I think the ASME are quite fine with The New Yorker Target issue and this can hardly be called a "backlash". The truth is that the ASME had no choice but to issue some kind of mild wrist slap as their guidelines to the industry stipulate that if there is a single-sponsor issue of a magazine then that magazine has to carry an itty-bitty disclaimer saying that the sponsor has not influenced editorial content. The New Yorker forgot (probably because it was a loooong time since anyone had read the ASME guidelines). So the ASME says to The New Yorker --"naughty, naughty, the next time you do this, don't go being so absent-minded". The magazine doesn't even have to print an apology! No backlash, no ASME flexing its (wimpy) muscle, no lack of happiness. But a great escuse to see those lovely bits of artwork again...Posted: 7 years 36 weeks ago
It's pagiarism because it's Nike. If it was a tiny independent one-person creative guerilla hotshop, posted on a rad design web site, then it would be "ironic": if it was caught momentarily in a scene from a just-outta-film-school, no-budget, handheld wobblyfest, then it would be a "sly homage". It all comes down to who's doing the stealing and how big they are, The intent is alweays going to be murky. Mind you, the intent on this one looks real cheap. But, you know, more interesting than all the similarity betweeen the two images are the differences -- it's the differences in the images that tell the real story. The dirt and verite from the minor threat image have gone and been replaced with....nothing, blankness, flatness. And the telling change in the angle of the bowed head (from a meaningful angle redolent of exhaustion and beat, to a straight plane/plain speaking of....nothing): there's your story.Posted: 7 years 48 weeks agoon the post: Nike is paying homage to... Or plagiarising?