Shag & Other Lowbrow Art question to ponder...

Why is it unnacceptable to do a painting in "Shag's style", but it's seemingly okay to rip off other lowbrow artists actual images? Think of how many people over the years have done their own Rat Fink based art (Ed "Big Daddy" Roth), or copied flying eyeballs (Kenneth Howard "Von Dutch"). This seems to be accepted, but do a Shag style painting and some people will villify you. What gives?

Good question. Shag himself lists the influences on his work, Jim Flora etc. I think that a movement [low brow] has to morph and evolve, so it means you have to start somewhere. So I believe it's ok to start with a shag style peice, but you HAVE to move it forward or make it your own.

I think the real problem that Shag has is that his work is easy[ish] to mimic [but not capture the humour and style] and as he is commercial successful. Copycats want to try and make money out of his success.

You don't see many Mark Ryden copy pieces??

Hewey, I think it's just because Tiki folks feel a bit protective of him...and that his sucess, and identifiable style are easy to spot. (much like your own Ken Done)

I agree tho...the key to his work is the humor.

What other artists do you enjoy and look at for inspiration Hewey?

Good question. There are lots of other illustrators out there that have people knocking off thier style on the cheap(er) and making a living at it. Brad Holland, Bill Meyer, Guy Billout and Michael Schwaub to name a few and they all have multiple people mimicking their styles and publishing those styles in international illustration books where illustrators showcase their work for art directors and ad agencies. Shamelessly and profitably. When demand for a particular artist's work reaches the point where they can no longer grind it out fast enough and/or they price themselves out of three quarters of the market, someone will step in and fill it. Keeping in mind: You get what you pay for.

Agle has a devoted following in the tiki world. It's what brought him (and tiki) out of the shadows. He now does more "art" than "illustration," I'm guessing. I'm thinking that he is considered, now, more "artist" than "illustrator". Though, I don't know how that works. Unless it's us that does it for him. That, and it's only tikiphiles that do any villifying (is that a word?). Tikiphiles consider him "ohana" and it appears that we are much given to protecting our own. To a fault, I think. But, that's a different rant. All that aside, there are still many artists out there trading on his style in one way or another.

Just my take on it.

[ Edited by: foamy 2006-04-13 05:09 ]

I've thought for a while myself. How come people don't say: "They're ripping off Hannah Barbera"?

On 2006-04-11 23:56, Gigantalope wrote:

What other artists do you enjoy and look at for inspiration Hewey?

I think this deserves a thread of its own. Probably exists somewhere in the TC nether nether.

I posted this question on SketchKult (kustom art forums) and got a great response from a guy called "Jeepers Creepers":

This is easy

Dutch-Flying Eye
Williams-Kootchie Kootie
Roth-Rat Fink
Coop-Devil Girl
Kozik-Smoking Bunny
Shag-??????

You're talking iconography vs. STYLE. Each of those characters can be done in a different manner and included in someone's art without being considered a rip-off. But to say that you did a painting in a 'Shag style' sounds close to plagarism. Instead, say I did this painting in a 60's Mod style which is what Shag is doing; he'll admit he's not the first to paint that way...

So, what's worse? Working someone's (or "a") style or working a noted icon? I'm going for the latter. Though, I really don't have a problem with any of it so long as you're not trying to replicate for profit. That is to say: come so close to something that's been done that a viewer has to look at for a second to realize that the "noted" artist didn't do it. Whoever does those "Shag-like" paintings on ebay, and just changes a few details easily falls into that catagory. They have no shame and they're no artist.

Superflat, flat or low-brow is really a world wide trend these days. I think it's fine if you do flat as long as you can do something else. Contrarely to Tikiracer I don't think you should start there I think you should start with the good old school painting and then if you want to try flat you do it but with a basic knowledge of painting.

Doing flat doesn't make anyone Shag that's for sure.

Shag is not the only one with reproductions on e-bay, looks like someone tried to duplicate Ryden's masterpeice "exotica".

http://cgi.ebay.com/Large-Tiki-Lounge-Oil-Painting-NO-RESERVE_W0QQitemZ7407827740QQcategoryZ20135QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The best thing is to report the item to ebay.

What you guys failed to mention is..
SHAG is on a mission from God.

~Elwood

On 2006-04-17 15:32, sirginn wrote:
Shag is not the only one with reproductions on e-bay, looks like someone tried to duplicate Ryden's masterpeice "exotica".

http://cgi.ebay.com/Large-Tiki-Lounge-Oil-Painting-NO-RESERVE_W0QQitemZ7407827740QQcategoryZ20135QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I sit corrected.

