Austin Arts: Seeing Things

By Kat

March 19, 2009 10:00 PM | Link to this

Though there seems to be a lot of quick to accuse and complain comments on here, some good points were presented.

To Bobby’s request that Fairey ‘respect others property’, I think he is. Shepard Fairey’s work serves to make the public aware of its surroundings, encourage the viewer to think about things, ask questions, and hopefully grow from his form of advertising or propaganda art. He is respecting the most valuable property this nation has, its people and their opinion. Its easy to become passified by the mass media marketing bombardment we deal with everywhere we look or listen; he’s trying to protect your individualism.

To ‘Ragin Redhead’s concern of lack of mark in Fairey’s work, this is where art is today. Warhol championed the idea that we live in a world of machines, why wouldn’t artists make art in the same way? This idea has progressed to robotic technology, artificial intelligence, and removal of the human hand in movies, animation, industrial design, architecture, advertising, etc. By removing his mark, Fairey is playing by the rules our society has established. He is also putting the message above his personal style…or perhaps his personal style is perfection, who says a mark has to be a scrawl? Also, you have a good point about the buildings being marked on, but I believe for the opposite reason. I too think UT should rethink where it’s putting such a huge commission by such an influential artist. By putting the work of an artist who has impacted history, they are limiting the building. When the ARTS building gets old and needs to be replaced, the matter of that valuable mural being demolished or moved will come up and cause problems. But I also think that is part of the piece, some day it will dissappear and the only thing remaining will be the impact it had on the students and public.

By the way, I am a college student, and even if I hated Fairey, I would kill for him to come speak or work at my college…he is undeniably significant. When people say your work is not art, you’re usually doing something right. See Marcel Duchamp, Picasso, abstract expressionism, Manet’s “Dejeuner sur l’herbe”, Jeff Koons…

By Jake

March 19, 2009 1:06 PM | Link to this

Fake artist. I am glad they did not put it up

By Joe

March 19, 2009 1:04 PM | Link to this

Translation —- UT got heat from wealthy alumni who did not want art of a criminal displayed. I am betting this will NEVER go up.

By Willie

March 19, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this

I think the “Hope” poster should be one of a ” tv monitor”. This in more ways than any other describes this fraud.

By Ragin' Redhead

March 19, 2009 10:51 AM | Link to this

From the online article “Plagiarist Shepard Fairey: A critique by artist Mark Vallen Published on the occasion of Fairey�s Los Angeles solo exhibition, Dec., 2007”

What initially disturbed me about the art of Shepard Fairey is that it displays none of the line, modeling and other idiosyncrasies that reveal an artist�s unique personal style. His imagery appears as though it�s xeroxed or run through some computer graphics program; that is to say, it is machine art that any second-rate art student could produce.

In fact, I�ve never seen any evidence indicating Fairey can draw at all. Even the art of Andy Warhol, reliant as it was upon photography and mass commercial imagery, displayed passages of gestural drawing and flamboyant brushstrokes.

*By the way, has anyone been to the UT campus to see the “Landmarks Public Art Program” installations? These is a truly a program that needs to be rethought. The campus should not be a repository for these eyesores. Put them where people want to see nonsensical heaps of debris.

By AustinRes

March 19, 2009 10:43 AM | Link to this

Emily - perhaps you should do your research, also. Nice use of selective quoting from the WSJ article. A bit more reflective of the photographer’s opinion would be: “Mr. Garcia was irritated when he learned Mr. Fairey had used his photo. “When I found out, I was disappointed in the fact that someone was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn’t belong to them and then use it,” he said. “That part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand: that simply because it’s on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s free for the taking, and just because you can take it doesn’t mean it belongs to you.”

And as for the WSJ opinion, it was far from supportive of Mr. Fairley’s use of the image and his subsequent refusal to even disclose what photograph was used as the source. In fact, the WSJ summed up its conclusion in this manner: “But this case is different. The AP and Mr. Garcia make their livings selling their work. “

Urgh - don’t worry, we would not want you to impugn a “very influential graphic designer” by forming an opinion on whether he plagiarized an image. Let me clear it up for you - it’s not plagiarism, it’s copyright violation.

