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?

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.