Intellectual Discourse on the Art/Hype/Hate/Love of Shepard

[JErikR]

Anyone have the tally of negative reviews past famous artists have received, only to earn rave reviews later on in their careers?

[mose]

I haven't seen the show yet. I hope to see it soon. From the pictures, it looks a lot like the show at Levine's, only less cohesive.

out of curiosity... why do you think the levine show was cohesive let along more cohesive than the deitch show? i was at both levine locations and there was nothing really cohesive about it, or at least there wasn't anything that was more or less cohesive versus the deitch show. i thought maybe the deitch show was a bit more cohesive.

deitch was a great show but there wasn't anything that separated the work from the 2007 show at levine.

Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate, has spoken about how exhibitions need to have a strong argument, as opposed to trotting out 150 works by, for example, Matisse as 'The Matisse Show'.

I feel heeding this advice would be beneficial for Shepard. He has yet to ever put on a truly cohesive 'show'. Instead, the work is not concentrated, the themes are not established, and they tend to be more akin to a 'Shepard Fairey Sale'.

Mayday is an example of a schizophrenic show that comes across as a high-priced Obey bodega as opposed to a tightly-narrated journey. It is part homage to his idols, as highlighted in the early Deitch literature and the eary rumors that the show would be about 2 dozen canvas works, all portraiture. But the homage feels a bit empty because it seems to be missing the answer to several 'wh-' questions such as 'why are these people idols?' and 'what impact have they had on the artist?'. It also has this 'Mayday' theme that feels tacked on and wholly undeveloped, not even underdeveloped. Mayday could and should have been very fertile ground, because Shepard lworks it on a daily basis. But, he just can't seem to distill his experience and his passion in a way that grips the viewer. Finally, much of the additional work simply feels like a product dump. All-in-all, wide but quite shallow.


Not to say that this is absolutely a bad thing. If I have time later, I have an argument I've been developing with regard to what Shepard Fairey is and what he is not in art world terms that would address the thematic weakness.

[djsp]

Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate, has spoken about how exhibitions need to have a strong argument, as opposed to trotting out 150 works by, for example, Matisse as 'The Matisse Show'.

I feel heeding this advice would be beneficial for Shepard. He has yet to ever put on a truly cohesive 'show'. Instead, the work is not concentrated, the themes are not established, and they tend to be more akin to a 'Shepard Fairey Sale'.

Mayday is an example of a schizophrenic show. It is part homage to his idols, as highlighted in the early Deitch literature and the early rumors that the show would be about 2 dozen canvas works, all portraiture. It also has this 'Mayday' theme that feels tacked on and wholly undeveloped, not even underdeveloped. Finally, much of the additional work simply feels like a product dump. All-in-all, wide but quite shallow.


Not to say that this is absolutely a bad thing. If I have time later, I have an argument I've been developing with regard to what Shepard Fairey is and what he is not in art world terms that would address the thematic weakness.

I like what you have to say and would like to subscribe to your newsletter....

[MunkeyPants]

....

Not to say that this is absolutely a bad thing. If I have time later, I have an argument I've been developing with regard to what Shepard Fairey is and what he is not in art world terms that would address the thematic weakness.

I like what you have to say and would like to subscribe to your newsletter....

+1

[admonkey]

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=8152

[robotoil]

I haven't seen the show yet. I hope to see it soon. From the pictures, it looks a lot like the show at Levine's, only less cohesive.

out of curiosity... why do you think the levine show was cohesive let along more cohesive than the deitch show? i was at both levine locations and there was nothing really cohesive about it, or at least there wasn't anything that was more or less cohesive versus the deitch show. i thought maybe the deitch show was a bit more cohesive.

deitch was a great show but there wasn't anything that separated the work from the 2007 show at levine.

Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate, has spoken about how exhibitions need to have a strong argument, as opposed to trotting out 150 works by, for example, Matisse as 'The Matisse Show'.

I feel heeding this advice would be beneficial for Shepard. He has yet to ever put on a truly cohesive 'show'. Instead, the work is not concentrated, the themes are not established, and they tend to be more akin to a 'Shepard Fairey Sale'.

