A month or so ago I posted a link to an article by Mark Vallen analyzing Shepard Fairey's appropriation of images. Since then its been making the rounds and various students - fans of Fairey's work - have asked whether or not this is a tempest in a teapot.
This morning I received an email from one who asks: I... question the author, Mark Vallen's intent and don't know why, at least certainly question why someone would go to such great length's to position or render this opinion... the ethos seems skewed at best, maybe not?
And was prompted to answer as follows:
I think there is merit to article, but also rationale behind Fairey. He's always used co-option as a tool. And yes he is one of a long line that have done so (Duchamp, Warhol, etc.). The art world has certainly condoned such things. AND the design world encourages it.
Is it RIGHT or WRONG? It depends on context. Fairey started out upturning the establishment. HE's ended up a commodity salesman. This shouldn't diminish his best work, and it sheds questionable light on his lesser works.
I have spent many years writing about how there are NO NEW IDEAS - but there are. The books authored by me and Mirko Ilic, Anatomy of Design and Genius Moves (being republished this spring as Icons of Graphic Design) shows how motifs, conceits, and ideas have been borrowed and stolen.
I say, if the borrower makes new cloth from whole cloth, then the work should be judged on the merits. I feel Fairey has carved a niche. You can like it or not. Be inspired by it or loose interest in it. There will always be those who legitimately try to shoot holes in the accomplishment.
I don't disagree with the author, but I am not as concerned by Fairey's act as I am by others who pilfer because they have NO IDEAS of their own.
I concede this is a situational (and prejudicial) response, but for now that's where I stand. I don't think Fairey is a FRAUD - but I don't think he's Picasso, either.
|