Thursday 6 August 2009

Shep: Taking on the AP and Still Making Dope Prints

Image Via: High Snobiety

The latest issue of Rolling Stone has taken on the task of assessing Obama's job as president thus far. Quick highlights:
Economic Recovery (B-), RS gives him credit for saving the economy from the tit's up "nosedive" it was headed for yet suggest he should have gone further and nationalized banks rather than bailing them out. Perhaps there is some legitimacy to this, but seems like it would have been one of the most difficult political maneuvers ever undertaken (given the "Obama's a socialist" accusations from the Republican Party during the run-up to elections.
Health Care (B), given credit for his forward thinking and his extension of health insurance to millions of middle-class kids. However, criticized for his naive assumption that universal health care would cut costs... the Federal Budget Committee responded with an estimated bill of $240 billion extra spending.
Environment (A-), high points include Clean Air Act and for reversing Bush's "we are smarter than nature" mentality, lows include his inability to stand up to "Big Coal"
Education (B), hey... nothing could be worse than "no child left behind"

Pick up your copy of Rolling Stone for some great cover art by arguably (and in my opinion) America's best contemporary artist of the moment. Or read it online (here).

While all of this is interesting, the real story here is the story behind the story. This cover art (by Shepard Fairey) may remind you of the Time Magazine cover featuring Obama in red, white and blue. This incredibly influential piece of art was later used in all sorts of campaign materials (ironic given Shep's artistic interests in propaganda) and posters and in many people's minds was perhaps the most memorable image of the campaign. As a result of Fairey's recreation of an image owned by the Associated Press he is in a legal struggle and fighting for his livelihood and "the rights of all artists". This battle will have very interesting reprucussions for the art community (where would we be without Warhol's Marilyn Monroe pieces... what if Campbells had prohibited his use of their can?).

While I understand the need for copyright and the protection of artists I also find it important to consider the value in remix culture and building upon the past. Can a person own a color (as I'm sure Tiffany's might like to)? What about a print (Burberry)? Copyright has strong implications for artists as copyright holders as well as in their freedoms to build on the past, but it also has considerable implications for the developing world regarding presently illegal reproduction of garments and handbags. This seems a touchy subject as many of these garments are reproduced in the developing world without regard for ethical labor practices.

Anyways, please excuse the political tirade and enjoy the artwork!

No comments:

Post a Comment