redshifter.org

My email to Jason Kottke:

Hey Jason,

For the first time, I'm compelled to contact you about a post of yours:

http://www.kottke.org/05/06/theft-or-homage

While I agree that the ad is likely the result of designers who themselves are fans of Minor Threat, I don't believe they fully thought it through and Nike should still know better. Dischord has a very long, very VERY strong anti-corporate stance and that in and of itself should have been reason for Nike to understand that what they were doing is hollow.

My weblog post in reaction is here:

http://www.redshifter.org/archives/2005/06/yeah_right.php

Take care,

bob kissinger

san francisco, CA

I agree with you 100%, this just further illustrates Nike's very strong corporate side. I've never been a fan. They ONLY support skateboarding (and punk for that matter) when they stand to make a profit.

If you haven't seen it yet, Nike says they're sorry.

I happened to be in Boston a few weeks back and have one the actual fliers. EBay gold?

This topic has made its way around the creative staff at my work with some calling it a homage while others dismissing it as a rip-off. I'm more inclined to be in the former camp, but then, I'm not now, and have never been, into the Punk scene or a fan of Punk music. But perhaps that detachment has allowed me to think more rationally about it.

One thing I brought up in a casual discussion with at coworker was the album cover art for London Calling, by the Clash. That cover pays homage to an earlier album cover for the eponymous album Elvis Presley released in 1953. Take a look at them both and you'll see they're almost identical in execution.

Not meant to really prove anything... just a previous example.

looks like Warhol to me. Minor Threat or Marilyn, i see no difference. what we do and do not consider sacred changes with the tide. in a postmodern perspective, intention often trumps craft or creativity. i'm not saying i agree with this appropriation completely, but you either like this postmodern statement or you don't. politics, in my opinion, has nothing to do with it. plus, i heard that Jeff Nelson got a sick pair of

old school Jordans....half price!

I think making an artistic statement like the Clash did when they referenced the first Elvis record, or Andy Warhol did with Marilyn Monroe, is one thing. Nike biting Minor Threat is another, to me. Nike is not a group of artists; Nike's a business.

Dischord Records is more than just a record label -- it's a movement. It's a culture, a statement and in many ways, it was the blueprint for an entire anti-establishment way of life that is still going very strong. For THAT reason, Nike is in the wrong.

Nike has been trying to make money from skateboarders for years. Some people who have been hired recently have some roots in skating, but the overall corporate goal is to sell even more Nike shoes to kids. Skateboarding is now popular (and now profitable) so skaters are now part of their target market.

What makes the use of Minor Threat image so offensive is that they are reworking this very 'core' (for lack of a better word) image to gain market creditability. This isn't just a 'mistake', the marketing department at Nike are certainly pushing designers to tap into punk and hip-hop to appeal to the 'youth culture market'. It worked with hip-hop and basketball...why not punk and skating?

The staff at Dischord, being skaters from day one, know this about Nike.

If Walmart did this would it be OK? It's not right because this is big business. Nike knows better, skateboarding or not.

Seriously, I can't get over that fact that some are actually offended by this.

You know, change of couple of facts and we could easily be talking about a company or artist co-opting a religious symbol (happens all the time) and offending a large segment of religious followers (way older, way more people). After all, religion is a culture, movement, and a statement. And frankly, it's my opinion that many who are griping about this Nike thing would be telling those religious freaks to get over it - it's free speech, blah, blah, blah.

Yes, Nike apologized, but they're likely reveling in the glow of all this negative publicity.

Nothing is sacred anymore, not even Punk.

Interesting point Raphy - but what if Dischord had used a Nike swoosh in some album art? I'm sure they'd hear from Nike's lawyers. Or if Nike had used Mr. Clean or the Marlboro Man or any other corporate symbol, I'm sure they would have done so with permission (and compensation), or been sued. How is Dischord different? The image is protected by copyright law.

Now your point about religious iconography - none of that is protected by copyright. If they had shown a burning cross or something to promote their new shoes, it would have offended people, sure, but it wouldn't have violated any law. Either way, people have symbols that they care about - I wouldn't begrudge somebody for taking offense to it no matter what the image had been, punk rock, christian, or otherwise. Maybe I personally wouldn't have cared as much if it was something religious, or Spider-Man, but people have the right to be offended by it. The fact that this was so blatantly illegal is what's lame to me.

Nike didn't violate any copyright laws. The image they created was sufficiently different from the original - different color palette, different title, different photograph.

They're only offense was offending a group of people. In this day and age, however, offending someone is now tantamount to a crime.

I think you're not quite getting it, Raphy.

I myself almost made the religious iconography parallel myself, but I didn't for whatever reason. I do think it applies very well, though.

I see people repeatedly confusing "artist" and "corporation" in this thread. In my opinion, an artist can co-opt whatever symbols they want to to make their statement. It is, after all, their artistic endeavor. If they want to use a Star of David, a Cross, a Crescent Moon, Marilyn Monroe or a big pile of dog poop, then so be it. It's their output, their statement. Though the lines can be blurry, it is art, not commerce. "Piss Christ" is one man's statement, and I am not in the least bit offended by it.

Companies are an entirely different ball game, in my view. Many of us on this web site are involved in graphic design. We know it's not "art." Graphic design is corporate communications. That's it. Visual communication used to effect a company's brand on the people, with the ultimate intent on creating success for the company and earning profit.

