Surprise!

To take full advantage of Flickr, you should use a JavaScript-enabled browser and
install the latest version of the Macromedia Flash Player.

View iamanerddotnet's map

Taken in a place with no name (See more photos or videos here)

So here is the story,

A few months ago I purchased an 'obey' print, titled Nouveau Black, (link to print on obey site) I thought it was rather beautiful.

Then a few days ago my roommate was flipping through a Koloman Moser (wikipedia link) book, and found the exact same artwork, only it wasn't done by Shepard Fairy.

Propaganda huh!

"Ver Sacrum" is the title of the piece, it was done in india ink, in 1899.

The picture above is the obey poster hanging in my room, with the book (amazon book link) turned to the page of the original artwork. so we did some photoshop work of our own and with a little tugging and pulling we found that the original Moser fit quite perfectly on top of the obey print.

Maybe we need some new Slogans.....

"steal art not guns"

"make photocopies, not war"

Comments

< Prev 1 2 Next >

(129 comments)

	bboygraphix says: hahahahha! i'll also take any shepard fairey prints that people don't want anymore. :) anyways, i read a good amount of these comments and both sides have valid points and opinions. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but i dont think it's fair to single out one person and their hard-work. regardless of who did what first (lichtenstein, warhol, etc), shepard fairey did put in the time/effort to get where he is today... you can't discount his dedication. he started with a joke and a sticker and through hard work transformed that into a design studio, clothing company, lifestyle magazine, and more. i think this thread should be debating the practices of appropriation and attribution rather than continually attacking the reputation of one man. shepard fairey is only getting this attention because of his success. (see the link about the FUCT accusation. all the arguments show that they appropriated the same images, not SF ripping FUCT's original work). i sense some feelings of jealousy in this thread. if you are someone who creates all-original art then don't be a hater. by all means, please work hard, become successful, and share your art with the world. use shepard's example as motivation. "if he can do it [while using appropriated images], then so can i". Posted 19 months ago. ( permalink )
	El Negro Magnifico says: That dude just gave one of the most level-headed opinions in this whole argument. Props, man. Posted 19 months ago. ( permalink )
	ursonate says: Ultimately you bought the piece because you liked it. Should there be more to it than that? Posted 19 months ago. ( permalink )
	stealingramen says: O.K.... point taken, however, I also thought it was a given that the OBEY campaign was about ripping **** off. Are you really not just irked that you didn't get that??? .....Oh ya and for all the peeps who have all the time to go on about SF bad artist...Back up your point here.... Where are all YOUR examples of the original artwork YOU have recently created and are courageous enough to present to the world... POST IT or SHUT IT your opinion is only that.... Posted 18 months ago. ( permalink )
	stealingramen says: Oh ya, I Steal Ramen cause I can't afford to buy it. I am only a poor struggling artist with a lot of original ideas... Posted 18 months ago. ( permalink )
	stealingramen says: OH yes....I am so sorry I mis-spoke, if you were to post your own fantastically original work, SH would swoop in and steal it and makes lots of money off your unique and extremely talented ideas.... Posted 18 months ago. ( permalink )
	kittiden says: Come on guys - i think some of you are missing the point here. It's not about so much copywriting, it's about claiming originality where none is to be found. There is a difference between design and art. Deigners generally take art pieces and use them for whatever purpose. Artists (if they are true ones) actually create whatever it is they do from scratch. Yes, through centuries many painters learned from the great ones, and the works were copied for the purpose of learning the techniques. And it was understood that learning is one thing, but repeating someone elses work and presenting it as your own was in extermely BAD taste. Now however - we are so bloodthirsty for making some kind of profit one way or the other - moral standards are being kicked to the curb every day - "because everyone is doing it". it's not about so much copyrights issues. It's about honesty. If you are using someones original work becuase it interesting or beautiful and because you like it - it can be viewed as a complement, but still - have decency to mention it. What makes a design piece good are still the elements used in it. Without those it would be something completely different or not exist at all. Just becuase you SOLD it in a different form does NOT make you a great artist - just a merchant. That's the sad bit. We are giving more and more glory to the merchants - not the creators. We don't look at works of art anymore for the enjoyment of it - we contemplate how we can make profit off of them. It's like making friends only with peope who can be immediately useful to us, not because we appreciate or admire their qualities. Apparently from some remarks here - a normal expression of decency and character is not really needed anymore. It may impede the sale of t-shirts. Posted 18 months ago. ( permalink )
	ArtWontSaveYou.com says: + appropriation is one thing, thievery is another. P. Saville gained fame by referencing very old material, too- this is where designer/artist area gets fuzzy. If claimed as his own, OBEY is fully lying. If using in an obvious, stated referentialistic way, then that is just good design. But this, on the other hand: www.flickr.com/photos/kellydwilliams/38822178 2 is just plain ripping me off. Posted 18 months ago. ( permalink )
	johngoff303 says: It's funny to see how full of shit and retarded so many of you are. I love the high levels of bullshit and ignorance this thread has generated. So many of you have no idea Shep was trained as a master serigrapher if you guys even no what that means. And he has by far changed youth culture in this country and europe by far more than all of you put together. It's funny to see the biters and haters come out more and more out of the wood work as his fame progresses. He's been bitten by so many that he doesn't look that original anymore because his influence has permeated the marketing and advertising world for more than a decade. Anyway, if you guys know the first thing about art you'll realize one of the biggest and most important artists in the late twentieth century is Jeff Koons who has been sued conituiously for years with his "borrowing" of others works or all of you still stuck in the 19th century. Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )
	iamanerddotnet says: hahaha, thanks for that delicious herring...... now i can sleep. we already addressed coons... but thanks for playing... Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )
	dj2djnerves says: haha i HAD to put in my two cents! well, let me start off by saying, I saw SF speak at SFMOMA last summer and I was really inspired by him, bought his book, and really preached about his shit. Which also got me taking a Silkscreen class in my final semester before graduation for credits i didnt need. (i am a non-fineart major). But i guess I was really inspired by his work and style. But seeing this COPY of the lady's face, AND THEN the COPY of the border really made me see he wasnt a genius after all. Yea, I see what you are all saying about "public domain" and everything, but calling yourself an artist after you did this is hardly a description. With all this said, I totally think the REMAKE (not original) Andre was great and genius and not a hack off some picture he found in a magazine. He actually stylized andre to his own artistic vision and in-turn created a style. but after seeing this post really made me lose respect for him as an artist. You can disagree with me if you want, but when you take something STRAIGHT UP and put it in your own work, publish it, sell it, then you are a HACK. PLUS the border which he also copied STRAIGHT UP...i mean, c'mon SF, if you like it so much, then create something LIKE IT, and not TAKE IT. public domain or not... Who knows....maybe we'll see the originals of some of his other prints! d i s a p p o i n t e d .... Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )
	El Negro Magnifico says: I often regret having made several comments on this, as I've heard it all before in regards to Shep. Anytime someone adds to this, it's back in my face. I will say this, however: if any of you wanna hear the man himself he'll be Debbie Millman's guest on Design Matters on June 29th. Y'all can call in and bitch about whether he's a biter or not. Mark your calendars! Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )
	mbassadorjr says: Shep was my room mate at RISD and I've known him since the day he came up with the coolest sticker of all times. He's successful and you're NOT. He is one of the greatest pop culture 'remixers'. You're all a bunch of player haters. Good day. Posted 16 months ago. ( permalink )
	gabxter says: personally i'm not a big obey fan. finding out that he ripped off fuct's style makes him a cunt in my eyes.. totally agree with what dj2djnerves says! my humble opinion... Posted 15 months ago. ( permalink )
	Mustafa Maluka says: i don't see what the big deal is! most people who complain about this kind of appropriation are not artists or educated in art history themselves. they don't have a fuckin clue! OBEY is the shit! Posted 12 months ago. ( permalink )
	starlitstarlet says: oh my god, thank you. i have a tattoo based on the moser print, but couldnt recall his name. i was looking up the print, stumbled across the shepard fairey version, the existence of which i was unaware of, and was like..."did i imagine the origins of this image? was i really looking at a shepard fairey print when i decided on this tattoo (it was three years ago)? that doesnt seem right at all!" and then i had a panic attack. everythings ok now though. thank you. Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )
	skor_one says: I used to Love Shepards work . Until i found out he is a thief!! He stole Fucts images now images that an artist already published? He needs to get a life and stop preaching his"phenomenology " bullshit ! Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )
	bonanza3 says: An excerp from Shepard Fairey's Wikipedia: _____________________________________ Controversy Over the past few years, controversy has arose about the originality of Shepard Fairey's work and whether he has intentionally plagiarised peer street wear brands without crediting the artists from who he drew his inspiration, thus questioning the validity of Shepard Fairey's designs. Such accusations are documented on youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com, a popular website inside the street wear community which offers a platform to expose plagiarism within the industry. More recently, in an interview with Mat Gleason, publisher of Coagula Art Journal and exhibition director at Gallery C in Hermosa Beach, California, this question of validity is brought up as the main theme of discussion. Gleason explains why, from a professional art critic's point of view, Shepard Fairey is not considered to be an artist, but rather a businessman "promoting the brand of Shepard Fairey as a corporate identity". Gleason compares the Obey campaign to the Coca-Cola campaign, in which both are similar by the fact that "they are both on the streets, they are both promoting a brand and at the end of the day it's a very empty experience". Gleason's conclusion that Shepard Fairey is the antithesis of the original graffiti artist is supported by his theory that "the original street artists that Shepard Fairey emulates have nothing to do with the same concerns", which are to create by necessity and urgency rather than by commercial motivation. www.brghtnghts.com/blog/?p=150 youthoughtwewouldntnotice.com/blog3/?p=44 Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
	Kelly Almon says: www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm Posted 8 months ago. ( permalink )
	The Sexual Intellectuals says: obey is a fucking herb...made his name off of someone else. Dis Obey Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
	6AIDS says: tham foo quit trippin, he does give credit to where his inspiration comes from www.thegiant.org Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
	The Sexual Intellectuals says: doesn't excuse the fact that all he can do is copy and paste. Can he even draw? Posted 7 months ago. ( permalink )
	m1s0n says: The article linked by elise_rhs was the same one I read. Interesting that most of his stuff (all that I have seen) is copied directly from others works. And while it may be ok to "borrow" from others I find it fowl that you call it original and make money from it. weak...... Posted 6 months ago. ( permalink )
