you to cut your own path in life? Also, is it true that your mother spurred your first interest in street art?

D*Face: The origins of my work were purely self indulgent; a means of escape from the daily grind. Don't get me wrong I had a good job in a creative agency that I'd studied and worked hard to get, it just wasn't what I'd expected. It seems so often the case is that the journey to a place or a point in time is more enjoyable than the actual place when you reach it and I think that summarizes my path from what some would call 'education' to employment.

Those days were really naive and exciting, there was no preconceptions, no such thing as 'Street Art' there was just a few like minded people putting work up, this is outside of the more traditional graffiti, as there was always tags and throw ups going up.

Guns are for Idiots by D*Face

It's was a pretty gradual process, first doodling away in any spare moment I had sat at my desk, then I thought if I replaced the paper (which I was throwing away most days) with adhesive vinyl I could make very basic hand drawn stickers to put up on my way home and on my travels across London, it became addictive and I was putting up more and more stickers and changing my routes to and from work, making all my journeys across London on foot, just to put more stickers up.

I was then spending every night drawing out stickers and I realised I had to figure out how to screen print... it was a very natural growth, built upon my own demand to put my work up, I wasn't even aware people were seeing these characters peering down at them from lamposts and walls, I didn't even care, I was putting them up for my own amusement, I was more interested in how long they lasted, how to make them last longer and how easy it seemed to link up routes across town.

I met up with fellow artist from around the world, The London Police, Shepard Fairey, Faile etc. and as I was spending every night in my loft printing stickers, painting posters, I'd go into work the next day and think what am I doing here, I could be so much more productive if I had the daytime hours and not just the graveyard shift, luckily I had a supportive girlfriend who encouraged me to quit my job to spend more time producing my own work.

Looking back on it now it all came about really naturally and in truth naively, I learnt as I went along, taught myself techniques and methods to produce my work, I've always had a DIY mentality which I get from my father, as a child growing up we didn't have much money so my dad encouraged us to make things and this mentality continued as I grew up and my interests developed into skateboarding and punk music, both of which were born from a DIY ethic, I'd build my own ramps, paint and shape my own skateboards and I guess that mentality has never really left me, I'm very much about being self sufficient.

My mum brought me the book 'Subway art' and that spurred my interest in graffiti, but that was way, way before any of my own activities and the term 'Street Art' was coined, so I'm not sure she could be held accountable for that really, I think skateboarding has more to do with it, but then again she did buy me my first skateboard!

United States of America by D*Face

BS: Tell us more about your thoughts on consumerism and popular culture-- and how your work offers, or at least explores, an alternative. For example, would you say that most people live in contradiction-- in the sense that they strive to be individuals while embracing every message that flashes on the TV screen?

D: The thing is life is full of contradictions, it keeps things interesting, certain people try to live out their lives through products and brands, it's excepted in our society that shopping is a 'hobby' and wearing brands depicts your of a certain 'stature' or 'class'. What I noticed recently with the down turn in the economy is that people are still going to the shops, it's as if their lives have become programmed to do that, no matter whether they have money or not.

I was at a shopping center recently and it was strange, people were walking round the shops but like zombies or vultures circling a giant rotting corpse looking for a 'bargain'. It was surreal, but at the same time really interesting, the backdrop of most shops 'Sale' or 'Closing down' signs covering the windows, made it feel like a film set or art installation.

I really don't want to come across like I'm preaching, because I wear Nike, I drink Coke, but if there's an alternative it should be considered.

My work has always been about a subversive intermission from the media saturated environment that surrounds us, I always saw the characters I was putting up as a break to to the advertising bombardment, it was also my escape from this world, I was surrounded by it, not just in the public domain, but at the time the marketing mumbo jumbo speak that I'd hear at work... it made me really cynical, I guess seeing and hearing it with my own eyes and ears made me want to spread the rot from the inside out.

You know, I've never said 'don't buy this brand or wear that label' what I've wanted to do is get people to consider an alternative or look at the brands that surround us with different eyes. The billboard liberation's I've created are my most direct way of instigating this.

I need a Riot by D*Face

BS: With that in mind, would you say there is hidden riot going on within our collective conscience-- a need to break away from spokespeople and the daily news? Is our society boiling just under the surface as far as you are concerned? If so, what do you think keeps it from boiling over?

D: I often wonder and I probably shouldn't, but I'm intrigued in how a shared opinion or belief becomes a protest and a protest becomes a riot. What the triggers are. I think CCTV has a HUGE part in the control of our society, you could look further and say that television and media reports are also controlling, the information that we're fed and how that's translated and digested.

