The Gallery of Shame

Here's where we post the ebay auctions of people who rip off Shag paintings for pure profit. I'll start off with this lovely piece:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=894962061

Bold in it's colours, yet tentative in it's composition, this artist's conscience seems to come out in the brush - 'if I don't make the characters too big,, maybe people won't notice they're not mine'...

[ Edited by: tikifish on 2002-07-24 09:36 ]

....a rather minimalist approach compared to the piece that inspired it. Actually, to form a new art term, a MINI approach (or "Mini Me" ?). It is as if the characters shrivelled like shrunken heads. I would like to compare this to a badly mixed Tahitian Rum Punch, with too much grapefruit and lime: It sucks.

Are any of you kids aware that about a year and a half ago, an animation magazine who's name escapes me published a complete "How to paint like SHAG" article by Josh Agle, with step by step photos of one painting, explaining compositional tricks and color schemes and the like (I kick myself for not having gotten an issue).
I wonder if he ever thought that stuff would show up on e-bay.
..come to think of it, maybe he secretly COLLECTS the stuff, to have a funny "paint by numbers" art show years down the line. I'm gonna propose that to him.

[ Edited by: bigbrotiki on 2002-07-24 10:03 ]

Plenty of swell knock-offs found back on the "Is This Even Legal?" thread from the "Collecting Tiki" section, too:

http://www.tikicentral.com/viewtopic.php?topic=394&forum=5&17

Enjoy...

On 2002-07-24 10:01, bigbrotiki wrote:
Are any of you kids aware that about a year and a half ago, an animation magazine who's name escapes me published a complete "How to paint like SHAG" article by Josh Agle, with step by step photos of one painting, explaining compositional tricks and color schemes and the like (I kick myself for not having gotten an issue).
[ Edited by: bigbrotiki on 2002-07-24 10:03 ]

You Can buy one Here :D
http://www.kultureshoq.com/book_store/juxtapoz/ Issue #33

[ Edited by: Mattio on 2002-07-24 11:46 ]

I definatly think its time for a Shag paint by numbers set, I'd buy one or a shag fuzzy-felt set.
My brother was comenting on watching ozzy osbourne doing a paint by numbers and he said that when he was in a assylum it was one of the theraputic hobbies they allowed you to do, so imagine a whole gallery of lunitic painted by number shag paintings

bigbrotiki wrote:
I would like to compare this to a badly mixed Tahitian Rum Punch, with too much grapefruit and lime: It sucks.

That bizzare-looking character with the uke looks like he's suffering the effects of a grapefruit and lime enema. A truly piss-poor painting.

Trader Woody

On 2002-07-24 09:36, tikifish wrote:
Here's where we post the ebay auctions of people who rip off Shag paintings for pure profit. I'll start off with this lovely piece:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=894962061
<

Ok, years of Art classes and an aborted plan to attend Otis/Parsons notwithstanding, that just SUCKS! Aye yea yea!! Go ahead and copy, but...ok, I better stop. Art, as I was always told, lies in the eye of the beholder.

But in this case, Art is really screwed up.

midnite
midnite

Hey Kids....

Shag himself does this:

Shag's painting ""The Coolest Ghouls":

Disneyland Ride poster "Haunted Mansion":

See, it's okay to do it to Shag... he does it to other artists.... :D

~Hanford

Do I need to dig out my "Ghastly Ones" 7" - that one is even more of a blatant rip-off.... I think he copied a "Flying Saucers" poster on a CD as well...

On 2002-07-24 14:02, Trader Woody wrote:

That bizzare-looking character with the uke looks like he's suffering the effects of a grapefruit and lime enema.
That is actually from a Shag painting of King Kukulele, and does not do him justice. In the original he looks like he had a grapefruit, lime AND rum enema.

On 2002-07-24 15:45, Tangaroa wrote:
Do I need to dig out my "Ghastly Ones" 7" - that one is even more of a blatant rip-off.... I think he copied a "Flying Saucers" poster on a CD as well...

I consiter the Ghastly Ones an homage since they cover Grim Grinning Ghosts with just enough changes to make it legal....

But yeah, the Tiki Tones first album had Tikis that if I'm not mistaken were line-for-line copies of the Tikis from the Enchanted Tiki Room poster. And the Stereophonic Space Sounds Unlimited CD's cover was an exact copy of the Flying Saucer's poster. I don't consiter any of these homages since, well, they have nothing to do (and don't even hint) with the art they're borrowed from.

Now, I'm not 100% sure of this but someone told me that both of those CDs were from Shag's own record label.

"Stereophonic Space Sounds Unlimited " CD:

Flying Saucer poster from Disneyland:

I don't think it's that bad, doing something "in the style of" like the ebay artist did, or what Shag did with the Coolest Ghouls. but this seems a little different...

