How many artists has Fairey’s success effected like this? The point of your article should also be directed to the likes of Led Zepplin and the Beatles. Talk about stealing good art and making it your own – and they never had to lie about either (okay George did get sued by the HariChrishnas). Any decent artist knows that fame and talent are two totally separate things. Focus on what you want and it will come. Focus on what you do not want and that will come too. What are you focusing on? Seriously – who really gives a f about some computer/silkscreen wiz who supports another child/slave/butt boy in the White House (which has been servicing special favors to the worlds central banks since I have been alive)? People are f’in idiots – create for them and do well while living among them – create for your purpose and do the best possible for what really matters. As artists we need to grow and create messages that make things better. Why? The really BIG messenger is sitting on a toilet seat above us pushing out big brown ideas that breed fear and hate motivated decision making. So what are you projecting?

I want to start off by saying that I very much enjoy your blog, especially the insights that you share into the creation process of editorial cartoons, as well as your own growth and evolution as an artist. But I feel like I must disagree with your condemnation of Shepard Fairey as “not an artist.” The debate over whether he plagiarized in not sourcing his work is one I’d rather not get into, and I pretty much agree with you there. But I think its hard to argue that he isn’t an artist, or that what he does isn’t art. There is no question that he added at least some value from his personal contributions to the final outcome of the Hope poster, and it was those contributions that transformed an otherwise unremarkable photo of Obama into one of the most recognizable images of the past year. I personally think that a lot of his other art is also striking, not to detract from the original images (and I think it was inappropriate to not source in those cases as well).

I feel the same way about Fairey and point everyone that brings up his name to the very sites you link to in this post. Now I can just give them this URL. Borrowing = fine. Remix = fine. Rebranding under your own name = bogus. The blind fandom over at boingboing.net and support they give Fairey over this AP thing is nauseating. I found your site through them, though, so balance has been restored in the universe. Thanks, and keep up the great work.

I think Fairey was on to something with the Hope poster–it really is iconic, and it really did help with the entire movement that was Barack Obama’s campaign. However, as deephurting pointed out, it’s entirely possible he just hit across success on that one by accident. When I compare the Hope poster to his old Obey poster and his new Clean Energy For America poster ( http://www.papertastebuds.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/pu_sticker_full.gif ) it seems to me that he only knows how to do one thing–run photos he found through some Photoshop filters until they look all artsy. It’s just that that happened to work really well on the Obama picture he found for some reason.

“But I think its hard to argue that he isn’t an artist, or that what he does isn’t art. There is no question that he added at least some value from his personal contributions to the final outcome of the Hope poster, and it was those contributions that transformed an otherwise unremarkable photo of Obama into one of the most recognizable images of the past year.”

What did he add to it that couldn’t have been added by any person with knowledge of basic color theory and how to use Live Trace/Paint in Adobe Illustrator? As the article I linked explains, artists add unique stylistic flourishes to their work, which makes it unlikely to have been produced by anyone else. A machine could produce the photo-illustration from the design without any human involvement!

There’s very little about Fairey’s style that makes it personal. In fact, much of it is nothing but found art with his dumb logo on it. That may have worked for Duchamp with Fountain, but if Duchamp continued to do nothing else afterwards but writing his name on other people’s stuff, he hopefully would’ve been quickly dismissed as a one-trick pony trying to benefit from the work of superior artists without doing any of his own.

“I personally think that a lot of his other art is also striking, not to detract from the original images.”

I must assume that you either didn’t read the linked article, or have chosen to ignore the many examples of plagiarism it cites. Could you please explain what significant details Fairey added to each of those examples which elevates their artistic or intellectual value beyond what it was before Fairey found them?

Instead of saying you find his other art striking, you should be saying you find the art of the original artists who created it striking. That way, you won’t be rewarding the behavior you apparently disagree with, and you just might discover a whole world of new artists for your appreciation instead of wasting it on a parasitic middleman getting in-between you and them.

“The Joker has nothing to do with socialism, and is really more a representation of anarchy, at least according to Christopher Nolan’s conception, so the point of the artwork is confounded by contradictory language.

That aside, “THING BAD!” doesn’t make great artwork or a good point by itself, either.”

Lol, excellent.