I think recently there's been situations that could have been one or two steps away from a riot. People cuing up to get their savings out of Northern Rock, if the government hadn't stepped in to secure peoples savings... who knows. Anyway it's all got a bit heavy!

BS: Tell us more about the thoughts behind your work. In your own words, what is the message that you strive to convey to viewers?

D: I don't want to talk too much about it, I prefer the viewer to work it out or not. But behind every piece is a back story that might not be immediately obvious, there's an underlying current, tone or message that I try to convey to the viewer.
Pop Tart by D*Face

BS: Can you go into further detail about some of your influences? For example, I understand that Shepard Fairey's Obey Giant campaign has been a major influence for you. What about other influences?

D: Shepard and his Obey Giant campaign was an early influence, I wouldn't say a major influence, but I admired his methods, determination and mentality, when I met up with him for the first time in 1999, it cemented what I was already doing.

In terms of influence I'd say Jim Philips, Vernon Courtland Johnson and John Pound were unknowingly my biggest influences, the illustrations I'd see in Thrasher Magazine, on the boards I was skating and also on the records I was listening to.

BS: One interesting aspect of your work is that you did not necessarily desire to receive recognition for your art. In other words, you created your art and utilized public spaces due to passion and the need to express yourself-- the thought of financial success and fame did to cross your mind.

Furthermore, you never set out to create a trademark image of your work or 'brand'. Thus, the success you have had with galleries and companies is more of a by-product than anything else. That said, did you have any hesitations about exhibiting in galleries or working with companies?

D: The actual creation and act of putting my work up was purely a creative escape and release, a selfish act really, putting work up in the street was a by-product of my interests in graffiti and skateboarding as a kid... I was content with putting the work up and meeting like minds, I hadn't ever imagined or even considered exhibiting work in galleries, you have to remember that there was no such thing as Street Art when I started and only a handful of people doing anything what is now termed Street Art, so when the interest picked up to the point where I was offered shows, print releases, opportunities to work with brands, I was really surprised and flattered.

Obviously I was hesitant as I wasn't sure that something I'd been doing for my own self amusement should be used in this way, but it made me realise that there was a possible way out from the daily grind and maybe, just maybe I could live as an artist. I wake up everyday looking forward to getting into my studio and thank God that I get to do this... Obviously along the way I've learnt by mistakes as well!!

Skeleton Key by D*Face

BS: So today are you concerned that people would accuse you of commercializing street art or that somehow your work with galleries and companies would conflict with your message? I've interviewed a few street artists and there seems to be an underlining concern that they will inadvertently become the very thing they have opposed-- and that their message will be lost. Is that a concern that you have?

D: Nope. If you feel strongly and do what you do with passion, integrity and love why would you become the very thing you despise? So long as you keep evolving and developing then so will your work. I think my earlier messages are stronger now than ever, what with the economic down turn and mistrust in what our consumer led society has brought us... but as that becomes more apparent and my work continues to develop I feel there's less reason for me to make those points so vocal.

BS: As you have pointed out with your work society is saturated with media hype and consumerism-- it is not hard, even in a small town, to see an ad anywhere that you look. However, one could say that the streets are also saturated by street art-- saturated with regurgitated messages that focus on anti-consumerism and anti-media messages. It is not hard to find works that play a little too close to work that has been created by you and others, so to speak-- as in some artists are relying a bit too much on your work in order to create their own message.

What are your thoughts on street artists who take your imagery in order to make it their own-- while not really offering anything new to the visual dialogue that can be found on the streets? Would you say that some people are going about it the wrong way? Are there any rules? Is it an issue of respect? Furthermore, would you say that some street artists are mere opportunists-- in that they know the market for said work is hot?

D: For sure, but thats just the case with any movement or subculture that starts picking up momentum and interest. I've personally seen allot of people suddenly become 'Street Artist', the last 2 years have seen a massive influx and there's been many 'artists' that are looking at already established artists for inspiration, obviously when it appears that money can be made, motivations change and thats when you start to see a million Banksys or other 'inspired' works. Personally I don't pay attention to it, I'm doing me, I'm always developing what I do and moving it forward, I switch off to the next internet hero.

To inspire someone to go out and 'create' and even better claim public space for their work is more than I ever imagined of my work, so long as those people keep developing what they're doing then thats cool with me. Besides it keeps things fresh and moving and there's been some really good artist that have surfaced in the past 2 years. It's funny to think now that 'Street Art' is being studied at Colleges and Universities.

Stay Up by D*Face

BS: Lets get back to the work-- you utilize a variety of mediums within the context of your work-- everything from computer programs to spray paint. That said, do you have a preferred medium? Would you say that it is important for an artist to try as many mediums as possible?

