Last login: Tuesday, August 10, 2010
crybabysoda's critique aside regarding the technique (and copyright issues), to me the underlying problem now of Shep is the corporate aspect. I'm not talking about the artists personal success; to bix's point, making money off your art shouldn't negate the quality. The issue is that, using this example in particular, the art has the potential to become just another ad. This mural wasn't posted on some random wall in San Diego. It was placed on the wall supporting the entrance to the corporation that sells his company's goods. Why this wall in particular? Because he would have permission, or because it would attract admirers to a location that conveniently sells Obey clothing? Again, bravo on taking a street art side project and turning it into a financial reward beyond all expectations, but there is a point where the art produced now comes in question to the assumed goal. Supporting his town with a new mural, or assisting a store which houses his product? Neither viewpoints will prevent me from removing my framed Obey poster that I've had for a decade on my wall at home. And all discussion aside, I don't agree with the vandals to this mural, no matter their reason.
August 10, 2010 at 10:54 a.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2016 KPBS Public Broadcasting