Mayday is an example of a schizophrenic show that comes across as a high-priced Obey bodega as opposed to a tightly-narrated journey. It is part homage to his idols, as highlighted in the early Deitch literature and the eary rumors that the show would be about 2 dozen canvas works, all portraiture. But the homage feels a bit empty because it seems to be missing the answer to several 'wh-' questions such as 'why are these people idols?' and 'what impact have they had on the artist?'. It also has this 'Mayday' theme that feels tacked on and wholly undeveloped, not even underdeveloped. Mayday could and should have been very fertile ground, because Shepard lworks it on a daily basis. But, he just can't seem to distill his experience and his passion in a way that grips the viewer. Finally, much of the additional work simply feels like a product dump. All-in-all, wide but quite shallow.


Not to say that this is absolutely a bad thing. If I have time later, I have an argument I've been developing with regard to what Shepard Fairey is and what he is not in art world terms that would address the thematic weakness.

Frib,

Mose has a lot of good points here. There were very few icons at the Levine show in terms of canvas/paper, Ali and "This machine kills" come to mind. Though, very loose indeed, the two sides of capitalism filtered into both the environment pieces and the military pieces. Note, the rubyliths were all over the place. All in all, I think Mose has it dead on, Shepard Fairey shows are more or less outlets to sell with themes that are very hard to put a finger on. But, to your question, on the whole, yeah, there is very little difference between them. I'm not saying one show is better than the other.

Of all the pictures that I seen so far, I would like a flag. But, I think my days of acquiring anything on paper/canvas have passed.

[MunkeyPants]

I'm eagerly awaiting the second installment from Mose, but he did get me thinking about a couple of things. (Can you smell the smoke?) The following is stream of consciousness, and might jump around a bit. Sorry.

Deitch has acknowledged that this show overwhelmed them with sheer volume. "We're used to shows with 10, maybe 20 pieces tops, there were 160 in this show". OK, part of me says that is the ART establishment at work trying to keep control over the work, who collects it, pricing, etc... From all the history I've read about Shepard, he is all about getting work into the hands of people at a decent cost. Frankly, I'm blown away that an artist with his name recognition doesn't command over $100k for a canvas. MBW (love or hate him) has proven you don't need to go through the ranks to sell work for high dollar value. But I digress, this was too much work for one show regardless how you spin it.

In 1982 or 83, Basquiat had 6 hugely successful, critically acclaimed individual shows around the world. I haven't read into how many pieces he showed, but for an artist to create over 1000 works in an 8 year career pretty much speaks to his prolific spree. Either Shepard is trying to break the Gallerist mentality or ignoring it. Huge applause on either count. That said, it would make more sense to break his work down into different shows that are curated better. Leave the smaller works to group shows and smaller galleries around the country/world (which allows people access through their local galleries) where people without huge bank accounts can buy work.

Hirst also has shown that the Gallerist is not a requirement to the equation by taking his work straight to the auction house. Extend that argument further and Shepard could sell smaller (or even larger work via the website). Unannounced drops with new pieces whenever they are ready. Suddenly, you have to wonder, is the gallery needed at all? You can rent a warehouse and promote a show yourself at his level. But, that probably wouldn't entice museums into acquiring your work would it? Suddenly the gallery is important again. At least for the larger works. Did going straight to auction where the highest bidder gets the prize hurt Hirst in the museum front? Doubtful, but he already was well established.

Speaking of the Levine show, who acquired all of the huge works I saw in the video of that show? There were many collage pieces that appeared to be 10 ft or more. Did average collectors/fans buy these? Are they sitting in a warehouse somewhere? They certainly aren't being posted in the Originals thread.

[conartstudio]

In 1982 or 83, Basquiat had 6 hugely successful, critically acclaimed individual shows around the world. I haven't read into how many pieces he showed, but for an artist to create over 1000 works in an 8 year career pretty much speaks to his prolific spree. Either Shepard is trying to break the Gallerist mentality or ignoring it. Huge applause on either count. That said, it would make more sense to break his work down into different shows that are curated better. Leave the smaller works to group shows and smaller galleries around the country/world (which allows people access through their local galleries) where people without huge bank accounts can buy work.

the difference is that basquiat created 1000 unique pieces of work and shepard creates things in multiples.... for example, how many more shows is shepard going to keep putting the same album cover hpms in? the one i have is an edition of 6 and i believe all of the newer ones are an edition of 8, so does that mean for 6-8 consecutive shows we'll see the same pieces (with slight variations) over and over and over again? this is why i don't think the deitch show was any different than the levine show. the only pieces that are 1/1 are the canvases (or so i thought until someone posted a second loom on canvas piece), so the only real difference between the shows are the canvas pieces.