Dear lord. There is so much wrong with this I can’t even begin to describe it. First of all, i’ll start by saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone has the right to do their own thing and I live by that. You can think Shep Fairey is shit, but that is your opinion, and you have no right to force that upon others.
The most influential piece of art of the 20th century is Duchamp’s Fountain, a urinal signed with a fake name. It’s a masterpiece, in the same vein that Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel is a masterpiece. The readymade is as much as a leap forward in art as the pottery wheel was. It’s all relative.
And if your saying that Shep isn’t artistic because he “traced’ Obama, then nothing is artistic, because all Michaelangelo was doing was drawing from a model, and all Sebastian Salgado does is take pictures of things he sees and all Jackson Pollock did was throw paint on a canvas and all Picasso did was fuck up perspective and all Beethoven did was write a pretty song following the rules of writing pretty songs….
Regarding the part in the paragraph about the Obama/The Joker “socialism” posters. Shep was quoted as saying that it got the point across quickly, making it good art. The essayist disagreed and said that it was shitty becuase The Joker had nothing to do with socialism. In my view, it doesn’t matter. I look at that poster and immediately see the message behind it- it’s a strong smear. The image is haunting with great text underneath. While the visual content may not relate, the visual appearance works well and gives it understandable meaning.
Shepard Fairey is influential, and that is what art does- influence. And if you don’t like it, there’s not too much you can do about it. You certainly don’t have to like it, but you certainly can’t say it’s shit art because you don’t like it. Thats just ignorance.
TL;DR- This is bullshit, just because you used another piece of media in a more direct way than was used before 1900 doesn’t mean it’s not art. If so, photographers aren’t artists, neither is Marcel Duchamp, etc etc.

“Dear lord. There is so much wrong with this I can’t even begin to describe it.”

This is supposed to be a warning about your own comment, right? Let’s see:

“The most influential piece of art of the 20th century is Duchamp’s Fountain, a urinal signed with a fake name. It’s a masterpiece, in the same vein that Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel is a masterpiece. The readymade is as much as a leap forward in art as the pottery wheel was. It’s all relative.”

Where did I say it wasn’t? Context matters, here. Would it have been a masterpiece if it had been preceded by 20 years of the artist doing the exact same thing, and little else? I think not. Part of what makes something a masterpiece is originality. There’s a word you can use to describe tired retreads your own stuff: Mundane. And if it’s a tired retread of someone else’s, right down to tracing the lines, the word is plagiarism.

“And if your saying that Shep isn’t artistic because he ‘traced’ Obama”

I’m saying his value as an artist is diminished because a great deal of his work, if not most of it, is traced from somebody else’s. The HOPE poster is one in a long line of habitual copying. Did you read the very first link in my post? Please explain the artistic value of Fairey’s contribution in each of the cited works, and how it overrides the value of the original work he traced.

“Regarding the part in the paragraph about the Obama/The Joker “socialism” posters. Shep was quoted as saying that it got the point across quickly, making it good art.”

Strip the visual of the caption. Without the caption, what does the visual communicate, besides “THING BAD”? Then look at it the other way around: What does the visual add to the text?

“I look at that poster and immediately see the message behind it”

Well then, it should be easy for you to explain what, specifically, that message is, and how each of the components in the poster furthers that message, either individually or collectively.

“The image is haunting with great text underneath.”

Pretend you’re in an art class doing a group critique, and someone says of your piece that it’s “haunting,” but doesn’t go into any further detail. Has this person communicated anything meaningful to you about his opinion, or your work?

No, he hasn’t. You have no clue what he liked about it, and you don’t know where you might need improvement, either. In all likelihood, he’s probably trying to breeze through the critique, and didn’t give your work much thought at all. Clearly, he couldn’t give an F for the session. Hopefully the teacher gives him one to make up for it.

“While the visual content may not relate, the visual appearance works well and gives it understandable meaning.”

WHAT MEANING?

That Obama’s a socialist? Then why is he made up to look like a well-known symbol of anarchy? If he’s supposed to embody the same values as Heath Ledger’s Joker, who explicitly calls himself “an agent of chaos,” why does it say “socialism?” At best, the artist is either disingenuously or ignorantly equating socialism with anarchy and crime, without including details which explain this position. At worst, the artist just haphazardly glued random objects together with no thought to their thematic relationships at all.

Forget parsing the meaning of the poster in question–I’m having enough trouble parsing the meaning of your sentence. “Visual appearance?” Good grief. Did you outsource your comment to a roomful of monkeys with typewriters?

“Shepard Fairey is influential, and that is what art does- influence. And if you don’t like it, there’s not too much you can do about it. You certainly don’t have to like it, but you certainly can’t say it’s shit art because you don’t like it. Thats just ignorance.”

Speaking of ignorance, did you read that first link I posted?

“This is bullshit, just because you used another piece of media in a more direct way than was used before 1900 doesn’t mean it’s not art. If so, photographers aren’t artists, neither is Marcel Duchamp”

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

What if you used another piece of media to mechanically trace someone else’s drawing, adding little-to-nothing of your own? What if you did this constantly? This is the activity for which I’m criticizing Mr. Fairey, and which you have failed to defend or even address.

There is no such thing as plagiarism in fine art and nor should there be. If anyone with a computer could produce this type of work, then why aren’t they doing so? Sure all Fairey is doing is selecting images, printing them out and tracing stencils, but he does it well. If that’s not art, then why are so many art schools dropping their drawing departments? His art is from the street and is engineered to communicate to his generation. Its supposed to be vacant and merely concerned with the look. Its about creating a brand and in that respect its great. Fairey along with Banksy was one of the first guys to break out of the graffiti tradition of doing pieces that signified the presence of your crew. That he was able to retain credibility amongst his peers in the graffiti world while being able to achieve a level of outside exposure unheard of in the 90’s street scene is testament to the mans skill, or he was just in the right place at the right time. Irregardless, his position as a pioneer in the most important art movement sweeping the world at the moment is secured. People who complain about Fairey’s lack of talent are simply not relevant as they read his work in a traditionalist manner and are obviously unaware of the ways art is interpreted by the youth of today. That’s the audience that Fairey’s work is intended for and everyone else should just fuck off.

“There is no such thing as plagiarism in fine art and nor should there be.”

Why? So you think anyone should just be able to take the work of another artist, claim it as his own without doing anything significant to change it, and then sell it on t-shirts for $20 a pop without giving the original artist credit, much less any of the profits?

I wonder what Shepard Fairey’s response would be if I walked into a gallery with one of his paintings on display, wrote my name on the painting with a Sharpie, and said, “It’s my work now. I’ve subverted the paradigm through recontextualization!” What makes me any different from Shepard Fairey, in this situation?

That doesn’t sound like fine art to me. That sounds like a sleazy fence.

I also notice that nobody defending Mr. Fairey is coming to the defense of Mr. Goldman, even though they engage in relatively the same practice. What makes Shepard Fairey worthy of your devotion, but not Todd Goldman?

“If anyone with a computer could produce this type of work, then why aren’t they doing so?”

What do you mean by “this type of work?” Could you be more specific, please? If you mean illustrations created by mechanically tracing photos, they do all the time.

“Sure all Fairey is doing is selecting images, printing them out and tracing stencils, but he does it well.”

So you’re saying, “Yeah, he’s nothing more than a human xerox machine, but he’s a good human xerox machine.”

“If that’s not art, then why are so many art schools dropping their drawing departments?”

How does the latter provision follow from the former?

And it’s not as if they’re eliminating foundational drawing courses, either. Students still have to learn to draw.

“His art is from the street and is engineered to communicate to his generation.”

What does this even mean? His generation is a generation of lazy good-for-nothings contributing no original thoughts to society or culture?

You’re a good little sycophant, I’ll give you that. You’ve learned how to echo Fairey’s emptiness well.

“Its supposed to be vacant and merely concerned with the look. Its about creating a brand and in that respect its great.”

So, to you, the work doesn’t matter. All you’re concerned with is the name?

“Fairey along with Banksy was one of the first guys to break out of the graffiti tradition of doing pieces that signified the presence of your crew.”

Now you just sound like you’re regurgitating a press release. Also, forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there evidence Banksy can actually draw, in addition to possessing other artistic skills beyond tracing? In that case, comparing Banksy to Shepard Fairey is like comparing Little Nemo to Bazooka Joe.

“That he was able to retain credibility amongst his peers in the graffiti world while being able to achieve a level of outside exposure unheard of in the 90’s street scene is testament to the mans skill, or he was just in the right place at the right time.”