D: I always enjoy screen printing, I love the process and imperfections, I also love painting with enamel paints, you can get such a good quality of line, they're pretty much a constant in my work. It's really important to me to keep developing, trying and learning new methods or rediscovering old techniques, each yields new ideas and results and if you don't try you never know.

BS: What about your process in general? Can you discuss how an image comes into being? For example, do you create preliminary sketches or do you work intuitively directly upon the surface? Is there a difference between creating work on the street and creating work in a studio? Or do the two mesh together?

D: My work generally follows the same pattern of development... everything springs from a thought, these can be triggered from various places, just living in London, watching the TV, reading books, the birth of my little daughter... everywhere and everything... these ideas I write down in a little black book or as a note in my phone, I'd then doodle these ideas out, at least the ones that stick, then draw them up to a more finalised visual, these are then traced out and painted out or scanned and turned into a screen for printing. If I'm working on a show, then I'd see what ideas sit together and develop them, but the truth is I still see every idea as a street piece, or at least how it could be executed in the street. I guess that still sticks with me!

Dead Head- Winston Churchill by D*Face

BS: Finally, is there anything else you would like to say about your art or the goals that you have?

D: The greatest goal is to be able to live as an artist and love what you do everyday, both my parents hated their jobs and as a child I guess that must have left a great impression, not to get trapped like that wishing your life away. I'm lucky enough to have found a way out the rat race and live life loving what I do.

You can learn more about D*Face by visiting his website-- www.dface.co.uk. You can read more of my interviews by visiting the following page-- www.myartspace.com/interviews.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog
myartspace.com on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace
nyaxe.com on Twitter
www.twitter.com/nyaxe

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

Art Space Talk: Poster Boy

The street artist known as Poster Boy has been turning heads in New York City. Poster Boy, who has chosen to remain anonymous, has been described as being a rare breed of visual revolutionary who can't be bought. Poster Boy will make any street art purist proud-- his work is fresh considering that so many before him-- Shepard Fairey, Ron English, and Banksy-- have ended up meshing money with their social message. I don’t blame them-- once older even a street artist must think about his or her financial future, true? I suppose with the old street/urban art vanguard we can stomach the contradictions. That said, it is exciting to see that a young street artist like Poster Boy is starting to make waves without a dollar attachment.

Poster Boy captures a youthful energy with his work. The 20-something artist has stated that he strives to establish an art movement-- he hopes that others will use the Poster Boy alias in order to add to the dialogue on the streets. Of the movement Poster Boy has said, “No copyright, no authorship. A social thing, as opposed to being an artist making things for bored rich people to hang above their couch.” It will be interesting to observe how this movement grows.

Brian Sherwin: My understanding is that your work is focused on change-- your hope is that people will follow the path that you have chosen in order to make their environments informative about issues that are important to the general public. However, the problem with that is that change often involves a price tag-- do you have issues with artists who attach a price to social change? For example, do you have any thoughts concerning Shepard Fairey and other Street / Urban artists who have meshed money within their message?

Poster Boy: Art doesn't have to be the vehicle. I'd like people to be inspired in any way. I disagree that change comes with a price tag. I understand that very few things in this world are free. However, I think some of the most powerful statements have been made on little or no money. All you need is love and the truth. With truth comes understanding. With love comes the courage to do something about it. Consider what I did with a razor, Flickr, Hotmail, and Youtube account. Total cost: 0.50

As for artists who attach a price tag to their "social" cause I remain skeptical. It depends on what their involvement with the cause is. I don't pretend to read minds and know what their ulterior motives are, but I know a good business scheme when I see one. You mention Shepard Fairey. In regards to his Obama Hope poster I think it was a good business scheme. Sure there are good qualities in Obama, but compared to the last administration my dirty underwear has good qualities.

What about Obama's stance on Gaza? What about the political system, where my concern lies, in general? People only heard two voices during election time. Where was Nader's and Ron Paul's voice? I think there are more pressing issues than Obama being elected. The late Paul Newman was an artist that was genuinely concerned with social change. R.I.P.

BS: So what about artists who sell their work in general-- and the art market in general? In your opinion is there something corporate about that? If you had the opportunity to spend one night in a mainstream gallery what would you do? Would you add to those works as well?

PB: There's nothing wrong with making a living off your own hard work. When it's done through a creative outlet it's especially desirable. I do have a problem with the art market. The market's primary function is to make money. This is accomplished by forging the artist's persona to fit the whims of the market. In other words the artist becomes a marketable brand. Like Pepsi and Corn Flakes there will be certain expectations of the artist. With brands it's good business to find a formula that works and stick with it.

