In a post called “The Problem with Shepard Fairey” Tomorrow Museum blogger Joanne McNeil calls out Obama’s hand in securing the street artist’s upcoming ICA show, which opens in Boston tomorrow. Her point — that the popularity of his now iconic Hope and Progress posters is more about the image of Obama, and less about anything Fairey did to make it his own or his artistic/political vision — is an interesting one. Especially when she juxtaposes it with Tony Puryear’s poster of Hillary Clinton:
“Puryear is also taking inspiration from propaganda posters, but by using a photograph, rather than illustration, it moves beyond its source. It mocks the Communist propaganda that was the inspiration. You can see the lines on Clinton’s face, her eyelids are dropped a lit, she looks relaxed. She radiates warmth as much as power and intellect. She’s a human being, not an icon.
“There is a twist to the Clinton image. But with Shepard Fairey, what you see is what you get.”
What we’re wondering is:
Comments (2)
that Hillary poster is awesome. I want one.
While the Puryear may be more interesting from a critical perspective, the Fairey poster, is more iconic and graphic and therefore we can more easily identify with the poster's subject. The fact that Mrs Clinton is in nearly perfect profile distances us from her, and instead of looking up and to the viewers right (the direction of progress or "forward" in the English language, since we read left to right) she is looking off to the viewers left. Perhaps this is an attempt to repaint Clinton as a left-leaner, but we all know that her left-leanings are not that strong. Making Clinton so electrically blue makes her look cold – like a block of ice in a warm atmostphere. The use of such bright colors, and the lighthearted smile on Clinton's face, almost makes light of the process. This is a vote for the most powerful person on the face of the planet. Fairey's poster reflects that gravitas. While certainly striking, and an interesting use of color, the Puryear poster does not have the kind of moderation necessary for effective utilization as a campaign poster. While Puryear seems to want to break all the rules and turn convention completely on its head, Fairey created a work that is not intended to be revolutionary — just a refreshment (or change). Add to the equation the fact that Fairey's art is 3 solid colors and can easily be stenciled and repeated millions of times, and its a done deal. Fairey's poster is different and retro yet respectable enough to be a viral image for his supporters, while Puryear's is so wacky and out of line with typical Hillary voters aesthetic that it just didn't have a chance of catching on. It is hard to say whether Fairey's image, however, had a positive impact on Obama's election. The image, because it is so reminiscent of Communist propaganda, might have aided in associating his name with communism, heightening the fear of his agenda amongst the non-communists and individuals who didn't actually read his platform (which lays bare his decidedly non-communist agenda). That fear may have driven a decent percentage of the population to vote against him. Additionally, because Fairey's image became so ubiquitous, I personally became so tired of seeing it (and other Obamabilia) that I found myself tiring of the candidate himself – even though I thought (and still do) that he was the right choice.
While I appreciate both artists, both posters, and both candidates — it seems completely plain that the Fairey Obama poster is heads and shoulders more effective and "powerful" (perhaps that word should be better defined anyway) than the Puryear Clinton poster. This leads me to question the intent and agenda of the Joanne McNeil. Does she think Puryear is a generallybetter artist? Is she not a fan of Fairey's work in general? Does she or someone she knows have some sort of personal beef with Fairey? Is she simply an innocent who is blogging about something she has no business blogging about? Does she understand art and how it affects people? Does she understand the differences between the agenda of art and that of commerce/advertising/publicity?Is she just saying something for the sake of being contrarian in order to induce know-it-alls like me to call themselves out and give her more publicity in the process?
Post a new comment