Design as Social Agent at the ICA: Iron Fists, Something Borrowed

Heller and Blechman ended the day by discussing appropriation with Elliott Earls, Designer-In-Residence at the Cranbrook Academy of Art and totally sassy dude. Successfully moderated by Kevin Grady of Lemon Magazine, the conversation between explored various examples of artistic appropriation and attempted to position Shepard Fairey’s work within a tradition of artistic borrowing.

Rogers v. Koons, a case that found in the favor of the original photographer, and Norman Rockwell’s Rosie the Riveter (created after the original incarnation, not called Rosie) were offered as additional examples of appropriation; condemned for excessive copying in one case, generally allowed in the other. Peter Max was also mentioned as an artist who is largely credited for the development of a movement (psychedelic art), when other unrecognized artists like Rick Griffin played a major if not greater role in creating the style.

Heller made the very good point that the Hope poster is by no means the biggest example of appropriation in Fairey’s work, and added, “I think in some of his games [Fairey] crosses the line.” Fairey does have a long tradition of basing his works on those of other artists, from Alexander Rodchenko to Koloman Moser. The panel attempted to decide whether Fairey’s past tendency to appropriate legitimates his use of this technique in the Hope case, or whether his other works are irrelevant.

In terms of Fairey's motivation in producing the poster, Earls was critical of any hidden self-promotional motivation, asserting that “careerism that has the patina of a critical social program is bad, it’s bullshit,” and Heller pointed out that even if Fairey isn’t directly profiting from sales of the poster, his career is profiting hugely from the exposure. If Fairey had been openly capitalist in creating the poster, had obtained permission from the AP to use Mannie Garcia’s photo, and had sold it for profit, would that have been preferable? Or is it better to believe that Fairey’s motivations were social, his “transformative” use of the photo was purely to promote Obama’s campaign, and any fame or profit was purely a lucky side effect?

Grady brought up the lawsuit that Fairey himself has filed against Austin artist Baxter Orr for appropriating Fairey’s Obey Giant imagery for his own use. As we’ve asserted in the past, this seems to be the most damning point against Fairey as an “artist”—he thinks it’s okay when he uses other work as a reference or inspiration, but he wants to stop others from doing the same with his own work. It’s hypocritical, stinks of careerism, and doesn’t fit with the “internal logic” of Fairey’s own artistic portfolio.

With regard to the now-mass availability of images to gain “inspiration” from, Heller said that “Google has made so much available that we don’t know our rights and wrongs.” This should be the next step in addressing appropriation: making sure that all artists have the ability to customize their copyright within certain constraints.

Perhaps Heller summed up Shepard best when he said, “This isn’t art, this is a poster, essentially propaganda.” And the propaganda certainly served its purpose, as Blechman pointed out with the uplifting, if inconclusive, last word on the issue: “Obama got elected; we’re all profiting from that.”