PDA: Public Display of Art

The following is my make-up assignment, but I though some of you might find it interesting to read anyways :]

While searching through March 12, 2009 issue of The New York Times, I happened upon an article titled “Boston Vandalism Charges Stir Debate on Art’s Place.” With my attention sufficiently captured I read on about Shepard Fairey, an artist who is perhaps best known for his Obama posters and silkscreens. Fairey has been arrested on numerous occasions for posting his pieces on public and private areas, and it appears as though the end is not yet in sight as the charges against him continue to mount.

Fairey claimed the police were “gratuitous[ly] piling on,” and stated that he was being punished for using public space for purposes other than commercial advertising. In many respects Fairey has a point. He has pled not guilty to one misdemeanor and thirteen felony charges, and it seems as though the police are pursuing nineteen more counts of vandalism. In such trying times as these, it is odd that so much time and energy is spent on an artist pasting posters across a city. One would think there would be far more important cases to pursue than these, which leads me to question whether or not this has become more of a publicity stunt for the police. On the other hand, it would not be so far fetched to assume that Fairey planned this as a publicity stunt for himself. After multiple alleged offenses, he still seems unwilling to halt this practice.

For me to say police have more important cases to work on is not to say that the practice of vandalism should be allowed without consequence. As someone who has grown up in a “bad” part of town and had my fence defaced many times, I can appreciate people wanting their environment to stay clean and untarnished. I simply question the amount of time they are spending on an individual they have no evidence against. There is also the incidence of Fairey’s arrest as his cab pulled up to his retrospective at the Institute of Contemporary Art last month. Such a public display of police involvement gives the impression that the police force is actively seeking attention to make an example out of Fairey.

With respect to Fairey’s art itself, many appreciate the message he is sending but a great deal of people see his postings as just another form of graffiti. In the article one woman was quoted as saying she felt Fairey was a “rampaging punk.” Personally I believe this depiction is off the mark, as the artwork holds political/social messages and not profanity, pornography, etc. There is not a sense of vulgarity in the pieces, and it is not as though Fairey is running around a city slashing tires or bashing in store windows.

This is a difficult case to reach a decision on, since there are so many principles involved. Socially the word “graffiti” holds a negative connotation, but in the art world it is a respected form of creation. One could argue that Fairey is supplying the people with free art to display for the community. On the other hand, not everyone will be pleased to have stickers and posters on items like traffic signs.

All in all, I believe this is a case with no “right” answer. The beauty of Fairey’s art involves its public display in everyday settings. If his pieces were only shown in a museum they would not receive anywhere near the exposure they do now. A conviction would only serve to create tension in the art world, and possibly convince a few kids not to spraypaint public areas. In the end, I do not feel an artist expressing his philosophy in this way should be punished. People are far too often wrapped up in their own selfish dramas, and to walk out into the world and be faced with something that sparks an important conversation is all too rare.