The term we have for the latter category is “opportunist,” which is what Mr. Fairey is.

That he was able to retain credibility with anyone is more a testament to his audience’s gullibility and stupidity than anything else.

“Irregardless, his position as a pioneer in the most important art movement sweeping the world at the moment is secured.”

Irregardless isn’t a word. The only thing Fairey does is copy other people’s work, and he didn’t even “pioneer” that!

Idiot fanboys and posers don’t get to decide what art movements are important, real artists do. There are always people whose only talent is lying trying to get a piece of the action by taking advantage of other people’s work and doing little of their own. Did you read the first article I linked? Fairey is demonstrably one of them.

He and you wouldn’t know a real subversive artist if one walked up and spit in your eye.

“People who complain about Fairey’s lack of talent are simply not relevant as they read his work in a traditionalist manner and are obviously unaware of the ways art is interpreted by the youth of today.”

What would those “ways” be, and what makes them more important than foundational art skills and originality?

“That’s the audience that Fairey’s work is intended for”

Sheep?

DeepHunting:
You can bitch all you want, I won’t argue with you. I’ll just lend you some words from someone we both agree was a genius,

Albert Einstein: “”The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” Is this a wise piece of advice?”

And Pablo Picasso: “Good artists borrow; great artists steal.”

Argue with me, argue with Picasso and Einstein. Willing?

I have this debate in a more friendly way weekly with my roomates, and would be willing to offer you my deep thoughts, but unfortunately your attitude just makes me think that it would be better to let you burn out instead, rather than argue.

“Albert Einstein: ‘The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” Is this a wise piece of advice?’”

It depends on the context, but I don’t feel it applies here. There is a difference between referencing someone else’s work as part of something larger or otherwise creatively distinct, and simply tracing someone else’s work while making inconsequential additions of your own–particularly when a person has an entrenched history of the latter.

In any case, if “hiding” one’s sources is your metric for creativity, then you must concede Fairey has done an awfully poor job of meeting it! That’s what sparked this fiasco in the first place–he traced someone else’s photograph, was unwilling to share credit when confronted about it, then went so far as to lie about it in court even though it was plainly obvious he was lying. He has demonstrably committed equally egregious acts of graphic theft in the past–did you read the first article I linked, yet? I’m still waiting for you to defend each of the cases noted there.

“And Pablo Picasso: ‘Good artists borrow; great artists steal.’

This quote is a popular misattribution. Regardless, your predictable use of it suggests you have not read the first article I linked after all. In fact, it suggests you didn’t even read my initial post before you decided to comment on it! For shame! Here, I’ll highlight the relevant passage for you:

“Good artists copy; great artists steal,” doesn’t refer to straight-up xeroxing another person’s picture with a moronic slogan or one-liner attached to it.

Or, as Mark Vallen says:

Aside from the ridiculous comparison of Fairey to Picasso, there’s little doubt that Picasso was referring to the “stealing” of aesthetic flourishes and stylings practiced by master artists, and not simply carting off their works and putting his signature to them.

So, now, I need you to clarify, if you please: Do you disagree with these interpretations of the quote? If so, how does your own interpretation differ? Or, do you disagree Mr. Fairey is guilty of “carting off (others’) works and putting his signature to them”? If so, please explain how each of the examples cited in Mark Vallen’s article do not support this assessment.

“Argue with me, argue with Picasso and Einstein. Willing?”

I think it would be better for you take some personal responsibility for your own arguments, instead of throwing famous dead people in front of them like human shields. I don’t consider appeals to authority like these entirely off-limits–they can add spice to an otherwise stodgy debate–but they need to be accompanied by more solid reasoning. What you’ve done with the above is akin to serving a bowlful of nothing but cinnamon and expecting me to just eat it up.

“I have this debate in a more friendly way weekly with my roomates, and would be willing to offer you my deep thoughts,”

I’ve offered you many opportunities to share them on many specific points. The person who’s chosen to ignore those opportunities is you. Don’t go blaming that on me.

Misinterpretation? Are you kidding? There’s no context at all. You can easily take them as far as you want, and certainly you took them to mean little to nothing.

