Comments on: Shepard Fairey arrested last night in Boston

By: Obamas Hope-Poster und das Urheberrecht - Hoffen auf Vernunft | Geistreicher

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:00:51 +0000

[...] war. Fairey, der als ehemaliger Graffiti-Sprayer Gerichtsverfahren im Zusammenhang mit seiner Kunst gewohnt ist, nimmt die Sache zwar locker, verklagt AP schon mal quasi präventiv und beruft sich auf das im [...]

By: Spencer Cross

Spencer Cross — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:24:31 +0000

If you support Shepard Fairey’s art then you support the gangster who tags your garage, no?

No.

By: libertad

libertad — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:22:48 +0000

What’s the dfference between wheatpasting and tagging (i.e. grafitti)? They are both vandalism as street art. If you support Shepard Fairey’s art then you support the gangster who tags your garage, no?

By: Sean Bonner

Sean Bonner — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:45:17 +0000

So just to be clear he wasn’t arrested wheatpasting, he was arrested for old warrants that the BPD had issued on him, they knew the gallery show he was going to be up and swooped in to grab him. Obviously this is a lot of work and coordination and (taxpayer money) being spent on a simple vandalism charge and it more than likely payback as the Mayor of Boston invited him to do a large banner and the BPD was not happy about that – this is more internal Boston feather puffing than anything else.

By: waltarrrrr

waltarrrrr — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 07:57:36 +0000

Yes, and Boston has been free of Aqua Teen Hunger Force LEDs ever since. Never forget 1-31-07!

By: David Markland

David Markland — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 07:09:45 +0000

Best comment yet on this story left at Gawker: “Isn’t this the same police department that shit their pants over some lite brites a couple of years ago?”

By: marshall

marshall — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:38:29 +0000

Angelcity art – By definition all “street art” with a business plan attached is run of the mill advertising, not a stunt.

The overhead is just different from what a major brand would employ. Being arrested is just part of the overhead, and of course it does generate faux-outlaw credibility. “Street artists” who are well known and have monetized their brand get invoiced by municipalities for the damages caused, the artist ignores it, gets their credit destroyed, and then later settles with the city for pennies on the dollar for the damage they’ve caused. At least that’s how it works in LA. So yes, your tax dollars subsidize the advertising campaigns of “street artists” with monetized brands. Hey, it’s easier than getting a grant!

By: David Markland

David Markland — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:52:27 +0000

I’m just confused by many of the people who complain about billboard blight defend wheatpaste postering. The latter may be more “hardcore”, but it’s still advertising. Does this make the billboard companies who violate city code “hardcore”?

By: keith

keith — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:48:43 +0000

He should stick to designing shopping bags for Saks.

By: angelcityart

angelcityart — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:36:37 +0000

Almost sounds like a publicity stunt.