And i'd say he actually illustarted it from scratch rather than actually fiddled with the original poster.. either way, it's all just a bit silly, isn't it?
As Paulo said, it was a generic photo of the PRESIDENT.. And what use is there in suing him at this point? He didn't make any money off it (although, I guess it could be said he gained more recoginition, which means more work, which means.. yeah, so on).. and the campaign is over.. perhaps, some high-up anti-Obama people are just taking whatever jabs they can?]]>
Talent borrows, genius steals. I guess it's okay when Paula Scher does it?
I read that the photographer is actually claiming rights, contradicting the AP's statement. He also said he likes what Fairey did with his photo. This should be interesting…..
What if Fairey had hand-drawn the photo (I'm assuming he stylized the actual photo in Photoshop). Would rendering a copy by hand still be considered plagiarism?]]>
That photo of Obama was a generic photo of the future president – it would never have become so iconic by itself. It took an artist Shepard Fairey to reinterpret it and by doing that he created his own original artwork – that is why that portrait of Obama became so iconic.
“Good artists copy great artists steal” – look artists & designers have been copying from each other and their influences for years. I know Glaser was asked for his opinion but I don't think he should have answered it, it's not that cut and dry as he makes it seem. He believes in what he stated thats fine but then there are other artists/designers that I know he respects that have “referenced” their artwork/design and have become successful. Maybe Print Magazine should ask him his thoughts about them also. It's easy to make a statement about someone you don't really know it's harder when you know them or have followed their careers for years and have seen them develop.
Some examples: Paula Scher with Swatch poster from 1985 is influenced by the Swiss Tourist posters from 1934, Peter Saville’s New Order’s Movement record cover is influenced by a futurist poster from 1932 and Andy Warhol took Campbells /Brillo packaging silkscreened onto canvas and created his own unique artwork.]]>
I guess my point is, I'm on the fence about Fairey's work, but Glaser's opinion surely isn't going to sway me.]]>
Long time reader, first time commenter, heh.
I've been thinking about this one lately too, but i'm not sure I'd consider what you said fair? I think the reason Fairey was called out in this case is because of the AP suing him, no? Makes Print up-to-date, news-breaking, on top of things. And the reason Glaser got involved is because he was asked to? I kind of doubt he called up Print and said “Hey, this Fairey kid is getting on my nerves”.. He was asked his opinion, and he gave it.. and he said that his view is subjective.. it's how he feels.. do we agree? No, not really, but I can absolutely see his point of it being a dangerous example for students..
if anything, i'd say it's print grabbing two names that mean something to two different ends of the design spectrum and smashing them together in an attempt to create some interest.. and good for them, it worked..]]>