Listen, I wont continue to argue with you. This poster has become iconic, it will forever be famous and will symbolize one of the most important occurrences of this decade. It’s not going to fade away whether you like it or not.
Did you know that people protested Michaelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? People hated Michaelangelo, he was a bit of a cock. Tough luck for them, and you I guess.

Good article & rebuttals, Terrance. Just a quick Q: How do you stand on Andy Warhol’s appropriations?

Kent, you are completely evading deephurting’s point, but I think you are also simultaneously bringing up and answering deephurting’s question about why so many people are willing to defend Shepard Fairey while no one is lining up behind Todd Goldman: a lot of Fairey fans here are very casual, and all they know (or care to know) is the Hope poster. Thus, the debate goes something like this:

“Shepard Fairey is a terrible artist; he’s made his entire career off of stealing photos and applying Photoshop filters to them.”
“But… but I -like- the Hope poster. :(”

Personally, I had never heard of Fairey until the campaign, and thought the Hope poster was outstanding. Then he cut a deal with MoveOn (of which I am a member) where you could get a free Clean Energy For America bumper sticker just by writing in, so I did, because, you know, it was free. It came, and it looked like this:
http://www.ourkitchensink.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/clean-energy-shepard-fairey2.jpg

At this point, being the casual fan I was, I thought “you know, this looks remarkably similar to what he did with the Hope poster. Oh well, still neat, I guess.”

Deephurting’s article (which you seem to have some sort of aversion to reading) lays bare Fairey’s entire career of doing this sort of thing. It’s not that the Hope poster is bad–it does look nice, and it is iconic, and it alone in and of itself would be a valuable part any artist’s portfolio or collected works. What we’re saying is that his value as an artist is diminished overall because that is clearly -all he knows how to do,- and the fact that the Hope poster is so iconic and amazing is almost as easily attributed to chance (he just got lucky with this one) as to any sort of artistic skill. -And- he lies about his sources.

To sum up: the Hope poster is nice, but Shepard Fairey is a one-trick pony whose only skill appears to be fiddling with Brightness/Contrast and Hue/Saturation sliders. You could almost make a Shepard Fairey generator at this point. In fact, someone did.
http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/

“Misinterpretation? Are you kidding? There’s no context at all. You can easily take them as far as you want, and certainly you took them to mean little to nothing.”

What do you interpret each of those quotes to mean, and in what way do your interpretations apply to the specific situation to which you brought them up in reference? I’ve at least explained what I think they don’t mean–you seem to think I’m wrong. Would you mind explaining how?

“Listen, I wont continue to argue with you. This poster has become iconic, it will forever be famous and will symbolize one of the most important occurrences of this decade. It’s not going to fade away whether you like it or not.”

Luckily, I’m not arguing that it will or should. The harshest thing I’m arguing about the poster itself is that the nature of its conception and its creator’s status as an errant fraud leaves a deep, black smudge on it, and on everything it stands for. The more people like you continue to defend this instead of manning up and admitting the ends may not justify the means, the deeper it becomes.

“Did you know that people protested Michaelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? People hated Michaelangelo, he was a bit of a cock. Tough luck for them, and you I guess.”

Michelangelo’s entire career wasn’t based on writing his name on Da Vinci’s paintings, though, so I don’t see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

Russell: On Warhol, are there any in particular you’d like to discuss?

Wow either this is a very persistent troll or a very arrogant retard.

Kent, your posts ignore almost EVERYTHING that DH is saying.

1. What the hell is the first paragraph replying to?
2. That has nothing to do with anything, he made NO argument against how iconic the poster is or whether he disagrees with it.
3. That also has nothing to do with anything.