Applying this practice to artists and their work is detrimental to the creative process. The purpose of the artist is to constantly question. I refuse to be a brand. However, I would work with a gallery or any organization willing to work with me, but it would be on my terms. So this doesn't come off as a total contradiction people should understand that my physical work will never be for sale. The point is to reach as many people as possible. Some sacrifices have to be made.

BS: I understand that you work is very public-- as in you will work freely within a high traffic area. What are some of the reactions you observe from people when doing you work?

PB: New Yorkers are very bright. The response is always positive because they understand the work. Many people laugh or smile. What more could I ask for?

BS: Can you go into further detail about the meaning of your work? What is the specific message that you strive to convey to viewers?

PB: In regards to art, I want people to understand that authorship, copyright, and originality are terms that should be excluded from the discourse of aesthetics. The idea of originality always bothered me. There has and always will be a precursor to your idea no matter how "original" it seems. Should we attribute the invention of graffiti to the Norwegian engineer Erik Rotheim? No more than we can say that amphibians produced the first line when they carried their slimy asses over the sand a few hundred million years ago.

In regards to social change, I want people to interact with their surroundings differently and reconsider private property. People should understand that there is a difference between what is legal and what is just. If there is a law that is outdated, impractical, and/or immoral, people have the right to challenge it. Remember, slavery was considered legal at one point. I consider the World's current modus operandi a modern day slave system. I intend to challenge it in any way I can.


BS: Can you describe your thought process when working on a mash-up? What concerns do you have while working? Is the work that you do intuitive or do you have a plan before starting? In other words, do you scope out an area in advance in order to plan out the piece or do you simply create as you go?
PB: I guess you can compare it to freestyling on a mic. Without anything planned I approach a station and work with the posters available. Armed with some knowledge of current events, creativity, and a razor I go to work. There are times when there isn't enough material at a given station so I'll destroy a few posters out of principle and move to the next station. My only concern is getting caught by authorities. I'm not afraid of controversy, but getting pinched would slow me down.


BS: There have been some critics of your work-- especially on art forums where your work has been discussed. I recall that one commenter described you as a “counterfeit Banksy” due to the fact that you remain anonymous. Others have suggested that you should be more open about your identity regardless of illegal issues since Shepard Fairey is very open about his illegal works and is known to document his activity on his website. Can you go into detail about why you have chosen to remain anonymous? Is Poster Boy an individual or do you see it as a movement-- is that why your identity is concealed?

PB: That's hilarious. I guess Banksy invented the idea of working anonymously. What I do is illegal. What more can I say? Those guys (Banksy and Fairey) are comfortable these days. I love their early work, but if they continued to push the envelope I bet they'd have a bandana on their face too. What's the easiest way to quell a revolutionary? Hand her/him a grip of money.

There's another reason for remaining anonymous. Going back to the issue of authorship I think people would be less inclined to participate in the Poster Boy "movement" if I attached an ego to the name. An artistic free-for-all. No copyright. No authorship. No ego.

BS: Why New York City?

PB: New York is the hotbed for aggressive ad campaigns. Besides, there's no place like home.

BS: Can you go into further detail about your concerns over mass media and corporate branding in the United States?

PB: Mass media is a blight. Plain and simple. We are force fed this stuff everywhere. Advertisers prey on our insecurities and attack us on every front. It's time we fight back.


BS: You have been called a revolutionary-- among other things-- do you see yourself in that light? Or do you try to avoid labels?

PB: I don't like labels at all. Humans beings are way too complex for labels. Revolutionary has a nice ring though.

BS: Do you document your work? Can people view it online? Any links?

PB: I try to make my work as accessible as possible. Due to the transient nature of my work I have a flickr account where my work is showcased:
www.flickr.com/photos/26296445@N05/
www.youtube.com/user/PosterboyNYC
www.posterboynyc.com/ (coming soon)


BS: Finally, how long will you continue to do this? If your identity were to be made known would you stop? Or simply switch your methods in order to once again conceal yourself?

PB: I will do this for as long as it is needed. When public advertising is banned I will use the Poster Boy model to address other issues. Till then expect Poster Boy to push the envelope.

You can read more of my interviews by visiting the following page-- www.myartspace.com/interviews.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

New York Art Exchange

www.nyaxe.com

Street Art: Martin Luther King, Jr.

At age 33, King pressed the case for civil rights with President John Kennedy. At age 34, King galvanized the nation with his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech. At age 35, King won the Nobel Peace Prize. At age 39, King was assassinated. King left a legacy of hope that will never be terminated. The influence of his dream surrounds us today.

Below are some examples of street art involving Martin Luther King, Jr. that readers have sent to me. Feel free to comment with your thoughts on Martin Luther King, Jr. and art inspired by his dream. If you recognize any of the images below please tell me the name of the artist.

Take care, Stay true,

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