[conartstudio]

I haven't seen the show yet. I hope to see it soon. From the pictures, it looks a lot like the show at Levine's, only less cohesive.

out of curiosity... why do you think the levine show was cohesive let along more cohesive than the deitch show? i was at both levine locations and there was nothing really cohesive about it, or at least there wasn't anything that was more or less cohesive versus the deitch show. i thought maybe the deitch show was a bit more cohesive.

deitch was a great show but there wasn't anything that separated the work from the 2007 show at levine.

Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate, has spoken about how exhibitions need to have a strong argument, as opposed to trotting out 150 works by, for example, Matisse as 'The Matisse Show'.

I feel heeding this advice would be beneficial for Shepard. He has yet to ever put on a truly cohesive 'show'. Instead, the work is not concentrated, the themes are not established, and they tend to be more akin to a 'Shepard Fairey Sale'.

Mayday is an example of a schizophrenic show that comes across as a high-priced Obey bodega as opposed to a tightly-narrated journey. It is part homage to his idols, as highlighted in the early Deitch literature and the eary rumors that the show would be about 2 dozen canvas works, all portraiture. But the homage feels a bit empty because it seems to be missing the answer to several 'wh-' questions such as 'why are these people idols?' and 'what impact have they had on the artist?'. It also has this 'Mayday' theme that feels tacked on and wholly undeveloped, not even underdeveloped. Mayday could and should have been very fertile ground, because Shepard lworks it on a daily basis. But, he just can't seem to distill his experience and his passion in a way that grips the viewer. Finally, much of the additional work simply feels like a product dump. All-in-all, wide but quite shallow.


Not to say that this is absolutely a bad thing. If I have time later, I have an argument I've been developing with regard to what Shepard Fairey is and what he is not in art world terms that would address the thematic weakness.

Frib,

Mose has a lot of good points here. There were very few icons at the Levine show in terms of canvas/paper, Ali and "This machine kills" come to mind. Though, very loose indeed, the two sides of capitalism filtered into both the environment pieces and the military pieces. Note, the rubyliths were all over the place. All in all, I think Mose has it dead on, Shepard Fairey shows are more or less outlets to sell with themes that are very hard to put a finger on. But, to your question, on the whole, yeah, there is very little difference between them. I'm not saying one show is better than the other.

Of all the pictures that I seen so far, I would like a flag. But, I think my days of acquiring anything on paper/canvas have passed.

i'm on board with both you and mose... you guys just have a better way of word things than i do

i really enjoyed the deitch show, but to me, i didn't see any real growth from the levine show (not the growth you would expect over a three year period of time)... if anything, it was just more of the same with the deitch show seeming less personal and more factory fabricated since we saw all of it before.

[MunkeyPants]

In 1982 or 83, Basquiat had 6 hugely successful, critically acclaimed individual shows around the world. I haven't read into how many pieces he showed, but for an artist to create over 1000 works in an 8 year career pretty much speaks to his prolific spree. Either Shepard is trying to break the Gallerist mentality or ignoring it. Huge applause on either count. That said, it would make more sense to break his work down into different shows that are curated better. Leave the smaller works to group shows and smaller galleries around the country/world (which allows people access through their local galleries) where people without huge bank accounts can buy work.

the difference is that basquiat created 1000 unique pieces of work and shepard creates things in multiples.... for example, how many more shows is shepard going to keep putting the same album cover hpms in? the one i have is an edition of 6 and i believe all of the newer ones are an edition of 8, so does that mean for 6-8 consecutive shows we'll see the same pieces (with slight variations) over and over and over again? this is why i don't think the deitch show was any different than the levine show. the only pieces that are 1/1 are the canvases (or so i thought until someone posted a second loom on canvas piece), so the only real difference between the shows are the canvas pieces.