You just don’t get it. Yes, Fairey is a thief with no ability beyond using a computer and good taste in the images he steals. He would prefer to be a DJ but he accidently fell into a successful career in art. He is from the graffiti world which is all about stealing, vandalising and fucking shit up. He accidently crossed over into the gallery world with his Obey campaign, before Banksy or any of the other new generation writers (a writer is what a graffiti artist is called, in case you didn’t know). This was because the children who grew up around hip hop culture had come of age and were now in influential positions, which allowed them to recognise the merits of what was occuring on the street. The Obey pieces were all over the streets in the late 90’s and some gallery owner noticed it, got some in his shop and they sold like hotcakes. Then Banksy went to Palestine and boom he was selling work for 10 times the price of Fairey and shep got left behind a little. Then the floodgates opened and the street artists started pouring out of the woodwork. Then the economy faltered and no one wanted to pay money for graffiti anymore. The election was coming up and Obama’s campaign manager wanted someone hip to design a poster that spoke to the youth and guess what, Fairey was willing to do it as he is a shameless opportunist. The Obama poster reinvigorated interest in Fairey’s work and he’s selling like hotcakes again. The guy has simply been extremely lucky, 5 years earlier and he would have ended up designing skateboards or t-shirts like the other graf guys from those days. Yes he has no foundational talents and yes he is a thief, but he is a pioneer in the fact that he was one of the first street artists to get rich from what he did as opposed to going to jail. And lets be honest, much of the Art world today is filled with such incomprehensible bullshit that does it really matter if Fairey’s around? At the very least, he paved the way for a slew of great street artists to come up after him. Fairey is famous because he has been lucky twice – but don’t discredit his work as really there is little difference between what he does to say Jeff Koons or Schnabels hideous plate paintings.

As for this Todd Goldman dude, i am not familiar with his work but from the above link I can really see nothing wrong with what he did, he painted a comic strip panel on a canvas, didn’t Lichtenstein do that without acknowledging the original artists before him. Yes he did and don’t give me that bullshit that his was in context, as Goldmans work sits in the same arena. There is no difference between what the two artists have done, just that Goldman chooses shittier strips. Just as Fairey’s work sits comfortably in the graffiti ethos of appropriating imagery that gives you a buzz just for the sake of it.

and irregardless is a word you stupid americano – learn your adopted language.

“You just don’t get it. Yes, Fairey is a thief with no ability beyond using a computer and good taste in the images he steals. He would prefer to be a DJ but he accidently fell into a successful career in art. He is from the graffiti world which is all about stealing, vandalising and fucking shit up.”

Why should I respect that? And if you don’t think I should have to, what are you arguing with me for?

“He accidently crossed over into the gallery world with his Obey campaign,”

So his entire career is an unfortunate series of convenient accidents, which just happened to make him millions of dollars and place him in a position of influence, neither of which many of the artists he continues to plunder have gotten a piece? As long as he’s exploiting this position, which, by your own admission, he did not earn, why should I have to support him? In fact, doesn’t that make it my duty as a concerned artist to undermine him?

“before Banksy or any of the other new generation writers (a writer is what a graffiti artist is called, in case you didn’t know).”

The irony of you attempting to talk down to me on this matter…

Anyway, there are quite a few graffiti artists out there who are genuinely creative and can actually draw. Don’t you think they should be getting the attention Fairey gets instead? Why should anyone continue to pay attention or money to Mr. Fairey for anything? What value does his continued participation in the art world bring to it?

“This was because the children who grew up around hip hop culture had come of age and were now in influential positions, which allowed them to recognise the merits of what was occuring on the street.”

You just called Fairey a thief with almost no relevant art skills. What merits can a person with no art skills who habitually steals the imagery of others bring to art which make up for what a liability he is?

“The Obey pieces were all over the streets in the late 90’s and some gallery owner noticed it, got some in his shop and they sold like hotcakes.”

I’m sorry, but neither money nor popularity make art. I said Fairey was nothing but an opportunist, and so far you’re just supporting my argument for me.

“Then Banksy went to Palestine and boom he was selling work for 10 times the price of Fairey and shep got left behind a little.”

Why wasn’t he left behind entirely, since what he does tends to be artistically worthless?

“Then the floodgates opened and the street artists started pouring out of the woodwork. Then the economy faltered and no one wanted to pay money for graffiti anymore. The election was coming up and Obama’s campaign manager wanted someone hip to design a poster that spoke to the youth and guess what, Fairey was willing to do it as he is a shameless opportunist.”

Then you can agree with me that he’s not a good artist, either?

“The Obama poster reinvigorated interest in Fairey’s work and he’s selling like hotcakes again. The guy has simply been extremely lucky, 5 years earlier and he would have ended up designing skateboards or t-shirts like the other graf guys from those days. Yes he has no foundational talents and yes he is a thief, but he is a pioneer in the fact that he was one of the first street artists to get rich from what he did as opposed to going to jail.”

Why should I respect that?