Now, I'm all for earning profit and I'm all for graphic design. I love both pursuits. I do, however, believe that when you're putting your business out there, you have the responsibility to understand what it is that you're putting out there and the meaning it has to people. I would be very surprised if Nike would use something so loaded as a religious icon in their advertising. And if they did, I wouldn't personally be offended, since I'm not a religious person, but I respect people's beliefs enough to know that it's just not cool. It was considered out of line when Nike used the Beatles' "Revolution," in that the inherent message of the song really was in direct opposition to Nike's overall ethos of profit at any cost. The Minor Threat rip-off is the same exact thing.

I think you could debate that it is not sufficiently different. For one thing, seeing them side by side, "Major Threat", "Minor Threat", the position of the photo? Seems enough to me. A friend of mine, a copyright attorney, thought it was a clear violation, too.

Not to derail this, but Wikipedia sums up the various complaints against Nike (including the Minor Threat topic).

Good points all around Bob.

I do think your art is not commerce statement is, however, debatable (blury for sure, as you mentioned). But let's save that for another thread.

Indeedy.

Wonder what Negativland would have to say.

Don't be so quick to dismiss Nike as being incapable of making art because they're a corporation. You yourself have made many swooning postings about Apple products. Are they art? Sure, why not. Has Apple stolen ideas from other sources? Oh, absolutely.

The problem with the Nike ad is it's a stupid, shallow retread. If it were clever, respectful, or insightful, I imagine people would feel differently.

Maybe I'm more black-and-white on the art/commerce issue than many people are? I dunno. Although I really do love a lot of Apple's products, I see them as just that: products. Definitely not art. Yes, I think a lot of Apple's products are extremely well-designed, and surely the designers involved do posses a great deal of creative talent, but the stuff just ain't art. It's not a personal exploration; it's not making a social comment; it's not existing solely for it's own inherent aesthetic value. It's a product, mass-produced and marketed commercially. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yes, it's a blurry line for sure. For example, I view many musicians as artists. Yet the work (the music) is in many ways a very commercial product. Maybe the difference is that if you take away the concept of putting the work out there for commercial consumption, many musicians would continue to write and play music, simply to satisfy their own urge to do so. Take away a company's ability to sell a product, and that's the immediate end of the product.

If I believe your definition, then you would not consider graphic design, web design, gourmet cooking, architecture etc to be art because they are all grounded in some kind of practical outcome. Take away the need for a [printed piece / website / meal / building] and that's the immediate end of the effort.

In which case, the Minor Threat album sleeve should be fair game. The music is art, but the album sleeve isn't, since it doesn't "exist solely for its own inherent aesthetic value". If there was no record, there would be no sleeve.

Right? ;)

Oh, jeez. True, I do not consider any of those things to be art.

I guess if you want to look at the sleeve in that way, then your argument holds up. To me, it's not really a separate entity... it's part of the package. It's part of Minor Threat's statement. And in that way, it's not fair game. That's just the way I see it.

Your art definition also rules out most TV and movies. If there was no possibility of "commercial consumption", none of them would exist.

Yup, I definitely don't view broadcast TV as art, and most film is not art, but I certainly think there is some film that IS art, like the work of Bill Viola.

Look, I have a friggin' BA in Communications. I never took any classes in aesthetics, so I'm no expert. I think my personal definition of art is probably more along the classic definition of "fine art." Wikipedia has this to say about defining art:

There are a variety of arts, including visual arts and design, decorative arts, plastic arts, and the performing arts. Artistic expression takes many forms, painting, drawing, sculpture, music, literature, performance art, printmaking, film, and possibly architecture are the most widely recognised forms. However, since the advent of modernism and the technological revolution, new forms have emerged. These include, photography, comics, video art, installation art, conceptual art, computer art and, most recently, video games.

Within each form, a wide range of genres may exist. For instance, a painting may be a still life, a portrait, a landscape and may deal with historical or domestic subjects. In addition, a work of art may be representational or abstract.

Most forms of art fit under two main categories: fine arts and applied arts, though there is no clear dividing line. In the visual arts, fine arts refers to painting, sculpture, and architecture, arts which have no practical function and are valued in terms of the visual pleasure they provide or their success in communicating ideas or feelings. The one exception is architecture, which involves designing structures that strive to be both attractive and functional. The term applied arts is most often used to describe the design or decoration of functional objects to make them visually pleasing. Artists who create applied arts or crafts are usually referred to as designers, artisans, or craftspeople.

As you can tell, I don't agree.

BTW, I dig Bill Viola, but he would not be ordering up all those plasma screens and projectors if there wasn't an eager collector's market waiting on the other side to snap up his work.

I think your art definition is flawed because it focuses entirely on the intent / motivations of the creator and not at all on the outcome. You want "artists" to be immunized from commercial considerations. The dream of most musicians is to get paid to play music, not noodle in their basement til age 60.

Dischord Records may be anti-corporate but they're also a happy little business. What's the first link on their website menu? "Stuff We Sell". "Shopping Cart" is second. "Bands" is third.

This is a long way of saying that IMO any attempt to draw the art / commerce boundary with precision ends up being significantly underinclusive or overinclusive.

You'll make a great attorney, Matthew. :P