By Lynn

March 19, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this

People complaining about alleged plagiarism need to a) look up the word “plagiarize,” b) compare Garcia’s image to Fairey’s, then c) realize this issue is really driven by the fact that most of you are exactly the same as all the other people who have complained about every single important avant-garde artist or movement throughout history, but then hang cheap posters and prints of them on your walls 50-100 years later. There are legitimate issues concerning images and their uses here—a large part of the meaning and intent of Fairey’s work—but you are all totally missing them. Open your eyes and your minds, or at least read up a bit on the issue and come up with some sound criticisms.

Oh, and yeah, spending 1-2% of new building costs and renovations on public art at a flagship institution of higher learning is a waste of money, but 8 million for the ‘Godzillatron’ was a brilliant investment in our children’s educations, huh?

By Salvador

March 19, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this

Shepard Fairey is an excellent teaching tool for UT art students to have.

He is a great designer/illustrator and businessman. His transformation of Mannie Garcia’s photo falls well within Fair Use. But their are other scenarios where his practice warrants greater scrutiny, including his run-in with Austin’s Baxter Orr. Lots of links to follow and read: http://tinyurl.com/clrglh

By RK57957

March 19, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

I am amused that you all are so quick to judge.

There is a fine line between plagiarism and fair use. Unfortunately in our litigious society the only way to settle that is usually through the courts. And until the courts clearly define what fair use is well, your kids dancing to a Prince song unfortunately violates copy right law.

But I am glad to know that we have a panel of experts who seem to understand the concept of fair use, copy right, and plagiarism so well.

By Bobby

March 19, 2009 10:12 AM | Link to this

Shepard Fairey’s rip-off of an AP photo is just the tip of the iceburg. He has been arrested numerous times for public vandalism and encourages others to spray paint whatever they want to make a message. I think finding an artist with more repect for others’ property would be the university’s main goal. Just because something does not have a gate around it does not mean it is accessible to be vandalized graffiti artists.

By Urgh

March 19, 2009 10:08 AM | Link to this

Shepard Fairey is a very influential graphic designer and artist. It makes a lot of sense that UT would request a mural project. No, he didn’t go to UT, but he did go to RISD, which is a really respected school.

I am not to say whether or not he plagiarized an image, but many artists use images in their paintings and drawings. It’s been happening throughout the years. I think this is more of a gray issue than anything else.

Oh, and that arrest was because he influenced a subculture of graffiti artists. Boston police are quite special, especially for picking him up while he was on his way to his show opening at a museum.

By Emily

March 19, 2009 9:59 AM | Link to this

Judy, don’t believe everything you hear — or if you do, research it.

Fairey did not “plagiarize” an obscure AP photographer any more than Warhol “plagiarized” the work of an obscure soup can designer. Both were transformative, which is the term for a work of art that so substantially varies from its source that it becomes an original work.

Legal experts and artists are overwhelmingly in agreement that Fairey’s work was substantially transformative, falls under the “fair use” provision, and was not created or sold for his own gain or profit because he donated the image to the Obama campaign.

Even Mannie Garcia, the photographer, told the NY Times “in this case I think it�s a very unique situation…. I�m so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it�s had.� (The suit was filed by AP, not by Garcia.)

The Wall St Journal’s law blog, not usually known for siding with little guy, also points out that, “Commentary is already a recognized category of fair use [and] political commentary is given an added bump on the fair use scale.”

By Tyler

March 19, 2009 9:58 AM | Link to this

“it sends a terrible message to college students in that it sanctions the idea of plagiarism, and devaluates the importance of creativity and original thought.”

Because students would have never gotten that idea by studying Andy Warhol. We should remove all of HIS artwork from our museums. That’ll send a message to all of those artists.

By AustinRes

March 19, 2009 9:37 AM | Link to this

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Mr. Fairey (who has been previously arrested for graffiti) created “his” famous poster using an AP photo that he found on Google, without crediting the original photographer, Mannie Garcia. Furthermore, he, along with the Fair Use Project had the audacity to sue the AP when they asked for their standard licensing terms.

By Stephen

March 19, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this

This is a complete waste of university dollars. I hope UT shows some fiscal restraint here and makes the prudent decision.

By Judy

March 19, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this

I was impressed with Fairey�s �now-iconic� Barack Obama HOPE poster when it first appeared in the Obama campaign.

However, now that it has been revealed that Fairey PLAGIARIZED the image from a photo taken by some obscure AP photographer, it sends a terrible message to college students in that it sanctions the idea of plagiarism, and devaluates the importance of creativity and original thought.

A college campus is not the appropriate venue for Fairey�s artwork. UT should consider giving the honor to one of its own alumni.