Shepard Fairey’s Latest Oeuvres Given Another Coat of Paint

posted at 4:56 pm on July 26, 2010 by Howard Portnoy
printer-friendly

By now, many have forgotten the name Shepard Fairey. If you’re one of them, a quick reminder: Picture a likeness of Barack Obama rendered in bold shades of red, blue, and (for some reason) eggshell with the word “Hope” in block letters.

Fairey’s brush has been busy, busy since he painted that portrait, most recently in the city of Cincinnati, where he was commissioned to create outdoor murals. So what did the Harbinger of Hope, the Chancellor of Change, come up with to grace the sides of buildings in The Queen City? Why, pictures of children armed with automatic weapons—across the street from an elementary school, no less. Images of burqa-clad women similarly combat-ready.

Citizens of Cincy, a working-class metropolis, were speechless over the murals—some of which were captioned (an armed policemen tells a person of color “I’m gonna kick your ass and get away with it”). This is in no way to suggest residents didn’t react to the vile, hate-filled excuses for “art.” They did—by painting over the murals.

The left-leaning Cincinnati Enquirer meanwhile had no trouble finding its voice. They condemned the actions of the vigilantes who “defaced” the murals as “off-the-wall.” A local art historian clarified the offense thus: “It’s never about the boy with a machine gun. It’s never about the police with a baton.”

Having ghost-written half a dozen books on art history, appreciation, and aesthetics, I can appreciate the art historian’s point of view. The point of social commentary art is to shock and to outrage. I will also go so far as to defend Fairey’s right to give visual expression to a subject about which he is passionate.

However, there is a line—a very thin line—that art cannot or at least should not cross. And Shepard Fairey’s art in this case crosses that line. Art can and should stir passions. It should never incite or excuse violence. The Cincinnati murals do both.

Blowback