That is (almost) exactly what I was talking about. That is blatant plagerisim. Someone with a lot of skill went to an awful lot of trouble to do that. Why? Why not just say "I painted a copy of Mark Ryden's Exotica and now I want to unload it." ? Everything might (might, I say) have been cool. They don't mention Ryden, in fact—they don't even mention themselves (warning flags with flares). Screw mentioning it to ebay—someone should tell Ryden. That's just wrong. What a mis-use of talent.

Ryden's

ebay work

I notice they took care to get a few things not quite right.

[ Edited by: foamy 2006-04-18 04:53 ]

On 2006-04-17 22:57, Unga Bunga wrote:
What you guys failed to mention is..
SHAG is on a mission from God.

~Elwood

S'plain that to me Lucy.

[ Edited by: foamy 2006-04-18 04:56 ]

Something is strange about that Mark painting. Its probably actually harder to make a copy of something because their is only one right look. And the colors would take 500% more time to mix to match. Its too dead on. But it would still be nice to own. Maybe.

As long as the original/prints are not availabe, and this is labeled a copy, I don't see a problem with it. There's no competition with the original artist who's selling originals. Of course it's not labeled, I guess they're afraid. Anyway, this would look great in my almost done lounge/bar, so I'm bidding!

On 2006-04-18 06:41, aikiman44 wrote:
As long as the original/prints are not availabe, and this is labeled a copy, I don't see a problem with it. There's no competition with the original artist who's selling originals. Of course it's not labeled, I guess they're afraid. Anyway, this would look great in my almost done lounge/bar, so I'm bidding!

As an artist (a crap one, but an artist just the same), I have big issues with this. Some guy has put hard yards into making great pieces of art and extending his skill so some turkey can copy it and sell it for their own measly profit. They make no attempt at all to mention it is a reproduction (read rip off).

This guy is stealing. Buying stuff from him endorses that behaviour. That aint right.

On Apr-18-06 at 05:50:49 PDT, seller added the following information:
This is a copy of Mark Ryden's Exotica. It is not an exact copy. To compare this to Mark Ryden's work, you can do a web search for "Mark Ryden Exotica". Even though this is a partial copy, it is an amazing work of art. Guaranteed to liven up any room, lounge, or party.

On Apr-18-06 at 06:17:45 PDT, seller added the following information:
This is a picture Mark Ryden's "Exotica". He is indeed THE master and hopefully will be flattered and not insulted by my copy here on eBay.

Im gonna try and get into contact with Mark Ryden and see how flattered he is...

Pizz copies anyone? Yep, the same seller. Apparently not a guy just getting rid of his own copy, which he originally painted because he wanted a cheap version...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Low-Brow-Pop-Art-Oil-Paintings-Pizz-Copy-NO-RESERVE_W0QQitemZ7407825412QQcategoryZ20135QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Nevermind. It's all very sad.

[ Edited by: foamy 2006-04-18 08:49 ]

I'm a modeler and I do not buy recasts of currently selling kits because I won't rip off the original artist. I think it's the same priciple here. Since the Exotica print is not available from Ryden or his representatives, or selling anywhere, is this ripping off the artist? As this copy is not in competition with the artist's originals, I don't think there's a downside. Again, the seller should say this is a 'copy' of Ryden's Exotica and give credit where credit's due. Aside from that, is this an 'illegal' copy? What is the law in these cases?

Copyright infringement might be an issue in a court of law. Granted, I noticed they changed subtle elements in the Ryden piece, but I don't think that would stand up in court, if it ever came to that. The seller didn't mention or give credit to the original artist until it was mentioned to them. They don't say who painted it. Embarrassed, I guess. Whoever is doing it has skills—lots. What happened to their own creativity and imagination that they have to copy set pieces? It's a money thing. An easy way out. With me, it's an honor thing. You don't copy and market a living artist's work. It's just wrong. It's one of the reasons why prints of noted artists fetch good prices on ebay. When they're sold out, you have to pay what the market will bear.

Let's suppose I closely copied one of Miles most noted works (if I could) and threw it up on ebay. How would people on this board react then? What do you think Miles would have to say?

Once again, it's probably just me.

[ Edited by: foamy 2006-04-18 10:08 ]

You make some good points, anyway, it's been removed from eBay.

On 2006-04-18 13:00, aikiman44 wrote:
You make some good points, anyway, it's been removed from eBay.

Yep, I have had messages from both Mark Ryden's people and The Pizz himself, and both are taking action. The Pizz pieces are still up, but don't expect them to be there long. The Pizz had a great laugh at it actually, and commented that they actually might be better than the originals :)

The worst is when people try to Rip-Off the cutting edge style and panache of..."The Painter of Light"

Nobody captures the tru-life details of pixie cottages in forests like him. You can tell each one is a serious collectors piece, because it sez so.