Post #143279 by SON OF MOTHRA on Fri, Feb 25, 2005 1:48 PM

On 2005-02-25 10:46, bigbrotiki wrote:
There have been discussions of this here before (please, thread detectives?).

Many here believe this already to be the case, especially in California. I brings up the whole "Sell out"/"Going commercial" issue about artists, which I do not buy into. If an artist so hits the nerve of the times and is so talented that pure popular demand explodes his output all over, more power to him, that is what every (ok, most) artist wants.

I know that Josh is very consciously choosing his licensing partners, making good use of the demand for his work, but simultaneously not compromising the quality of it. The comparison with the Von Dutch label, (which is mainly just that, not the art) does not really apply.

Excellent point. I think people are missing the fact that Shag is more of an artist with a pop cultural mainstay. The difference between Shag and Dutch is that Shag merchandise is purchased by people who are into Shag’s art or, at the very least, are into or have an appreciation for that type of pop culture art. I don't think you're going to see someone walking down the street with a shirt that simply has "SHAG" written across the chest. I don't think people are going to start buying Shag shirts, because that's the new hip thing to be wearing. On the other hand you have the Dutch stuff that is sold simply as the "Trend" clothing of today's youth without any knowledge as to what or whom Von Dutch was all about.

Where one is used to promote and display the works of the artist, the other is used simply to exploit the artist for financial gain.

[ Edited by: SON OF MOTHRA on 2005-02-25 13:50 ]