~Hanford

[ Edited by: hanford_lemoore on 2002-07-24 16:02 ]

I was just thinking about a computer application that could allow you to make your own Shags. It could be a simple drag and drop style interface. First, select a background (choice of lounge, airport, hell), then add figures by dragging them from the character selection window on the left (a few dangerous women over here, maybe the devil and a bull over there, maybe Sammy Davis in a globe chair). Then there could be a ramdom snappy title generator that would automatically call it "A Dangerous Trip to the Lounge for a Zombie Made With Banana Liqueur Near a Tiki Surrounded By Shriners in Hell where Wives With Knives Postpone the Apocalypse".

Or maybe Shag could just make Shrinkydinks and you could do the whole thing in the oven.

(signed limited edition Shrinkydinks, of course.)

-martin

In the case of Shag, taking elements or even blatantly copying off old posters is an 'homage'. One hopes that the reason we 'get' it, is cause we recognise it's kitsch. Shag is kitsch. His ideas and sources are all from the past, and from pop culture icons we recognise. That's what makes it cool, and that's why we like it. If we didn;t recognise it as something we had seen before, say... from our parents record collection, or from a late night movie, we would remain un-moved.

Now, someone ripping off Shag's style, with none of the substance, or none of the schooling or thought that makes it a good piece of pop culture? That person is just a monkey.

Wait, a monkey is too good a comparison. We like monkeys.

They are just plain old losers.

Now why am I discussing art? I have a plane to catch!!!!

On 2002-07-24 21:36, tikifish wrote:
In the case of Shag, taking elements or even blatantly copying off old posters is an 'homage'. One hopes that the reason we 'get' it, is cause we recognise it's kitsch.

Well, the kitsch factor applies to all of his paintings, not just the homages.

If we didn't recognise it as something we had seen before, say... from our parents record collection, or from a late night movie, we would remain un-moved.

I'm not quite sure if you're saying that a Shag painting has to be reconized as a copy (or an homage) of something older to be effective. But if you are saying that, than I disagree. I think all of Shag's paintings are great, and as far I know the vast majority are completely original compositions.

And as far as the Coolest Ghouls goes, my guess is Shag borrowed the design not just for the kitch factor, but becuase he admires the design, the artist, and what it stands for (pop) culturaly.

This is what Ebay boy is doing. Is he good at it? I'd say no. But was Shag always good at it? Of course not. But that's par for the course with most artists.

From the poor imitation look of it, I'd say Ebay boy is doing exactly what Shag probably did and what so many other artists did when they were starting out. They copy, sometimes uncreatively, other art they admire.

As ebay boy gets older he'll get better, develop his own style... and who knows, perhaps we'll be buying his art some day.

~Hanford

Man, if I could only train a fez wearing monkey to paint like Shag...

Whenever an artist blatantly 'borrows' from another, whether it be a homage or a parody, they should point this fact out by having the words, 'With apologies to (insert artist here)'. Then at least they can't be accused of ripping off the original while paying real homage to the talent of said original.

Trader Woody

I like all the pictures I have seen so far. I dont care who did what to what as long as I think it is cool. If it looks good on my wall to me I dont care who painted it or what others think. I will say that I appreciate some of these rip-offs because I can afford to bid on them, but not Shags works. Shag is the master though! All artist rip off someone or something at sometime. It's a part of capitolism.

I did a Tiki series 3 quarts of paint ago, lime green, purple and black, that was totaly Shag inspired. I get my paint at Home Depot in the 1$ a quart section and those colors just happened to be there and having the last issue of Tki News always looking at me who can't help but do it. Now I'm onto a cool blue with white, black, brown, pink and yellow and hid the last issue of Tiki news. does any of this make since?

This one just absolutely cracks me up!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=902099843

That's sad, real sad.

Trustar

I especially like totem comprised of the tube sock with the rice bowl and airplane. Good work.

I see the faces are now more of the artist's own style at least. It ads an unintentional comic touch.

Shag is a wonderful artist I love almost all of his works and would love to own an original, but if you look through old 50's and 60's cookbooks you will find the exact same characters, so this is not totally new. Miro, Pollock, Van Gogh, ect...they had totally there own style and subject matter, so to copy there works is obvious.
The person from ebay is definitely looking at Shag's work and using his style, but hey artist have to eat too. It isn't easy getting your original art out there and appreciated, I am sure that isn't the only style this person paints. And people do bid on his auctions, so someone out there that can't buy the 2,000.00 shag is settling for his. If I found a piece similar to Mark Ryden by on artist on Ebay, I have to admit I would settle for a 40.00 painting since I can't drop 1,500.00 for a print.
I personally don't like the copied Shags, they all look rushed and they look like they just need alittle more content. But I don't think it is fair to go off on one unknown artist, and not acknowledge that shag also was inspired by 50's artist cartoon drawings in his pieces.

I think the only thing this painter was 'inspired' by was greed.

I like the chick with the big hooters!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=900836410

At least she admits it's a "tribute to SHAG". Of course, if she really wanted to offer him a tribute, she'd mail him a cheque too.

Tikifish... Do you really think s/he should send a check to Shag? Why? For using his name in the eBay ad?

I mean, NO ONE is going to mistake this painting for a Shag original.

That is a sad piece of art. I like the airport picture with the chicks with the big hooters!!!!

hooters! hooters! hooters!

Bottom line is all up and coming artists copy others style before they develope thier own. Good style will be copied no matter what. So what if someone makes $40 off it. Get over it. I think some people here are acting a little high and mighty when it comes to art. If it doesn't bother the artist or sales of his work big deal. And the coment about greed.....please $40 dollars is hardly greedy. If you want to talk about greed take a look at shag. He asks for alot of money for simple paintings(GASP!!!!)

Sounds like someone is jealous of Shag's money!!!! I still like the hooters picture.

In my job, I am routinely exposed to works of art. Some by known artists, some by unknown. Sometimes we arrive to wrap artwork, and all of the DeKoonings, Warhols, etc, look like college student artwork. And sometimes the college student artwork blows away the "masters".
That said, in my personal opinion is that all of the shag rip-offs I've seen... Suck.
Artists like Rain have a thousand times the talent, and yet their artwork sells in the same price range as these ( In my eyes ) uninspired pieces. Although I am in my own way thankful that I am able to consider owning his ( and others ) works. But I do hope that for the truly talented ( In my subjective eyes ) artists get their recognition and due.
TG
http://ww.exotic-tiki-gardens.com

I fiercely beleive that these people are copying Shag strictly to make a buck. If some other artist was popular on Ebay at the moment, they would copy them too.

That's why she owes him a cheque.

'Homage' my ass. It's a straight no-holds barred ripoff just to make a dollar.

Am I pissed? Absolutely. I won't pretend I dont get mad when this crap sells for 50 bucks and my original paintings (or Rain's, or anyone else's) sell or less.

This whole original-rip off-artsey-fartsey thing sounds vaugley familiar. Hummm, maybe another posting...?

TikiFish, while I agree with you somewhat and empithise with your situation, you probably have to consider WHO the buyers are and WHY they are buying these pieces;
1.) I seriously doubt if any one here in TC or anyone with any REAL artistic appreciation would consider buying these pieces.
2.) Perhaps they are purchased solely because of the 'Shag' name association. Is that done to draw in an unsuspecting ebay buyer? Yes. You are absolutely correct about the "making a buck" thing. (Although that IS what ebay is about - Buyer Beware!)
3.) Possibly purchased by a rich aunt for a gift to her tiki loving niece or nephew? What unknowledgeable mom would not say "Shag, oh yes, my son talks about his work...Can't afford one of those, but this one says it's LIKE Shag, maybe the kid will like this!"
Now, hopefully this recipiant is going to say "Gee, thanks mom, this is great!" But in reality, I bet money that the kids gonna be thinking "Geeze, what the hell did mom do - I hope she didn't spend a lot of money on this".

I do agree that what I have seen of yours is FAR superior in originality, ability, imagination, creativity and versatility! But because your stuff (and Rains) says "Original" then it doesnt appeal to those shoppers.

Fortunately, or unfortuantely, buyers are often -and always will be- lured in by 'cheap' gimmicks to catch their attention.
(I say 'cheap' because I always think of used car dealer T.V. commericals and radio ads. Think about the deceptive tactics used there!) Buy with ebay, you can't just walk away that easily.

By the way, didn't you make those Fimo Tiki Christmas ornaments last year? I'll be looking for those in a couple of months.

Just food for thought.
Recap: Rip-offs bad, Money good.
I agree with Hanford, at the risk of loosing my good standing with Tikifish.
I kinda agree with Kokomo about the 'hooters'. (Yeah, Shag's chicks are always so flat chested! We need an artist who is a 'breast man' for once!)
I'll shut up now.

-C
:sheckymug:

wouldn't it be cool if Shag himself was buying the "copy cat art" and then had a show 10 years from now with all the knock off's.

Maybe THAT"S who is buying them!!! haha. A copycat Shag show would be a brilliant idea. I think BigBro sort of alluded to this.

As for the Xmas ornaments, I think I will make them again, yes! They are really fun to make, and people seem to dig them. I am also making purses from a vintage 50's purse pattern, using fabric from old hawaiian shirts.

Also, don't get me wrong - I don't sell my tiki stuff for the money. I don't need the money. But I have this bizarre compulsion to make these things, and then I have nowhere to put them. That's the honest truth...

I also have this compulsion to shop thrift stores and garage sales... but I hate a cluttered house. So I get my thrifting jones out by buying, then selling stuff. It's a win win situation for me!

I can't believe they're doing it for the money. Their M.O. doesn't hold up:

1. Paint a real painting that looks like crap.
2. Put Shag in the title but clearly mark it as Shag insprired or a tribute to Shag.
3. Sell it on ebay for a whopping 60 bucks (whooo hooo! I can save the orphanage!)

It just doesn't hold up. It's not the way a scam artist or anyone else who wants to make a quick buck operates.

And Tikifish: Your paintings are great. They're not Shag ripoffs. Add "Shag" to your listings. Don't feel bad about it. It will get you more visibility. You're not cheating anyone, you're simply getting more viewers to your auction because it's a fact: people who like Shag's work will have a much higher appreciation for yours. So you're doing the buyers a favor by making it easier to find your stuff.

~Hanford

PS: Unrelated, but all this talk of Shag tributes made me think of this CD I recently got:
Better than the beatles: A tribute to The Shaggs

No offense tikifish but why sell them? Why not just give them away? I'm glad you don't need the money, but other people do. I've heard that line before. "I do it cause I love it". Whatever, thats great, but alot of artists make art to make a living. They still love doing it but you gotta get cash somehow. I don't believe you can call yourself a professional artist till you have to make money off your work. And if you don't care about the money then why are you complaining about how much your pieces sell for???? If you upset that these copies are selling for as much as your art, then why not ask for more??? Art is in the eye of the beholder, as with anything in life. Someone may like the copycats work more than yours. Either way let it go and worry about your own art, not someone elses.

The Shaggs? PAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIINN!!

[I kinda agree with Kokomo about the 'hooters'. (Yeah, Shag's chicks are always so flat chested! We need an artist who is a 'breast man' for once!)

um..i don't have an eye for such things, but heres an artist who .. has cartoon girls.. with more ample cleavage...

http://www.littlecartoons.com

http://www.littlecartoons.com/GirlPages/GG10.html

DogBytes:

The topic here is not hooters, it's Tiki.

This Tiki pic is on-topic, but not really related to THIS topic (The gallery of shame):

http://www.littlecartoons.com/ChimpPages/Tikichimp.html

~Hanford

[ Edited by: hanford_lemoore on 2002-09-06 14:38 ]

And PS... while we all get the jokes about hooters, and the jokes may be made to defuse perceived tension, I don't think we need comment after comment about it in this topic. This topic is one of the more passionate topics we've had here on the board and the discussion is good. Start another topic if you seriously want to talk about boobs in art.

~Hanford

[ Edited by: hanford_lemoore on 2002-09-06 14:37 ]

Or better yet... start a new discussion on anatomically correct male tikis!

let's here a few cheers for that one girls :)

I've noticed that some shag chicks look like they could put an eye out.

There is a phrase: "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". But this does show quite a lack of originality. Hopefully they will move on to be more creative.

Sure, I could give my paintings away, (and do often) but I am always curious what the market value would be. Of course I like getting money for them. Who wouldn't? But what I am saying is, it is not my main source of income by any means, so that allows me to paint what I want (usually nude chicks with tiki mugs - sorry - b cups) and then sell it for what the market bears.

I guess I just get pissed off at the shag ripoffs (though I'd love to see a gallery show of it) cause these people arent putting their heart into it. theyre just aping a style.

And Hanford, thanks for the advice, but I could never do it. I could never put "Shag-esque" into my Ebay title. It would just seem too wrong. I'm not Shag-esque, we just share a similar subject matter.

Tikifish- I agree with you. I would never want to associate MY art (if indeed I had any to sell) with the art of another artist.
To me, that is just a 'gimmick' to get folks to buy or look at something that it is not.
And I think in most true artists there is a pride factor that will not allow them to do such a thing.

But, I still stand by my theory as to who are buying these items and why. I think it is a reasonable deduction. For certainly if somone were buying a painting for themselves, (and especially if they were into the "same subject matter") they would want either a.) an original piece by a fresh, orginial artist, or b.) an actual Shag or Bosko or established artist.

I'll be looking forward to the Chistmas Tikis, but will remember that you said you don't need money. :wink:

-C.

Did I say that? I must have been drunk.
The baby needs new shoes, and I am eating Kraft Dinner every night. Life is so hard here in the barren wilderness of Ontario... so very, very hard...

On 2002-09-07 07:58, the75stingray wrote:
To me, that is just a 'gimmick' to get folks to buy or look at something that it is not.

in the words of the immortal Jimi Hendrix...
"gimmick? everything's a gimmick"