February 09
I just read this shocking piece of news.
Shepard Fairey, 38, was arrested Friday night on his way to the Institute of Contemporary Art for a kickoff event for his first solo exhibition, called “Supply and Demand.”
Really? They arrested him ON THE WAY TO HIS FIRST SOLO EXHIBITION?????
Stay classy, Boston.
Posted by: Redhead Hope in Gallery of Contemporary Vandalism | Permalink
Comments
8 Responses to “Seriously?”
Leave a Reply
–>>> ..the second W T F moment of the past week regarding Fairey,
!!
Yeah Boston seems to have a tortured relationship with public art.
Not to change topic completely, but I’m not sure a “guerrilla” marketing campaign for a movie qualifies as public art. The Aqua Teen bit was cute ‘n all, but art?
No derail about that 24thdoor, it’s a valid point. I guess what I meant was “Boston seems to overreact in a unique fashion to people displaying imagery in publicly-viewable areas without permission.”
As for the merits of “guerrilla” advertising versus those of Shepard Fairey, I agree that the former is repugnant, but let’s remember that the latter is a fucking hack.
I don’t think Fairey is any great artist, maybe a great marketer… but the article claiming Fairey is a plagiarist (aka a “fucking hack”) is just awful. If the author of that article doesn’t understand the difference between plagiarism and referencing, then he doesn’t understand contemporary art. The fact that he takes the time to define plagiarism gives us a hint that he’s not addressing an educated audience. Appropriating images constitutes a large share of contemporary art- it’s all about context.
Furthermore, the author believes that one must be able to draw in order to be a relevant artist; that myth crumbled a century ago.
Sorry to get off track a bit; that article just got me all hot ‘n bothered.
Thanks for the link to the article. I’m mostly in agreement with Pancho, though. The author’s claim that Fairey “[utilizes] historic images simply because he ‘likes’ them, and not because he has any grasp of their significance as objects of art or history,” is entirely false. While there are several nebulous exceptions, Fairey’s work relies on the recognition of the images he incorporates, and his success comes largely from his ability to assimilate imagery from a broader historical spectrum than the majority of his stranded-in-the-pop-wasteland contemporaries.
Thanks, Pancho and 23thdoor. Exactly what I wanted to say in response to the posted article.
I’m not using the term “fucking hack” as synonymous with “plagiarist.” If nothing else, there are many forms of hackery, and I wouldn’t want to limit the term. I guess my problem is more along the lines of what Pancho identifies as an outdated notion of artistic relevance — it seems increasingly apparent that all homeboy can do is trace a preexisting image and shade it in three-tone, and that lowers my opinion of him and his ability.
I’d like to apologize for posting that article without qualification. The text is totally shitty and I regret any time anyone may have wasted trying to read it. What I’m impressed with, and the reason I posted it, is the time the authors took sourcing those images. This is why I can’t really buy the argument that Fairey is “referencing” or “relying on the recognition of” these images. You guys don’t find street art dating from Prague Spring just a little esoteric for that reasoning to fly?