On 2002-09-16 13:33, hanford_lemoore wrote:
Mike, I'm not understanding this... Photocopying a Shag print and framing it is okay, but painting a new painting "in the style of" Shag is not? I'm not quite sure what you're saying.....
I'm saying that framing an object and selling it is different than copying (stealing) another artist's work and selling it as on original piece
If that's not true, then we better notify the FBI about all the frame shops that exist in this country!
And I never said photocopying a "Shag print" is okay. Tiki fish photocopied a vintage ad from a magazine -- hardly a work of art. Link from Frame Fetish frames Shag prints and sells them on eBay all the time, and I would never call him a rip-off artist.
The Shag-alikes I've seen have been very similar in composition but there were new elements in them.
My first attempt at putting images in a post - forgive me if it looks like heck!
I'm going to try to respond to all the various issues in this argument, but I believe the photos will make the strongest case. I am also going to go beyond the scope of Hanford's quote above and responds to things others have written in other related threads.
First of all, yes, artists do copy each others work when they are learning. It is an accepted way of teaching yourself technique.
Second, yes, artists are influenced by the things around them, whether they be other artists, media, the market, whatever. All of it ends up in their art in some way (usually).
To me, the problem is when an artists tries to sell that copy. You want to copy Shag's work to learn his technique, great! Have at it. You want to hang that painting up, wonderful. Give it away as a gift, no problem. But if you just want to paint that image to sell on eBay because Shag is "hot" right now, well, that ain't art. There is nothing original about it. No statement is being made by the artist, nothing. It is simply profiteering.
If you want to defend profiteering, fine, but we should at least make the distinction between what an artist is and what a business-minded individual with a (questionable) ability to paint other people's images and ideas is.
It is easy to see how the artists on this list who work in an original style and make original art can get upset by this -- it demeans the work they do to see someone with less talent steal things and make money off it. And please don't say "well, you can go copy Shag and sell it too" because that is not a valid response
Now for the visual aids:
Here is a Shag sticker:
And here is a recent work of "art" that sold on eBay:
Sure, the "artist" painted a blue background, changed a few colors, but is anyone going to make a case that this is not blatant theft?
Here is an original Shag titled "Three Musicians"
And here is another recent work of "art," this one done "in his style."
This "artist's" big change was to reverse the image and add tiki torches up top. Of course, there is always the possibility that the "artist" was using an overhead projector would explain the reversed image, but I'll assume it was an intentional change.
I've seen other "Shag inspired" works that do make changes, but they are still rip-offs, because they steal not just the style, colors and compositions, but they steal the content as well. These rip-off artists are painting tikis and mod ghosts and cats and cool ladies, in modern settings just like Shag.
If one of these "artists" did something even slightly different, I would be on their side, but they do not. Why not paint "American Gothic" in the style of Shag? Or paint a Shag-style Marylin Monroe ala Andy Warhol? Or take 3 musicians and paint it in the style of Picasso's blue period?
The reason they don't is simple.
1 - they are not artists
2 - they are out to make a buck and the more they move away from Shag copies and into something more original but truly Shag inspired, the less money their "art" will get on eBay.
Now, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with making a buck. Hell, I really don't care if people want to copy Shag paintings and sell 'em on eBay -- if they can sleep at night doing that, then great -- it's their Karma they have to live with.
But please, please, please do not ask me to respect their "art." or even consider what they are doing art.
Shag came to his style organically, as an illustrator. It is totally influenced by the works of others and he has even taken things from other artists. I give you all of that. BUT, you cannot deny that in his art, Shag has created HIS OWN world, with HIS OWN iconography, even if it is a pastiche of what has come before. If it were not his own, we would never use the term "Shag-inspired" nor would it ever be referred to as "Shag-style."
I saw the examples of Shag's borrowing from other sources that were posted in the "Gallery of Shame" thread, and they are different than the eBay rip-off artists. Re: the Haunted Mansion image, Shag has taken a very popular Disney image, and turned the ghosts into hipsters. Is it a deep statement? No. But it definitely says something the original does not -- Shag has made an original statement with his own piece, separate from the Disney image. The eBay artists are doing no such thing. If they were, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
-Mike
P.S. I enjoy healthy discussions like this, so I apologize if you think it's a dead topic and should be left alone.