I'm not talking about the art being unique per se, but rather the ability to put on more shows with a more narrow focus. Sheps work is all over the map rather than a distinct theme (which is what Mose was talking about). I never saw the Levine show, but video looks a lot different to me than what Deitch had on the walls.

There were 8 new LP covers among the 20 at the show. Deitch had rights to 1/8 and 2/8 of each of the new ones and outright sale of the other 12 that were there from previous shows. I guess your true complaint about LP covers is that he doesn't sell all 8 options in the initial show. Rather than 2-3 for each. I agree with that, but he did have the 8 new ones. I think it depends on the image. Molotov Hips (girl) at Deitch was an AP which means 1-8 sold at White Walls or via other channels between the two shows.

As far as no new work besides the canvases, isn't that the point of a show? The large new work? I'll ignore the Ruby's but some would argue each of those was a new work. Also, I think the Pattern HPMs were new, but I didn't examine them that close. Frankly, I like my model of big shows with canvases and all smaller works through group shows/local galleries around the world and/or the web, but I don't make the rules.

If I had just had a 20 year retrospective, I think I'd be inclined to create all new imagery rather than base my work off the past, but I'm not Shepard or a successful artist at this point, so it's moot. I rather like that all the portraits didn't have Andre's face in them (although somewhere in the depths, I'm sure he's there). I know a lot of the old fans really want that stuff, but I think Shepard is poised to be able to move beyond Andre (wow, lightning didn't just strike me down). Honestly, the imagery that has more mass appeal will be what propels Shepard to true icon status in the art world. Whether he wants that or not, we don't know. Images like Wave and Spider Lily certainly seem to indicate his interest in moving in that direction and those are market tests as well as artistic explorations IMO.

[rumspring]

...
...
...Honestly, the imagery that has more mass appeal will be what propels Shepard to true icon status in the art world. Whether he wants that or not, we don't know. Images like Wave and Spider Lily certainly seem to indicate his interest in moving in that direction and those are market tests as well as artistic explorations IMO.

I know pretty much nothing about art and I like pretty much everything, but this has been my opinion since first seeing those two.

[harveyn]

From the pictures, it looks a lot likI have an argument I've been developing with regard to what Shepard Fairey is and what he is not in art world terms that would address the thematic weakness.

Come on Mose I am looking forward to hearing your views, as always on this.

Personally I am not sure he should try to bridge the gap from his street work to fit the main stream art world. I am not even sure he is trying to do so. I sort of quite like the lack of naritive in this show and have always been drawn to his work more through its visual impact than the message it sometimes trys to tell. Shallow I know but that sort of suits me.

Maybe the more important story is his journey rather than that of a body of works.

[robotoil]

From the pictures, it looks a lot likI have an argument I've been developing with regard to what Shepard Fairey is and what he is not in art world terms that would address the thematic weakness.

Come on Mose I am looking forward to hearing your views, as always on this.

Personally I am not sure he should try to bridge the gap from his street work to fit the main stream art world. I am not even sure he is trying to do so. I sort of quite like the lack of naritive in this show and have always been drawn to his work more through its visual impact than the message it sometimes trys to tell. Shallow I know but that sort of suits me.

Maybe the more important story is his journey rather than that of a body of works.

I rarely listen to the words in music. I'm mostly just drawn to the tune. I've never been into Shepard's world view, nor am I against it. I just like the art. If you have to understand a thesis to understand art, IMHO, something is missing from the art.

[spiff huxtable]

I sort of quite like the lack of naritive in this show and have always been drawn to his work more through its visual impact than the message it sometimes trys to tell. Shallow I know but that sort of suits me.

I rarely listen to the words in music. I'm mostly just drawn to the tune. I've never been into Shepard's world view, nor am I against it. I just like the art. If you have to understand a thesis to understand art, IMHO, something is missing from the art.

I imagine most people probaly feel the same way at first, myself included. But how many times have you heard an artist describe the process that lead to that work of art, message they were trying to convey, emotion they wanted to communicate, or questions they wanted the viewer/listener to ask themselves, and then grow in appreciation for that work of art and the artist. For me, that insight and those dicsussions bring a depth and admiration just as valuable as the initial visual (or audio) impact. Sometimes it it makes me like the work more, and sometimes less.

[Jason Filipow]

Quite refreshing to read some intelligent dialog on this thread, despite the negative topic title....

