The Shepard Fairey Thing…
…in which I ramble about his work.
I have liked Shepard Fairey’s work for a long time, though I think I really became a fan when I saw his work in the Beautiful Losers exhibit at the Orange County Museum of Art. Fairey has always appropriated/referenced/ripped-off other images in his art. I’ve always considered it *part* of his art. But now he’s being called on it in the big media – in fact, *by* the big media.
I cannot articulate my thoughts of Fairey’s work without first mentioning my position on copyright. I support copyright and believe it is an important incentive to creation and should be respected. Copyright also, necessarily, denies our common culture and society free access to these creations which is a huge blow to us all. There is a balance to be struck between these two facts of copyright, and today we have lost our way.
I have similar feelings about a very different subject as well: trademark. Trademarks are necessary, and serve a positive purpose, but can and are abused far too frequently. Trademarks, traditionally, only protected a mark within a limited scope of certain lines of business. Today, companies are given near exclusive use of common phrases and even individual words far outside their lines of business. (Do not, under any circumstances, use the term “monster” or “pod” in your product name, not even if you are making a “Monster Mini-Golf” course or sell “pea pods” at the farmer’s market.)
Shepard Fairey uses images created by others liberally in his creations. He does not credit these other artists publicly. Many or most of these images are not covered by an active copyright – they are too old, or they are anonymous creations for defunct government regimes. Some of them are covered by copyright, and some are even notable, from well-known artists.
In general, I am fine with this. I think that much of Fairey’s art carries a message, regardless of the artist’s intent. (Yes, I’m fine with that too. I think a great deal of meaning that is read into art was not specifically intended by the artist.) Furthermore, I think that much of this meaning is contingent not only on the actual imagery he uses, but its history and his recontextualization of the images. An update to their original meaning, if you will, modified enough in timing, form and method of delivery, to make it relevant today. I believe that to include a credit to these sources on the actual pieces of work themselves would compromise them. These notes would, I think, carry a strong commercial connotation that would compromise the artistic nature of the works. I think his works should, in general, be considered artistic works and not strictly commercial pieces.
Two arguments against the acceptance of Fairey’s use of uncredited imagery are that he does not add enough to the images to call the derivative works a new piece, and that since he is doing this commercially and making money off these images that his use of these “referenced” images is less palatable. Honestly, in the first matter, I believe it can only be a personal matter of taste and preference. I am a believer that nothing at all need be done to an existing image to potentially radically alter the meaning and perception of it, and that simply presenting something in a new, different, or unexpected way (or time) can be enough to reinvent the piece. It is arguable as to whether Shepard Fairey actually does in this all cases (and I believe he fails in many cases, as would any artist) but I firmly believe that it is a valid way of making art that should not be discouraged or dismissed out of hand.
Regarding the commercial nature of Fairey’s works, though, I think we enter a realm of envy and jealousy pretty quickly. I do not believe that any individual should take the protected work of another and use them to make a profit. Fairey has done this and has been caught. However, many of Fairey’s successful works have used images created a hundred years ago or more, or other works for which a copyright no longer exists. As any large publishing firm will tell you, if a work is out of copyright, anyone can do pretty much anything with it they like – including slapping a caption on it and printing a million copies. As I mention above, I do believe this constitutes a valid form of art and expression, so if it is also legal, where’s the rub? I think the objections that a great many artists have is that Fairey has taken a shortcut, and that he is making money with no effort. I think this is arguable. He has created a tremendous brand out of himself, those posters don’t photoshop themselves (in fact, I would say that there are many, many hours of work in most of Fairey’s work) and it certainly isn’t easy being arrested for bringing your art to the world. As a friend said, I think part of this sentiment can be chalked up to “sour grapes.”
Before I mention my feelings on the specific work that has triggered this recent storm, I want to address my overall feelings as to Fairey’s work. I used to be an adamant fan of Shepard Fairey. I found his work refreshing, different, and it had a message. For me, the most powerful part of that message was one of Fairey’s original stated purposes behind the “Obey” brand. “The sticker has no meaning but exists only to cause people to react, to contemplate and search for meaning in the sticker” The idea that the sticker/image/brand is meaning unto itself resonated with me. It was essentially bringing a high level of awareness for a brand that wasn’t anything else, and who’s motive or product was not obvious. Alas, as his work has become more known, that original purpose has, necessarily, fallen by the wayside. The reason for the brand now is to promote Shepard Fairey. Not that there is an inherent problem with that, but it no longer captures my attention or receives my support like it once did. It has lost its purity and, with it, I find it harder to excuse some of the actions and works by Fairey. (see “Regarding Commercial Nature” above for a touch of hypocrisy in my feelings)
I am also very concerned that Fairey, technically, is re-copyrighting all the works that he uses. This does not have to be a bad thing, necessarily, but we will have to see what happens when we start seeing the same classic imagery used with the work “REBEL” or some such plastered on it instead of “OBEY.” As long as Fairey is careful and does not pursue unwarranted action, I don’t have a problem. What is concerning is that, in twenty year’s time, it may be impossible to find the original images that Fairey used and only his copyrighted versions will be available. However, it’s difficult to fault him for this since without his use of these images, they stand just as much a chance (or more) of passing into oblivion.
Whew – ok, let’s talk about the Obama poster. Here’s my take: Shepard Fairey used a photo of Obama as the basis for that image. It’s obvious and certainly not surprising to anyone who has studied the image or other works by Fairey. However, I object to the idea that the owner of the copyright of that image has a claim on Fairey’s derivative work for several reasons.
First, I consider that photo to be of a generic nature. Yes, I understand the trials and tribulations of the modern photographer – sure, it takes equipment, skill and experience to get a good shot. (Believe me, I appreciate that!) However, that shot was a candid that, I suspect, was one in the middle of a half-dozen shots. It was made with available light, without direction to the subject, and without any spectacular composition. It was a technically well-shot photo, but one that any adequately trained photographer should have had no problem getting. If it had been based on a composed, and unique photo, one in which an artistic hand was used and not just a craftsman’s tools, then I would feel differently. Additionally, there are many other examples of photos nearly identical to the AP photo Fairey ultimately used. (This seems to be part of the argument Lessig will be using in Fairey’s court case against the AP.)
Second, the photo is of a man looking across a room, maybe at another person speaking or some other distraction. The poster is of a man looking into the future. That doesn’t happen by accident. It is the crux of the issue, I think. It is the transformation of the generic into art – Fairey’s image carries emotion that is simply not present in the photo.
Third, it is not the original artist (the photographer) who is pursuing this matter. If it were, I doubt I would feel a ton different in this case, but the fact that it is a corporation who is not after any sort of “artistic integrity” but, rather, profit (and don’t let them fool you) makes this one easy. Sure, if Fairey was just taking their photo and slapping it around town, they should get what they deserve. But he isn’t. He made something good out of something mediocre and now they want in on it. If Garcia were challenging Fairey on this issue directly, and the original photo was not of such a generic nature, then maybe the two should talk. But that’s not how it’s going down. “Art” has no place in the AP’s claims here.
So, I have to say that all this attention to this matter has made me look more closely at how I really feel about Shepard Fairey’s work. I am still a fan and am likely to be a fan into the future. However, I think that the best thing that he could do for himself is to more publicly acknowledge the source material he uses. It need not be on the work itself, but he has a well-trafficked website – how about a “bibliography” section for each of his works? At a minimum, it would strengthen his claim to artistry, and by making the source of his images known, he could help people understand the origin of these fantastic images – and without such knowledge, Fairey’s works are seldom more than exercises in graphic design mash-up.
In: Annoyances, Criticism, Praise