A poster of President Barack Obama, right, by artist Shepard Fairey is
shown for comparison with this April 27, 2006 file photo of then-Sen.
Barack Obama by Associated Press photographer Mannie Garcia at the
National Press Club in Washington. Fairey has acknowledged, the poster
is based on the AP photograph. (AP Photo/Mannie Garcia/ Shepard Fairey)
Summary
—
The Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston just launched a solo show of work by poster artist (and semi-official Obama iconographer) Shepard Fairey. [Update: Shepard Fairey is in court in Boston today
facing graffiti-related charges. He was arrested on his way to the
opening party for his retrospective at the ICA. Seems the Boston police
are as savvy as ever about pop culture.]
But some in the design community feel the “by” in that first
sentence is in question, since many of Fairey’s images are based on
preexisting photos and illustrations. And this week the issue exploded:
The Associate Press accused him of copyright infringement for his
ubiquitous blue-and-red Obama poster--which they claim was based on an
AP photo—and Fairey retained Anthony Falzone, a lawyer and executive
director of Stanford’s Fair Use Project. Milton Glaser wades into the
fray.
—
About the Author
—
Milton Glaser (b.1929) has had the distinction of one-man shows at the
Museum of Modern Art and the Georges Pompidou Center. In 2004, he was
selected for the lifetime achievement award of the Cooper-Hewitt
National Design Museum. He opened Milton Glaser, Inc. in 1974,
and continues to produce an astounding amount of work in many fields of
design to this day.
For more information
—
Check out Steven Heller's blog post about Esquire's recent Fairey-derived cover. The AP offers its take here.
|
Milton Glaser on Shepard Fairey
|
|
by Admin
|
|
Poster by Josef Muller Brockmann
Fairey has referred to what he does as “referencing.” There’s certainly plenty of precedent for making reference to older artwork in new ones. How does one distinguish between plagiarism and reference?
The process of looking back at the past is very accepted in our business—the difference is when you take something without adding anything to the conversation. We celebrate influence in the arts, we think it’s important and essential. But imitation we have some ambivalence about, especially because it involves property rights. It probably has something to do with the nature of capitalism. We know that in other cultures, Chinese culture for instance, imitation is seen as a tribute, because you wouldn’t bother imitating trivial works. But in those cases the influence is acknowledged and the skill required is obvious.
For myself—this is subjective—I find the relationship between Fairey’s work and his sources discomforting. Nothing substantial has been added. In my own case, when I did the Dylan poster, I acknowledged using Duchamp’s profile as an influence. I think unless you’re modifying it and making it your own, you’re on very tenuous ground. It’s a dangerous example for students, if they see that appropriating people’s work is the path to success. Simply reproducing the work of others robs you of your imagination and form-making abilities. You’re not developing the muscularity you need to invent your own ideas.
One of the things that really bothers me is Fairey’s use (below) of the famous Swiss photo (above) of a woman’s head. There are too many unique observations that the artist made. It’s just too close to the original observations of the photographer. It doesn’t seem clean to me. The distinction between these things is ambiguous, but when we look at it we feel, “Something is not right.”
Poster by Shepard Fairey.
Fairey is riding the line between fine and commercial art. Does that affect how we see his use of other people’s work?
Perhaps so—what’s most important to the graphic arts is communicating clearly, and sometimes that means using the vernacular of the moment. For the fine arts, the most important thing is being personally expressive. There aren’t that many unique voices in the world.
For myself, if any form of art makes you attentive (in the Buddhist sense) is performing the highest purpose that art can achieve.
Is appropriation of others’ work is more common now?
Perhaps but usually designers don’t get as celebrated for doing it. It’s awkward to criticize another member of your discipline. But it’s important for students to understand that any idea can be exploited, but not simply reproduced.
|
|
Reader Comments
|
|
Here's a Facebook site of relevant interest ...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Love-GR/48263169456
Seems to me that they don't "get it" ... especially having the audacity to TM the shirt.
|
By
craigtommola
September 03, 2010
|
|
By the way, Milton... Hiredgun is that guy in Florida.
|
By
hiredgun
July 26, 2010
|
|
Milton,
Is a unique voice one that can be heard in the forest as well as the city and bring thee same picture to the person/animal that hears it?
|
By
hiredgun
July 26, 2010
|
|
It is certainly arguable, when used to create images and develop other visual readings, the artist must make speeches, and necessarily must give credit to original author of the picture forever. Do not just make a copy and put a publicist and then call the customer. This in Brazil, in the advertising say suck other people's ideas and that is punishable
|
By
franspuga
November 03, 2010
|
|
By the way, Milton... Hiredgun is that guy in Florida.
|
By
hiredgun
July 26, 2010
|
|
It is certainly arguable, when used to create images and develop other visual readings, the artist must make speeches, and necessarily must give credit to original author of the picture forever. Do not just make a copy and put a publicist and then call the customer. This in Brazil, in the advertising say suck other people's ideas and that is punishable
|
By
franspuga
November 03, 2010
|
|
|