“And lets be honest, much of the Art world today is filled with such incomprehensible bullshit that does it really matter if Fairey’s around?”

YES, because ALL HE’S DOING is contributing to that.

If you don’t like that sort of thing, you shouldn’t be supporting him. He’s part of the problem.

“At the very least, he paved the way for a slew of great street artists to come up after him.”

I don’t respect “artists” who do things anyone else could do. What makes his contribution uniquely, personally his, and something that literally no one else on the planet could have done at the time, or do today?

“Fairey is famous because he has been lucky twice – but don’t discredit his work as really there is little difference between what he does to say Jeff Koons or Schnabels hideous plate paintings.”

He’s famous because he’s stolen from other people many times over a 20-year period, and the idiots in the audience, like you, either don’t realize this fact, or don’t care. You have no integrity, as a consumer of the arts.

Why shouldn’t I discredit him? Something tells me you can’t answer this question, since if you could, you would have by now, instead of writing a bunch of paragraphs which sound like they were copied from press releases and seem to unintentionally argue Fairey’s irrelevance.

“As for this Todd Goldman dude, i am not familiar with his work but from the above link I can really see nothing wrong with what he did, he painted a comic strip panel on a canvas, didn’t Lichtenstein do that without acknowledging the original artists before him.”

Yes, and it was as wrong then as it is today. This kind of theft should not be celebrated or even accepted, no matter whose name is attached to it.

“Just as Fairey’s work sits comfortably in the graffiti ethos of appropriating imagery that gives you a buzz just for the sake of it.”

So what? What is this “buzz?” Can you explain what value it has, artistically? Explain the meanings behind each of the works cited in Mark Vallen’s article.

“and irregardless is a word you stupid americano – learn your adopted language.

Irregardless is a double-negative dumb people use to try and sound smart, as if I needed any more evidence of your stupidity.

ha ha ha ha ha

wait wait, before i sign off from this blog I need to state this

“didn’t Lichtenstein do that without acknowledging the original artists before him.”

Yes, and it was as wrong then as it is today. This kind of theft should not be celebrated or even accepted, no matter whose name is attached to it.”

Yet Lichtenstein’s comic strip paintings are really powerful works of art when seen in the flesh. They have impact, beauty and meaning. More so then the original comic strip panels do in their original context. And this is why i’m bothering to defend Fairey. I was pretty young when i’d see these Obey pieces around the place. In a bland urban landscape they stood out and intrigued me. I discovered that Obey had been lifted from a john carpenter film which i subsequently watched and enjoyed, leading in turn to his other films and sparking an interest in film and culture that wasn’t there before. It wasn’t the only thing but it was one of many. I think thats what the purpose of art is, to inspire and to create an impact. Art is not about drawing well its about moving people. This is why copyright should not exist in the fine art world, for commercial artists yes, but higher art is not about the artist, its about the art, thats the most important thing and if it communicates to people in a positive way that should be championed. Fairey’s work has influenced a generation to appreciate art and introduced them to the original artists he stole from. Thats a valuable thing in this day and age. I think perhaps now that hes successful he should be acknowledging his sources, even creating exhibitions based on the original work and giving back to the original creators, but he had a positive influence on me when I was a kid and if he did the same with others you can’t hate the guy for it. Jesus theres so many more important things in the world that need addressing lets not waste time attacking art over such a petty thing as money.

Pretty shitty troll dude. Get back to FYAD.

If Fairey had any interest at all in introducing and opening people’s eyes to the delightful original works upon which his work is based, he wouldn’t go to such great lengths to lie about his sources. That you were introduced to them came from your own initiative to look them up, and if anything, happened -despite- Fairey’s best efforts to deny them.

chris sounds like an annoying troll, but I do love this line: “and irregardless is a word you stupid americano – learn your adopted language.”

Boy. You know how easy it would have been to type that into Google before sounding completely dumb? Here’s the definition provided by Google:

—
Irregardless: adv. (Nonstandard): Regardless.

[Probably blend of IRRESPECTIVE and REGARDLESS.]

USAGE NOTE Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
—

So it’s the “stupid Americano” who fails to understand the pure-standard-British word, which, oh, happened to be coined less than a century ago in America as a completely absurd mix-up of two perfectly good words?

Wow if this comment “debate” isn’t the epitome of internet uselessness.

[snark response in italics]