Our Daily RED

POSTED BY CHRISTIAN HOLLAND ON APRIL 18, 2009

Times must really be tough if an ADA needs to hold down two jobs to make ends meet.

actually. the owner gave shepard permission to install on the construction site outdoors, then shortly after decided the installation was far too valuable and took them down...only to reap the benefits by displaying them in his restaurant. total dick maneuver.

truff,
When did the owner decide to take down the installation? How long was the installation up before the owner "decided the installation was far too valuable and took [the pieces] down," as you state?

Let's be clear here: there are four individual pieces from the mural in the bar, not the whole mural.

And "actually" what?
"the owner gave shepard permission to install on the construction site outdoors" True, and my post states this explicitly.

If the owner's actions were a "dick maneuver," as you state, why would Fairey give the owner permission to display the images?

Please provide proof of all your statements.

You do raise an interesting issue about the "value" and "ownership" of street art. Is it ethical for an owner of property that is used by a street artist to re-appropriate the street art into their ownership? I.e., do you own the graffiti on your house, car, business, etc? Legal precedence may imply the answer to be yes: Property owners are often obligated by municipal law to clean up graffiti.

While I'm here:
Aaron Weber,
If you had taken the time to read the Boston Globe article linked to in this post, you'd know that even when the economy is healthy, Assistant DA's need to moonlight "to make ends meet." The Globe article was written almost three years ago, well before the recession began.

So what's the problem of the ADA moon lighting as a bar tender in a bar with Fairey's work? It's not a conflict of interest.

They broke the law and he is being made an example of because of his fame.
Who cares.

The sad thing is that an ADA has to work another job to make ends meet.

mr.progressive,
Why do you ask whether there's a "problem of the ADA moon lighting as a bar tender in a bar with Fairey's work?"

No one here is saying there is. In fact, the post explicitly states that it's a coincidence and not unethical.

I think you've already told us who you think "cares."

And I don't think anyone disagrees with you that the "sad thing is that an ADA has to work another job to make ends meet." The Globe wrote about ADA's moonlighting three years ago, and their article was linked to in the post.

cholland: so to summarize, you don't think it's unethical, you don't find it problematic, it's simply a coincidence, and you agree that it is perfectly fine and common for ADAs to work a second job...so what was the point of your article?

bisz,
Why don't you ask the all the bloggers, tweeters and other individuals who posted the link on Facebook.

I think it's interesting, funny and worth knowing if you like stories. I also think many of the linkers would agree with me. Others may be cynical, but that's not the name of our game here at Big RED.

Christian, your explanation of how this thing went down (or was taken down) is a bit off, partly because your only source of who gave permission for what seems to be the owner of the restaurant. Of course he's going to paint this picture in a positive light, and you fell for it.

The Truff is right: they were/are opportunists. While they only put a portion up in the restaurant, they kept the rest and even tried to sell some of them "with a portion going to (an unspecified) charity". The rest is in storage (so there's a plug for the owners to capitalize further on this).

If those guys wanted Shepard Fairey's work, it's available from dealers, etc. What they did is take something that belonged to the street, not them, and made it their own. Yes, it was very nice of them to give permission to display it, but it was not about the art - it was about the value and perceived coolness of it, available for free. Some would call it bait and switch.

BTW, this is absolutely totally different than when someone tags your building, house, etc., without permission. I had to read your comment twice to make sure you were really saying what you were saying.

As for the DA, he's gotta make ends meet. Let him tend bar. It's just a coincidence that he works there, although an amusing one.

Let me also add that Shepard Fairey was also being opportunistic by accepting the offer - I believe there was an understanding that it would be up for much longer than it was, and would not be taken down for commercial or personal purposes.

I think the work was up for about two weeks. But the construction went on long after. It was clear that the owner made a decision to take them down for some purpose other than having it up for public (street) view, which was the intention of the work. If the owner of the restuarant did it to "preserve" the pieces, then it was only for his benefit. Despite whether he is the owner of the work, he is a butthole for doing it.

Also, wou take the co-owner's word that Shepard gave permission, and no one can say that having a picture of Shepard and the lawyer in front of the restaurant is evidence that he is giving his blessing.

anonymous,
-You make your first mistake at "your explanation." We don't give our explanation. We retell the story of the owner, and we tell you that you're reading the owner's story.

-Why the insults? We're reporting a great story here. Stating that we "fell for" anything is incorrect and only illustrates your bias. We reported what Lutes said. We did not attempt to contact Fairey or his legal representation because we thought it'd be pointless, assuming that they wouldn't give us a comment. Cynical, perhaps, but realistic in our opinion.

-You say: "[the owners] kept the rest [of the mural] and even tried to sell some of them "with a portion going to (an unspecified) charity".

That's interesting and thank you for bringing this to light. Whether it makes truff's statements correct is debatable. Who/what are your sources? We can't get anywhere without accountability.

-I like what you have to say about things belonging to the street. There's lots to debate and discuss there. I personally think "Supply and Demand" is very commercial. I also believe that much of the show and the concurrently orchestrated paste-up campaign is re/packaged street art. I agree with you that businesses and property owners all over Boston saw the "value and perceived coolness" of having Fairey's paste-ups on their assets. I also agree with you that Fairey is an opportunist. (n.b. We won't know how long he thought the work would up (or how long he wanted it up) until we ask him.)

-You say: "this is absolutely totally different than when someone tags your building, house, etc., without permission"

I asked: "Is it ethical for an owner of property that is used by a street artist to re-appropriate the street art into their ownership? I.e., do you own the graffiti on your house, car, business, etc?"

Thank you for participating in the conversation I was attempting to start there. My next question is: why do you think it's different?

-You say: "As for the DA, he's gotta make ends meet. [...] It's just a coincidence that he works there, although an amusing one."

Thank you for repeating this. Despite this information existing in the original post and in subsequent comments, I think a lot of readers miss it and draw cynical conclusions about the intentions of the original post.

different anonymous,
-You say: "It was clear that the owner made a decision to take them down for some purpose other than having it up for public (street) view, which was the intention of the work."

It's probably safe to assume you're correct about the owner's decision.

You also say that "public (street) view... was the intention of the work." For the purposes of issues relevant to the discussion taking place here, it's important to note that the mural was also put up to promote a large scale museum show of Fairey's work. You can also buy the images at Fairey's and the ICA's website in the form of prints, notebooks, pins, t-shirts, scarves, a flask, rings, a bracelet, a necklace, a backpack, hats, a key ring, sunglasses, books, a pen, drink coasters, pilsner glasses, stickers, and a "hat clip." (Fairey owns the rights to these images and he earns more than a living wage from them. The posters may have "belonged to the street" as 'anonymous' says, but the posters' images also belong to Fairey and his business.)

-You say: "you take the co-owner's word that Shepard gave permission, and no one can say that having a picture of Shepard and the lawyer in front of the restaurant is evidence that he is giving his blessing."

We never took anyone's word. We did, however, print what Lutes said and stated that it was Lutes' story. (see my comments above).

-We wrote: Lutes has a picture on his phone of "Fairey and the artist's lawyer standing in front of the work in the restaurant" not "Shepard and the lawyer in front of the restaurant," as you say.

Also, how is the photograph not "evidence?" It may not directly imply agreement, but it is evidence of agreement. FYI, Lutes said he would send the image to Big RED and Shiny, but has not yet done so (We'll post when it becomes available.)

-Finally: Thanks to everyone for your comments. Though we'd prefer a debate about the substance discussed on the blog, we're pleased that journalistic quality is important to you.