	nothinggg says: The following is something I wrote in a forum, regarding www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm I copy/paste it here, as retyping the same sentiments would waste time: WHOA, WHOA, WHOA!!! Stop, for a sec'. Whoever wrote that article is retarded. Yes, plagiarism is taking a pre-existing work and calling it one's own, but the specific images are not what Shepard Fairey is calling his own; rather the concepts behind them, when combined with other imagery. The fact that he is using propaganda type images and juxtaposing them in a different context is EXACTLY why they work the way they do conceptually- they are not just "images" that are "stolen", then used to portray that image as-is. He's not taking some known image and just putting it with some random shit- the end-- he has text, he has context, he has themes, all juxtaposed with the original image. If the images weren't stolen, his art wouldn't even make sense!!! That's a big part of the art and a big part of his message. There's a reason why his borrowed images are all from propaganda or ads and the like, and that is to make the viewer see things in new ways, in ideal ways, in true ways, etc. That David and Goliath shit is STEALING, as that intention is merely at the superficial level of viewing. There is no analysis involved or some intended deeper message beyond what is immediate-- the usage of the image ends with its viewing, and THAT is stealing. For example: The Yellowstone National Park promotional poster with the geyser image. He didn't just use the image, because he's a hack artist and can't think up his own art. His image works BECAUSE of what the original image is. He took an idealistic and dreamlike view of a great American landmark; serene with blowing clouds in the back. "Come visit our wonderfully beautiful attraction-- it is great, it is epic, we are so great, we are America." You take that American idealistic all-good view and juxtapose it with the context of Iraq, and NOW you can see just how beautiful and serene the country of America really is. How America tries to portray itself in one image, when simultaneously considered with the war in Iraq, emphasizes the fact that America drastically skews its image and has ultimate intentions that are not anything like what they portray; further emphasizing the overall sentiment. THAT is Shepard Fairey's art. He is a borrower- or "stealer", if you wish- but the fact that there are already associations with his stolen images, is exactly the reason why he uses them. That is his intention. You take that "Greetings From Iraq" poster without the association with the Yellowstone poster, and it's just another 3-color picture. There is a sense of irony with the usage of the friendly "Greetings" font, but when the association is made with the Yellowstone poster, that's the final kicker that allows everything to be put into perspective. Art is not always "just a picture". Before writing something so negative about Shepard Fairey, maybe Mr. art-for-a-change should read Mr. Fairey's manifesto or hear him speak about his art, because maybe then he wouldn't look like he obviously doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Posted 6 months ago. ( permalink )
	graffnada88 says: are you selling the print ? Posted 5 months ago. ( permalink )
	colorcubic says: Wow, I'd have to say... I've never been a fan of Shepard Fairey's "work" (if you can call it that). To each their own, obviously, but I have to applaud "iamanerddotnet" for posting this, and I'm sorry the lot of you are too hesitant to see the difference between real plagiarism, and real referencing. Here's an example to some of you who are still having problems with understanding the difference between plagiarism and referencing. I'm sure all of you are familiar with Coldplay. Are you aware that their album "X&Y" (that was released in 2005) features a track titled: "Talk"? This track just so happens to feature the exact melody, (note for note) from the famous Kraftwerk song "computer love" featured on the album "computer world" released in 1981. How is this any different from what Shepard Fairey is doing? Well, the difference is that Coldplay actually got permission to use that melody (and yes, it is note for note) from Kraftwerk. Not only did they ask, and receive permission to use the melody, but they also gave reference to the origin of the melody, thus resulting in what is so popularly thrown around in Shepard Fairey's defense as "referencing." Unfortunately for Shepard Fairey, what he produces is not actually referencing anything, but instead he's committing plagiarism. I suppose you could argue that he's referencing his own OBEY campaign and brand identity, but that's completely self glorifying. If you're still going to defend him, than the only advice I have left to suggest is to go out and spend some of that paycheck of yours and buy a dictionary, look up the meaning of plagiarism, referencing, and sycophantic, and with what's left over, use that to have your shepard fairey "OBEY" tattoos removed, because the only campaign you're really defending and supporting is the campaign to capitalize off of your ignorance and apathy. In short, you support the campaign to capitalize off of the demise of your own intelligence, as well as the rape of what was once considered liberating pieces of communication design by real social entrepreneurs, humanitarians, and activists. Not some self-glorified expropriating poser who tries to pass himself off as a "designer", "activist", "social entrepreneur." Peace. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
	SiberioS says: "THERE WAS NO THEIVERY. HE ALREADY OWNED THE ART. " Actually he does own the art now. Notice the nice little copyright symbol on his works? Now he actually OWNS the works of Moser et al because he added some flourishes and then copyrighted them. Anyone who does a similar derivative work based off an image that Fairey has used will find themselves on the short end of a stick with a lawsuit. So yes, the artwork DOES belong to all of us. but don't tell Shep that. Posted 4 months ago. ( permalink )
	hammermill1 says: The fact that Fairey's work has motivated such passionate antagonism proves that he is a good artist, mabye even a great one. He has succeeded as an artist because he has taken risks. All good artists take risks. Personally, I don't agree with all of the risks he taken, but he is what he is. He knew that people would find the source material. He's not betting on a stupid audience. He's betting on people responding to his message. And his message is crystal clear: Don't be a blind slave to authority. Don't worship the government as a god. Don't live as a brainwashed cog. That message is legitimate and sorely needed. Much of the professional art in today's world is subsidized by the state, is sanctioned by the state, is worshipful of the state. Whatever he lacks in terms of "originality", or in technical stroke skill of his own hand, he makes up for in casting ability. Professional casters who determine which actors would best fit a particular role in a particular movie: they are just as powerful in their realm of art as the actors themselves. Fairey has a similar skill. www[DOT]patriotsquestion911[DOT]com Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )
	The Sexual Intellectuals says: if you can not see why this man is as fraud, you are missing the point. He is not an artist. he does not labor over his work . He is worse than the people he claims to oppose. It amazes me how he has the artistic skill of an eight grader and he still gets respect. Posted 2 months ago. ( permalink )