[conartstudio]

Quite refreshing to read some intelligent dialog on this thread, despite the negative topic title....

Jason, don't know if you've been to the Deitch show but i'm sure you've seen the photos.... what are your thoughts on the direction and growth of Shepard's work since the Levine show? what are your thoughts on the NYT's article?

[harveyn]

I imagine most people probaly feel the same way at first, myself included. But how many times have you heard an artist describe the process that lead to that work of art, message they were trying to convey, emotion they wanted to communicate, or questions they wanted the viewer/listener to ask themselves, and then grow in appreciation for that work of art and the artist. For me, that insight and those dicsussions bring a depth and admiration just as valuable as the initial visual (or audio) impact. Sometimes it it makes me like the work more, and sometimes less.

I certainly don't disagree with this sentiment and a greater understanding can have an effect on how you view and interact with a certain work of art. As you say, positive or negative. I guess what I am saying is that I am in no desperate rush or have no great need to establish that understanding.

The mere presence of something that stimulates me visually satisfies my simple needs.

[conartstudio]

I imagine most people probaly feel the same way at first, myself included. But how many times have you heard an artist describe the process that lead to that work of art, message they were trying to convey, emotion they wanted to communicate, or questions they wanted the viewer/listener to ask themselves, and then grow in appreciation for that work of art and the artist. For me, that insight and those dicsussions bring a depth and admiration just as valuable as the initial visual (or audio) impact. Sometimes it it makes me like the work more, and sometimes less.

I certainly don't disagree with this sentiment and a greater understanding can have an effect on how you view and interact with a certain work of art. As you say, positive or negative. I guess what I am saying is that I am in no desperate rush or have no great need to establish that understanding.

The mere presence of something that stimulates me visually satisfies my simple needs.

but you kind of have to look at it from the view point of the art critic, they ARE trying to establish that understanding. if the presence of something that satisfied their needs they wouldn't have anything to write about.... and, whether or not you agree with her, if you look at it from the point of view of the NYT's critic you can see her point.

[harveyn]

[/quote]
but you kind of have to look at it from the view point of the art critic, they ARE trying to establish that understanding. if the presence of something that satisfied their needs they wouldn't have anything to write about.... and, whether or not you agree with her, if you look at it from the point of view of the NYT's critic you can see her point.[/quote]

Again I agree. She does indeed fulfil the role of an art critic very well and I can also see her point of view. I just have no need to digest or analyse her commentary with respect to the enjoyment I get from Shep's work. That does not make her point of view wrong it just has no relevance to me. I fully appreciate others need to understand and the role that plays in their experience, its just something thats not essential when it comes to the personal interaction I have with art I love.

[MunkeyPants]

Two things:

I can go back to the first post and edit the title to be "Intellectual Discourse on the Art/Hype/Hate/Love of Shepard Fairey"

For those that think The NYT review by Roberta Smith had a valid perspective and the writer did her homework, I would politely suggest you go read some of her other reviews, especially the one she wrote on Takashi Murakami at the Brooklyn Museum to observe the contrast in her writing. Reading a single review by someone does not make for a good understanding of their perspective. Nor should you evaluate work based on a review of someone whose style and preferences are not known to you by a long length of time reading their reviews and looking at the work yourself. Much like wine, you cannot understand the nuance without tasting it yourself. You are your own best reviewer.

[conartstudio]

Two things:

I can go back to the first post and edit the title to be "Intellectual Discourse on the Art/Hype/Hate/Love of Shepard Fairey"

For those that think The NYT review by Roberta Smith had a valid perspective and the writer did her homework, I would politely suggest you go read some of her other reviews, especially the one she wrote on Takashi Murakami at the Brooklyn Museum to observe the contrast in her writing. Reading a single review by someone does not make for a good understanding of their perspective. Nor should you evaluate work based on a review of someone whose style and preferences are not known to you by a long length of time reading their reviews and looking at the work yourself. Much like wine, you cannot understand the nuance without tasting it yourself. You are your own best reviewer.

two things:
1) yes, change the title but add (AKA Hatin' on Shepard)
2) i was never implying the critic did her homework... all i was saying was that critics in general approach shows differently than fans/collectors/consumers. if she did her homework she would have gotten the simple things correct, such as the name of shepard's design company. you have to take all critiques with a grain of salt but at the same time realize that they are trying to find some kind of perspective/agenda/angle because they have an article to write and ads to sell

[conartstudio]

(photo from the big caption http://thebigcaption.com/)

[s_k_y]

I totally see the argument that the show lacks a cohesive flow and focus to it.

One thing to consider (and this may have already been brought up) is that Shepards techniques (as well as growing popularity) are what afford him the opportunity to explore so many different areas - music and artistic influences, personal thoughts on environmental/political issues. Toss in the commissions and the patterns and there's a lot of stuff there. An artist using another medium, say acrylic, may not be able to produce such a broad range of images which leads to the the conclusion that a painter's show would be more focused/tight and be more thought provoking.

I'm not trying to say that it's a question of quality vs. quantity because there are certainly many quality pieces at this show. I look at the Deitch show as more of a retrospective. He didn't really break any new ground with it. It will certainly be interesting to see what he comes up with next. On a personal note, I'm growing tired of the photographs being turned into prints. Artists should constantly be trying to up the ante, and I think he's grown complacent with collaborating with photographer A, B, C, D because (as we all know) it will sell out no matter what.

Not saying that success has made him lazy, the murals he's putting up have been great, and it's always great to see donations made to charity, I just think that he needs re-charge the creative batteries.

[notudon]

I totally see the argument that the show lacks a cohesive flow and focus to it.

One thing to consider (and this may have already been brought up) is that Shepards techniques (as well as growing popularity) are what afford him the opportunity to explore so many different areas - music and artistic influences, personal thoughts on environmental/political issues. Toss in the commissions and the patterns and there's a lot of stuff there. An artist using another medium, say acrylic, may not be able to produce such a broad range of images which leads to the the conclusion that a painter's show would be more focused/tight and be more thought provoking.

I'm not trying to say that it's a question of quality vs. quantity because there are certainly many quality pieces at this show. I look at the Deitch show as more of a retrospective. He didn't really break any new ground with it. It will certainly be interesting to see what he comes up with next. On a personal note, I'm growing tired of the photographs being turned into prints. Artists should constantly be trying to up the ante, and I think he's grown complacent with collaborating with photographer A, B, C, D because (as we all know) it will sell out no matter what.

Not saying that success has made him lazy, the murals he's putting up have been great, and it's always great to see donations made to charity, I just think that he needs re-charge the creative batteries.

Maybe the next step of his evolution are the staged photographs he has done. These Parties Disgust Me and the new ACLU print are all photographs that he set up and then made the prints from. His wife is the muse for both of these pieces. Will he branch out form this or is this just another stepping stone?

[conartstudio]

I totally see the argument that the show lacks a cohesive flow and focus to it.

One thing to consider (and this may have already been brought up) is that Shepards techniques (as well as growing popularity) are what afford him the opportunity to explore so many different areas - music and artistic influences, personal thoughts on environmental/political issues. Toss in the commissions and the patterns and there's a lot of stuff there. An artist using another medium, say acrylic, may not be able to produce such a broad range of images which leads to the the conclusion that a painter's show would be more focused/tight and be more thought provoking.

I'm not trying to say that it's a question of quality vs. quantity because there are certainly many quality pieces at this show. I look at the Deitch show as more of a retrospective. He didn't really break any new ground with it. It will certainly be interesting to see what he comes up with next. On a personal note, I'm growing tired of the photographs being turned into prints. Artists should constantly be trying to up the ante, and I think he's grown complacent with collaborating with photographer A, B, C, D because (as we all know) it will sell out no matter what.

Not saying that success has made him lazy, the murals he's putting up have been great, and it's always great to see donations made to charity, I just think that he needs re-charge the creative batteries.

Maybe the next step of his evolution are the staged photographs he has done. These Parties Disgust Me and the new ACLU print are all photographs that he set up and then made the prints from. His wife is the muse for both of these pieces. Will he branch out form this or is this just another stepping stone?

i think that has partially to do with the fact that it's cheaper to create your own photos than it is to pay someone else for the rights to use their photo. he's gotten into a lot of trouble over the past year over photography rights and the easiest solution is to use your own photos...