1. In the first article "The Medium is the Message: Shepard Fairey and the Art of Appropriation", Fairey did not receive compensation for his work for the first ten years and was doing it for In the book Fairey wrote about his work "Supply and Demand", he posts pictures of the original work he appropriated from along side of his own work. He also included the history of the pieces to make it known that he appropriated them for the historical figure or event.
2. Vallen argues that Fairey is ridding the original pieces of their historical meaning, when really Fairey is enhancing it further in his pieces, and creating another related way of viewing the same subject, not disrespecting them. Both pieces can be enjoyed and not be considered plagarism because it always has a different approach even while using a same image.
3. I disagree with Vallen completely and feel that he has not really investigated the art enough to make these accusations. If he feels this strongly about Fairey's use of appropriation than can any image that has ever been made or produced be used again? Are we allowed to draw an invention because someone else created it and its their work? I think that he has an insane take on things and if people ended up following him there really would not be much more art to be produced anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment