Talk:Shepard Fairey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aweiss3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My paper on Shepard Fairey[edit]

I wrote a paper on Fairey for an art class. If any passer-by would like to chop it up and throw some information into the article, go ahead. LockeShocke 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Fairey is a modern graphic designer whose work is heavily inspired by graffiti and street art. Growing up in Los Angeles, where gangs and graffiti are near-ubiquitous, Fairey’s surroundings probably had an impact on his artistic vision (Wikipedia).
As a student at the Rhode Island School of Design, Fairey began his “experiment in Phenomenology”: the Andre the Giant has a Posse sticker campaign. (Since, the original image has evolved into the “Obey Giant” campaign.) Fairey admits that the sticker itself means nothing. The real purpose was to study how, in culture, the sticker would catch on and spread.
Fairey contends that people are seldom, if ever, bombarded with advertisements for products that are not immediately apparent. Because the ominous stylized portrait of Andre the Giant is so ambiguous and devoid of purpose, the viewer is intrigued more than they would be by a regular advertisement (Fairey, 2002).
Fairey, in addition to his giant pieces, creates other works that are reminiscent of propaganda, using ominous imagery in a tongue-in-cheek assault on authority. In his piece More Military Less Skools, he continues his mock-attacks against government. Fairey uses a very straightforward approach to delivering his message: by using bold, unmistakable type. The message communicated in this piece–’more military, less schools’–most every viewer would disagree with. He continues to offend by misspelling ‘schools’ as skools, implying the creator of the poster (the government) doesn’t even care enough about schools to spell the word right. He misspells military as well–ironically, the government is misspelling the very name of the institution it is advocating.
A representation of a sinister Big Brother character appears at the top of the poster, and a moire motif, imitating money, is used in the background. A seal appears at either upper corner. Finally, the obey logo and slogan, “Obedience is the most valuable currency,” fall at the bottom of the piece. The money motif sets in stone that the target of the satire is the government, and the obey tag and slogan at the bottom–aside from serving as Fairey’s calling-card–give the audience a final chill as they move to the next piece.
This piece also succeeds in being senseless, ambiguous, and a social experiment. What kind of response does this piece elicit from the audience? Fairey, himself, is looking for that very answer, and once the audience questions first the work and then his or herself, he has succeeded.
Who is this Big Brother character? Who could possibly be advocating more military and less schools? The seals in the corners would imply it is meant to represent the United States itself... is there a person Fairey believes is the personification of this and other destructive ideologies?
Who are we to obey?
...Fairey began his “experiment in Phenomenology”...

Actually. that word is spelled "Phenomenology." Dick Kimball (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Shepard Fairey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [1]
  • Project X. (interview) [2]
  • Fairey, Shepard. Post No Bills. ©2002 Shepard Fairey. Gingko Press, Inc.
  • This is Your God exhibition - static x. [3]

References[edit]

I've removed the statements tagged as unreferenced from the article. They can still be found in the history if anyone wants to find the references and reintroduce them. It wasn't doing the article (or the artist) any good to have so many uncited claims.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bought a home in San Diego" and the Expedition posters[edit]

Fairey couldn't have bought property in San Diego as every building that was covered with his posters got razed by Mayor Golding. If he had his own art in his house, the bulldozers were sure to follow.

Did Fairey do the "Expedition" decals? Expedition what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.157.164 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article written by Obey fans[edit]

Is this a PR piece. There is certainly a lot of criticism of fairey in the art world that deserves some inclusion here.

This article gives no undue or unbalanced praise to Fairey. Granted there is certainly criticism that is not contained within, but that's the critic's job to add. LockeShocke 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've included some criticism and responses from Fairey that are from notable sources. I included sources from Mother Jones, Colorado Daily, and the Associated Press. There are several artists on Wikipedia that have criticism mentioned in their bios. Damien Hirst and Andres Serrano just to name a few. The Vallen criticism that was removed was from Vallen's self-published blog. However, his criticism and the criticism of the art historian has been mentioned on reliable sources. There is also a lot of positive critiques that need to be added. Artblogs (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Vallen PUBLISHED a critique on a valid WEBSITE, not a BLOG, Mr. Ethico![edit]

The policing of this page by Ethicoaestheticist is biased. He seems to OR work for the company Obey OR seems to be policing Wikipedia without any kind of ETHIC. The critique, by Mark Vallen, a NOTABLE artist & curator, was PUBLISHED on his famous WEBSITE, not a BLOG, like Ethicoaestheticist tried to scam us with. Ethicoaestheticist, do your job if you are policing & CLICK on the links. READ them. DON'T JUST SUPPOSE. This is information for the world to see. You have NO RIGHT to do policing of Wikipedia if you make these kinds of GIGANTIC mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.17.133 (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this source is a personal website, not a published, neutral third-part source. We must be careful with sources per WPBIO. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci, you dissapoint us all. WPB is respected. You can't just delete ALL the facts!! Someone is going to put them back up again. You'll see! Instead of editing like a maniac, why don't you contribute? You are an ARTIST. Of all people, you should have SOME inclination to want people to know the facts. Am I completely out of wack, here? Help me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.17.133 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't start an edit war. At least three other editors have questioned the validity of the source you are attempting to insert. The "facts" are not established and we must use caution when writing about controversial material per WP:BIO. Do not place the material back in the article until other editors have a chance to voice their opinions. Do not attack other editors, do not vandalize user pages and read WP:SOCK. Thank you. freshacconcispeaktome 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are VALID. Mark Vallen is a respected artist & Mat Gleason is a respected curator. Both have "published" their critique. Thus, the article is respecting WPB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.17.133 (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:BLP#Sources: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links. Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am an admin and I have reviewed this conversation and the relevant edits. I completely endorse the statements of Freshacconci and Ethicoaeatheticist above. I have also removed material from this page per WP:BLP. I gather there is more understanding now about wiki policies, and hope that matters have settled down. Tyrenius 03:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced some of the contested text that was recently removed [4]. I've never had a problem with the Gleason comments, which seem to me to be legitimate art criticism.--Ethicoaestheticist 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and now I've added a published (in a book that is) reference replacing the Gleason video. Hopefully that will be that!--Ethicoaestheticist 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology to Freshacconci[edit]

I know, I know. You are doing your job. Very well I must say. But this article does need some serious wiki-expertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.17.133 (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed Consensus[edit]

I noticed that consensus has been reached on this page about the issue of Mark Vallen's critique. While I disagree with the reasoning (I think exceptions to the blog rule should be made in instances where blogs are, or could be, the only sources for a relevant fact, notably Fairey's need to repay Rene Mederos). That said, I'll simply dig into Mat Gleason's published work and find a written example of his criticism (he is, after all, the editor of a published art journal). SiberioS (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vallen, who has a bio on Wikipedia, is not the only critic of Shepard Fairey. The current article reads like an ad for Shepard Fairey and the galleries, politicians, and groups he is associated with. I added Critical response to the article so that people can add both positive and negative critical responses from reliable sources. Note that the Damien Hirst bio has a section for that info and that other artist bios mention controversy and criticism as well. If there is room for criticism on the bio for Richard Prince and Andres Serrano I don't see why it is frowned upon on the bio for Shepard Fairey. Fairey is known the world over and controversy comes with the territory. Artblogs (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was less about Vallen's criticism than it was the WP:BLP#Sources restriction on self-published sources ("Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article."), to say nothing of Vallen's most notable accomplishment being, simply, the inclusion of his bio on Wikipedia. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

209.30.16.190 I think the critical response should have a section for positive and negative as Damien Hirst and others have on Wikipedia. Obviously you want to counterpoint and downplay any negative criticism about the artist based on your past changes to this article. I did not use language to sway opinion as you suggested. The interviewer for Mother Jones has been clear that he looked further into Shepard Fairey after the interview based on some of Fairey's answers. He changed his opinion of Fairey after an art historian informed him that Fairey had infringed on the copyright of Rene Mederos. The info I added was all backed by the sources I included. At no point was the text just about the interviewer. Considering the controversy over Fairey's art this Wikipedia article about the artist is not very neutral and it appears that perhaps some people want it to be in full support of the artist and his work. If you think that the opinions of interviewers and critics are not worthy of inclusion perhaps all criticism should be removed from Wikipedia? Artblogs (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. If you can provide verifiable references to the portions of your entry I've called into question, fine and dandy. Otherwise, they should be deleted as being your own personal, non-neutral spin. The rest of your reply, I'll leave to the OpEd pages with no further comment. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.plazm.com/index.php?cID=11266 a notable source according to Wikipedia mentions the Vallen criticism. So it might be useful. Other wording needs to be changed as well. It should be mentioned that the firm Evolutionary Media Group left employment by the Obama campaign in order to work with Fairey to create the posters. It was not just Fairey. They also had the backing of companies that helped supply shirts with the Hope image. Technically it was not "grass roots" because grass roots do not involve company funds. Keep in mind that Obeygiant is technically a company. There are sources from the New York Times and LA Times that can back that. It also needs to be clear that Fairey did not decide out of the blue to mass produce the posters. He helped the campaign directly after conversations with Yosi Sergant and Scott Goodstein both of whom worked for the campaign at the time. Sergant's pr firm Evolutionary Media Group left employment by the Obama campaign to work with Fairey so that it would not be an official part of the Obama campaign. The campaign did not want direct connection with propaganda and illegal street works. Sergant was a media advisor and Goodstein was a communications director. That info is backed by the LA Times and New York Times. Yosi Sergant should probably have a Wikipedia bio as well considering the impact that he had on the election and the notable sources that exist about him. If you do some research you will discover that Sergant and Goodstein were not mentioned that much in the press or by Fairey after being exposed by the New York Times and LA Times. Might be something to look into. Artblogs (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post whatever edits you wish and we'll see if they live up to Wikipedia neutrality. Judging from the predisposition of your comments, above, particularly after reading what is actually written in your referenced article, I'm willing to bet your neutrality will be called into question. I've got no problem with art criticism, but not without following Wikipedia's requirements in regards to sources, sourcing, living persons and neutrality. But, like I said, go for it and we'll see where the chips fall, eh? 209.30.16.190 (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

209.30.16.190, thanks for the threat you left on my talk page. My additions are meant to make the Shepard Fairey more neutral in tone. An extreme case for Fairey is already present on this bio without much input about criticism. Looking back it seems every critical opinion of his work from notable sources had been removed. I will remind you that many other notable artists have criticism mentioned on their bios. Are you taking inclusion of information personal? The entire article mentions how Fairey is the greatest street artist of all time, yadda, yadda, ya. It reads like an ad for Fairey's business and campaign promotion. Like the last change to what I added. The IP user added that the writer compared Fairey to Warhol. He did not. He was writing about how those images were fresh for their time. So it should not read as if the writer is saying that Fairey's art is on the same level as Warhol.I already know that if I add the Plazm magazine info it will just be removed. You are concerned with only one side of Shepard Fairey's life and work on this bio. I plan to add stuff that you will probably like. I already added info about his youth and you did not question that. I don't think the goal of Wikipedia is for me to please you. Artblogs (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "predisposition"? Coming from you that is laughable. Honestly, how was this article neutral before the additions I made? From the very start it mentions the Institute of Contemporary art stating that he is “One of today’s best known and most influential street artists” with no sources reflecting the opposite. That quote was taken from a press release for the exhibit. Is that not a conflict of interest? Its not like they are going to say that he is a copyright infringer with no talent for a show they are promoting. Another source stating those bold claims about him being one of the best should be added in my opinion. Keep in mind that a New York Times critic has said that his work is "generic" and he is not the only critic to say so. Keep it neutral and that information would not be necessary. There are entire sections without citations that you apparently missed or did not care about because they were acceptable on your terms. Artblogs (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the same claims about being one of the most influential street artist" or best street artist has been said of Banksy. If you look at his opening bio it does not mention that. In fact it simply says he is "well known". That is an example of neutrality and what the article on Shepard Fairey should be. Threatening a fellow Wikipedia user with reverts is not the way to help this article. Artblogs (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what you're missing is that, 1) I don't delete edits that are factually, verifiably and notably true-- even yours (you're batting around .500 so far) and, 2) those in which the quotes are not misrepresented (in which you're batting more in Little League range). I really don't care if it's pro-Fairey or anti-Fairey, as long as the quote is verifiable, factual and from a notable source (and, I should add, conforms to Wikipedia norms). This entry is not a platform for your personal opinion and biases. It is not your place to interpret or spin others' quotes. Present them and walk away. The very fact you interpret the NYTimes' article (Warhol, political art, et al) the way you do speaks volumes. Just stick to actual quotes, from real and notable sources, and you'll do just fine here. You, my friend, are the one who is taking things _way_ too personally. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article has things taken out of context and used poorly. The Institute of Contemporary Art quote is a good example. That was for an exhibit at their space. They wrote the press release. So I don't think it should be used as a quote. Find another similar quote from a source that is written by someone who is not directly connected to Fairey or an exhibit he had. Last I check press releases were not considered a reliable source because they are promotional. Correct me if I'm wrong. This platform is not for your opinion and biases either. Like I already said I've added other things to this article and you did not make yourself known until I added to the critical response section, which I still think should be divided between positive and negative like the Damien Hirst bio. Artblogs (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LabGecko: I am no wiki expert so I'm leaving the actual page edits to those better suited to it. As is, the section regarding legal appropriation and fair use seems much too small to account for Fairey's activity. His list of 'works' also includes plagiarized art. In light of this I submit the following link as a reference to be reviewed and added to the wiki on Fairey: http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/
Perhaps the details on that site have been discussed, but aside from the author's names I don't see a lot of those references. The images shown on that site are very telling. LabGecko (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His political views?[edit]

Should there be a section for his political views? There are a lot of great quotes to work with from interviews he has done. I think a lot of people think he is far left and anti-capitalist but in reality he is not. Artblogs (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is less interested in your opinion and with what you think than with what you know and with what can be referenced in legitimate, notable and verifiable sources, particularly when in regards to living persons. Mr. Fairey's quotes regarding the need for artists and designers to make money, for art to fund itself, for the need for artists to start businesses and for the obvious realities of his many business ventures seem to be pretty self-explanatory. I'm fairly certain he's not thought of as a Marxist by anyone with any sense, even after reading the material already contained within this entry, and see no need for your efforts to further politicise the entry. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is this your entry? Don't take edits personal. Being that he is a political artist I think that side of his life and work is worthly of inclusion. You are jumping to conclusions about my intentions just because I went against the grain. I was going to pull quotes from Gothamist where he has stated that he does not following any specific side, that he is not anti-capitalist as many believe him to be, and other quotes that clear up missconceptions that people have about him. Artblogs (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm jumping to conclusions? You presented your thesis from the outset: "I think a lot of people think he is far left and anti-capitalist but in reality he is not." (Hypothesis, faulty basis, premature (and likely inaccurate) conclusion.) Please don't think I'm taking this personally when it is your comments that are are belying your bias. A quick and impartial passover of my edits and comments will reveal I'm looking at balance; you, I'm not so sure about. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I said, "Should there be a section for his political views? There are a lot of great quotes to work with from interviews he has done. I think a lot of people think he is far left and anti-capitalist but in reality he is not." Meaning that based on interviews I've read and his own statements. He says that he is not an anti-capitalist on Gothamist, "I’m not an anarchist at all; I believe in improving the system, not just destroying things. I’m very much an integrationist and I believe that creative people that are maybe somewhat more radical still need to work within what’s realistic, not pie-in-the-sky, “Yeah, let’s rip it all down!” Look at the people who do that, like Castro and Che Guevara: They failed. Lenin failed. But I’m about working within capitalism even though I’m critiquing it and working within our two-party system of democracy but trying to make it better. I think people get the wrong idea sometimes; they think that if you’ve got some complaint that you’re anti-everything. I’m definitely not. I’d be a hypocrite to sell art work if I was anti-capitalist." http://gothamist.com/2007/06/21/interview_shepa.php So please don't jump to conclusions about my intentions. Assume good faith. Artblogs (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mark Vallen critique of Shepard Fairey mention in Boston Globe[edit]

Just pointing out that the Mark Vallen critique has been mentioned in two Boston Globe articles in the last week. I've noticed that the critique is often removed even though it has now been mentioned in at least four notable sources that I'm aware of. I think we need to decide if it is worth adding or not. I think it is because Shepard Fairey recently posted a response to Mark Vallen's critique on the ObeyGiant site by pointing to an article by SuperTouch. The SuperTouch article claims that Vallen and others have used the internet to smear the career of Shepard Fairey. If Fairey takes the time to try and question Vallen's critique on his own site I think it is a good sign that the critique does have some worth under the rules of Wikipedia. It has been mentioned twice on the Boston Globe and on two notable magazine sites. What more does there need to be? The article has been read by thousands of people and has remained on the first page for searches of Shepard Fairey on Google. I don't think the article itself should be cited because it is Vallen's personal blog but I do think one of the two Boston Globe articles could be mentioned. I'd like to read what others think about citing the Boston Globe because the two entries focus on Vallen's critique. Artblogs (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the blog has been mentioned in mainstream publications, then it can certainly be mentioned in the article, and whatever those publications said about the blog, including any quotes from it, is valid for wikipedia. If Fairey has referred to the SuperTouch article, it is again valid to say he has done so, and also to say what the SuperTouch article consists of. Ty 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A section on "Appropriation" might be the way to address this, as it seems to form a significant part of his practice, as well as being widespread in the art world. Ty 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree if it could be kept academic and balanced-- presented as "this is what he is doing and this is why," à la the Richard Prince "rephotography"-- and explores not only the questions surrounding it but also the artist's meaning and reasoning for doing what he is doing. Even a cursory reading of the Prince Rephotography section will show it lacks the bias of a Vallen or Sherwin-written Fairey diatribe and, to me, is a high and notable standard for a neutral presentation of controversial opinion (and we already have the "critique" section for that). 209.30.16.190 (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPOV we simply present what sources are saying giving due weight to each. If sources make a diatribe, we represent that diatribe. If Fairey states his position on the issue, we represent that. The reader is then in the position of making their own judgement. Ty 04:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing my point. "What people are saying" seems to belong in the critical response section (and I do not disagree that "what people are saying" needs a place within the entry), whereas "appropriation" seems better suited to a more academic approach, akin to that of the rephotography section of the Prince article. In other words, less a collection of position statements and point making from a variety of sources than a serious discussion of what it is.
(Minutes pass while think my way through the best presentation of the material.)
In fact, now that I'm talking through it-- and looking into the Wikipedia-related articles as I go-- I now feel "appropriation" is already covered as an academic topic on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art) ) and all that is really needed, particularly since the Fairey article already has a "critical response" section-- is internal cross-linking from the appropriation entry to the Shepard Fairey entry. Anything else would seem to be unnecessary. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out Fairey was already listed as an artist in the appropriation article, so I've created a cross-link from the Fairey article to appropriation. The pros and cons of the act of appropriation are discussed within the appropriation article itself ("appropriation and copyrights"), where there will always be room for adding Fairey-related developments (ie, Obama/Mannie Garcia/AP) alongside the notations on Warhol, Koons, Hirst, et al. That, I think, should be that. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the critical response should be split between negative and positive like the Hirst bio. I don't know how to do that though. Right now the critical response section looks like people are trying to one up each other. It makes more sense to have one sub section of critical response for negative criticism and one for positive criticism. That will make it easier for people who visit the bio if they are doing research. That way the Vallen critique could be mentioned in the negative sub section and the SuperTouch response to Vallen's critique can be put in the positive sub section. The SuperTouch article is on the headlines of ObeyGiant.com right now. I don't know if it has been mentioned by a notable source though. Artblogs (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ty, now that Fairey has mentioned SuperTouch, it's fair game for adding to the wiki.
Splitting the critical response doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why would you split Vallen's criticism apart from the response to that criticism? In normal writing, you wouldn't; they go hand-in-hand. As it's currently written you have a point and a closely-related counter-point, often from the same news article the original criticism was taken from, but always related, which work together to provide a complete whole-- all without confusing the entry.
Another thing to begin thinking about is, how much weight should the critical response section have relative to the length of the rest of the entry? Every artist who actually accomplishes something will have detractors and criticism of their work, tons of both positive words as well as negative. Eventually, if the artist has made an impact in the world, more will be said about the artist than by the artist. But how much of that is needed, or even desired, in proportion to the rest of what should be an informative article on the artist himself? As reference, take a look at the ratios of "response" to "information" found within the Damien Hirst entry you've brought up. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This critique belongs, and if the WP:SPA 209.30 continues to remove it without discussing it here, it will become an admin issue. It's an excellent source, and it has been mentioned in mainstream sources. --David Shankbone 15:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vallen critique violates WP:SPS. Already been discussed ad nauseum; you're just late to the party. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have argued against it ad nauseam, and you are the only one arguing for its exclusion. It is more than appropriate, it has been referenced in multiple mainstream sources, and is very educational. Per WP:SPS For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. --David Shankbone 16:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to file for mediation now, then, as 1) your reference to WP:SPA is spurious, 2) three editors do NOT feel the Vallen article is aligned with WP:SPS, something you'd know by reading through the discussion, 3) I'm not the only one who has objected to its inclusion and, 4) your edit circumvents the results of the discussion AND the prohibition found in WP:SPS (in addition to just being poorly written). 209.30.16.190 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One need only look at your contributions to see you are an SPA (and I'm not the only one who has pointed it out). Regarding consensus:
  • "If the blog has been mentioned in mainstream publications, then it can certainly be mentioned in the article" - User:Tyrenius
  • "That way the Vallen critique could be mentioned in the negative sub section and the SuperTouch response to Vallen's critique can be put in the positive sub section." - User:Artblogs
And myself. You are arguing against its inclusion, yet three editors (myself included) feel its multiple, multiple use in mainstream publications, as we all the inherent educational value, make it appropriate for use in the article, and it certainly passes WP:SPS as stated above. --David Shankbone 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding WP:SPA, you are confusing location, place, time, and the IP address associated therewith, with single intent. You couldn't be more wrong. I do not intend to apply for a named account for reasons you, of all people, should probably understand. I repeat: your claim is a spurious detraction from the issue at hand.
Regarding editorial consensus, unless I am misreading Ty (a distinct possibility), his comment was that the Vallen article could be "mentioned" if it had been referenced in a mainstream publication, not that it could be "used as a reference" itself. I would think Ethicoaestheticist's admonition in favor of holding WP:BLP#Sources in regards would prevail, an opinion with which Ty agreed (particularly since the entry is still, at its core, a biography of a living person). 209.30.16.190 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to move the Vallen critique to the more prominent position of within the text of the article itself then certainly - my poorly written edit can be improved in that way; I agree. But then it will not only be in the text, but also used as a reference. Consensus from 2007 is irrelevant at this point, since Vallen's essay has been quoted more often since that time in both artistic and mainstream media sources, especially in reference to the Mannie Garcia issue. Regardless, any reading of SPS would show that 1) Mark Vallen is an expert on this topic; and 2) that the mainstream media's use of his essay makes it good enough for us, too. --David Shankbone 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the situation has changed since this issue was first raised. Per David Shankbone, the quoting of Vallen's essay by mainstream sources legitimises its use, at the very minimum to using whatever those sources have said about it. Ty 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The discussion further up the page relates to the oft inserted claim that Fairey is a plagiarist, sourced only to Vallen's critique. Such a serious accusation only supported by (at the time) a lone voice from the blogosphere needed to be removed. Now more mainstream sources have reported on Vallen's article it can be included, albeit cautiously with due regard to BLP. Drawing the line between legitimate discussion and scurrilous innuendo will I'm sure still be a topic on the talkpage.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think, in regard to WP:ENC, that there are few places where the original work compared with Fairey's work has been examined, and for that reason, it's quite educational. I understand why it wasn't included to begin with, but it's been used heavily as a source because of the research that Vallen put into writing it, and that there are few other places on the net where the side-by-sides are as clearly demonstrated. --David Shankbone 20:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there are few places on the net where the side-by-sides are as clearly demonstrated. For starters, an even greater and more complete collection of them can be found at: http://thegiant.org/wiki/index.php/Category:References and all without the bias present in the Vallen editorial. The fact is, Vallen's information was not new at all-- only his venom-- and collections of Fairey's reference material, with unbiased presentation, have been floating around long before Vallen ever entered the picture. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Herein lies your problem: you have too much of a POV in editing this article. You don't have to like Vallen, but he's a notable critic. I am personally a big fan of Shepard Fairey, but I'm not here to paint this article in his favor or disfavor. 209, you should probably temper yourself more when you edit the Fairey article, because it's not just that you have a POV, it's that you edit with that POV. At this point, Vallen's essay belongs in the article regardless. --David Shankbone 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you arguing that the reference I provided is more biased than the Vallen reference, side-by-side? Or that it contains fewer references to Fairey's source material than Vallen's editorial (and is, therefore, less "educational" than Vallen's editorial under WP:ENC)? Because you seem to have forgotten the topic of conversation. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) That's not a valid question. It's up to editors to ascertain the sources and represent them per WP:NPOV. The topic of conversation is whether it is acceptable per wikipedia policy to now cite Vallen, and the consensus is that it is acceptable. That doesn't preclude other sources, nor do other sources preclude Vallen. Ty 02:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a valid question"? Ok. That's a new one.
So we've determined that Vallen can be cited-- though I would argue that to present his editorial as an unbiased "educational" resource, as David has suggested, is fallacious and terribly myopic (to make no mention of ignoring "best source" common sense), particularly when it's been demonstrated that there are better, more in-depth, comprehensive resources available that have been written with less bias toward the subject matter.
Likewise, and by extension, we've determined the Supertouch rebuttal can be referenced (here and elsewhere, I suppose), both by virtue of having been mentioned by Fairey as well as by virtue of having been mentioned in the mainstream press.
Does that about cover it? Good to go. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to editors to decide if a source is "biased", only to decide if it's a valid source to use by wiki policies. Then we represent that viewpoint, along with the viewpoints of other valid sources, so the reader is in an informed position to make their own evaluation. We don't present anything as "an unbiased 'educational' resource", because that would be a wikipedia editorial evaluation, which is not permitted. We just represent sources in accord with their prominence. Something in the mainstream media, which is "biased", will get used, and an obscure source which is "not biased" won't. "Bias" is an evaluation that is dependent on the position of the viewer: wikipedia per WP:NPOV does not adopt a position. It would seem to be a safe procedure in this case to make it clear who is saying what, not to represent anything as "fact", i.e. "Vallen states...", "Supertouch states..." etc. Ty 03:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent statements as to how we operate on Wikipedia, Ty. Really. I'm going to save these diffs. --David Shankbone 06:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

209.30, the bio starts with bias by saying that Fairey is one of the most known and influential street artists alive today or whatever. I know people who would not agree with that. So should that be taken out? My point is that you may not always agree with what people have to say and if what is said is backed by a notable source it should be included. You can't write criticism of his art off as bitterness. If you do than you imply that positive reviews and criticism is just hype. If we went by that this bio would be bare bones. Artblogs (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect?[edit]

while looking up some info on mr. fairey, i was redirected to the fairey aviation company. would it not make more sense to either have a disambiguation page, or to have 'fairey' redirect here? it seems that he and his art are far more relevant in today's world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automatictransgression (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page done. We don't like to get too swayed by today's world, as after all wikipedia has to provide for tomorrow's world too. Ty 23:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consumerist.com: Shepard Fairey and Walmart with SS Nazi T-shirt design:[edit]

http://consumerist.com/tag/obey-giant/?view=full

http://consumerist.com/215151/fairey-responds-to-walmart-ripping-off-his-nazi-shirt
Summary from http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

"In 2006 Fairey printed a near exact copy of an already existing skull and crossbones artwork he found, altering the original design only by adding the words "OBEY: Defiant Since '89" along with a small star bearing the face of Andre the Giant. The image was reproduced as a T-shirt and added to Fairey’s OBEY fashion line. As luck would have it, Wal-Mart plagiarized the master plagiarist, copying and printing Fairey’s rip-off and adding it to the superstore’s own fashion line. A shopper at Wal-Mart recognized the skull motif’s origin and angrily protested - as it was an exact duplication of the infamous logo belonging to the Gestapo, the Nazi "secret state police" that served as personal bodyguards to Adolf Hitler and administered the concentration camps where the genocide of the Jewish people was put into practice. Unsurprisingly Wal-Mart’s T-shirts became a nationwide controversy, with legions of infuriated citizens insisting the superstore apologize and pull the offensive items from their shelves - a demand that was ultimately met. Eventually it came to light that Shepard Fairey was first responsible for manufacturing and selling the T-shirt, and when confronted by the website, consumerist.com, Fairey offered the following excuse: "When I made that graphic I was referencing a biker logo and it was only brought up to me later that it was the SS skull."

The tone of these articles is confrontational: BUT, is it important/notable to mention, and can it be included while remaining NPOV? Cuvtixo (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope poster thanks citation[edit]

I see a citation needed tag on the thank-you note from Obama:

I would like to thank you for using your talent in support of my campaign. The political messages involved in your work have encouraged Americans to believe they can change the status-quo. Your images have a profound effect on people, whether seen in a gallery or on a stop sign. I am privileged to be a part of your artwork and proud to have your support. — Barack Obama, February 22, 2008[citation needed]

I placed the entire Obama thank-you quotation (wrapped in quotation marks) into a Google search, and found a number of citations. I couldn't tell whether any of them came from Wikipedia, but the CBS citation (the sixth Google returned for my search) doesn't appear to violate WP:CIRCULAR. The Obey Giant citation (which CBS cited) is obviously self-published by the subject.

I think the two citations are a valid reference in combination; the Obey Giant citation argues that the CBS citation didn't come from Wikipedia, and the CBS citation fact-checks the Obey Giant citation. — Steve98052 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional observation: I see that the CBS article is a CBS blogger, rather than something that's clearly CBS News. However, it's been there for just over two years, and I think if the thank-you note on the Obey Giant site were a hoax CBS would have removed or amended it by now.
Also, there's a second [citation needed] on the page, citing a specific Colbert Report episode. I could search Colbert Report video archives for a citation, or do the same Google search process to find a transcript. However, I don't have time just now, and invite others to do so if they wish. — Steve98052 (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen: Controversial Ungdomshuset Crater Commission and Alleged Assault[edit]

The controversy section needs to be updated to cover Fairey's alleged assault and, likely related, the evident rejection of his less-than-well-received Ungdomshuset crater commission (See here). :bloodofox: (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issues with appropriation and fair use[edit]

I'm inclined to recommend referring to the Wikipedia article "Look Mickey" (the Featured Article on 2/21/2013) in which artist Roy Lichtenstein pretty much duplicated a copyrighted Walt Disney cartoon without the fuss raised over Fairey's "Hope." Dick Kimball (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


To the moderator[edit]

Please insert this into 'other media' section. It is about Shephard Fairey contributing time, name, and design work to the non-profit charity David Lynch foundation which promotes a highly scientifically validated program that helps people - Transcendental Meditation ( http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/61/6/1360 also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation_research )

Fairey contributed his talents and time to the David Lynch Foundation benefit concert in 2010, along with others such as Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Jerry Seinfeld, Mobey, and others. The foundation promotes the scientifically validated Transcendental Meditation program to help at-risk children, veterans with PTSD, and others. Fairey designed the poster for the event: https://dlf.tv/store He also was interviewed as part of this event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jetaGyLOlnE

Thanks.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Shepard Fairey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shepard Fairey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Shepard Fairey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Shepard Fairey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is pushing a POV here. I have responded on the nomination page. GetSomeUtah (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose merging Obey (clothing) into Shepard Fairey. I think the content in Obey (clothing) can easily be explained in the context of Shepard Fairey - if it isn't already, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Shepard Fairey. --95.99.94.82 (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shepard_Fairey&oldid=1194821948"