< Prev 1 2 Next >

(129 comments)

Would you like to comment?

[?]

	iamanerddotnet's photostream
		2,300 uploads

This photo also belongs to:

	Most Interesting.... said the computer (Set)
		25 items

Additional Information

Taken on December 24, 2006

32 people call this photo a favorite

Viewed 18,569 times
Replaced on December 24, 2006

You	Sign in \| Create Your Free Account
Explore	Places \| Last 7 Days \| This Month \| Popular Tags \| The Commons \| Creative Commons \| Search
Help	Community Guidelines \| The Help Forum \| FAQ \| Sitemap \| Help by Email

Surprise!

Comments

bboygraphix says:

El Negro Magnifico says:

ursonate says:

stealingramen says:

stealingramen says:

stealingramen says:

kittiden says:

ArtWontSaveYou.com says:

johngoff303 says:

iamanerddotnet says:

dj2djnerves says:

El Negro Magnifico says:

mbassadorjr says:

gabxter says:

Mustafa Maluka says:

starlitstarlet says:

skor_one says:

bonanza3 says:

Kelly Almon says:

The Sexual Intellectuals says:

6AIDS says:

The Sexual Intellectuals says:

m1s0n says:

nothinggg says:

graffnada88 says:

colorcubic says:

SiberioS says:

hammermill1 says:

The Sexual Intellectuals says:

Would you like to comment?

iamanerddotnet's photostream

Most Interesting.... said the computer (Set)

Tags

Additional Information