I can't believe how retarded the whole 'target ad' thing is on here. Are you shitting me? How would Target want in anyway to be associated with this? Plus the fact that it is on a gun range human shaped target, its obviously not pro-supermarket. Even if it looked exactly like a target logo, which it doesn't, in the context of the other images I would take that as being critical of consumerism. I honestly don't know what to say to that level of retardation.

I think its a great piece and all the idiots bombing it and trying to wreck it only show themselves up for the pathetic little tagging bitches that they are. Fairey is doing something that people outside the graf community can enjoy and get something out of. Fair play to him.

This is pretty bad even though I kinda understand what he was trying to do. He should've done it billboard style if he was trying to make it look like an ad (which is what it's commenting on and what it is). Making it look like wall art (even if it is a fake wall) is asking for trouble. Though I can't understand going over it. Nobody goes over cost or revs even though they were all big impact sticker campaigns looking for societal and governmental change. Fairey was successful with his hope poster but he doesn't get respect.

This guy's work is continually terrible. Actually I think it's getting worse. Just stick to andre the giant stickers dude.

What the hell is a 'shepard fairey'??!!

Was just there. Someone hit the wall already. They tried a throwie but the guy watching it caught him. I talked to the guy watching it and he told me about this site and apparently the guy that hit the wall said he’s been around for 25 years before he got away. Only person that I can think of that’s been around for 25 years and is still active is JA but it didn’t look like anything of his.

It was NAW.

And I will applaud thee for being positive! Your analysis is nice, but the Target-bashers have a point. What, exactly, would we have to change on this mural to turn it into an ad for Target? Nothing. So, then, what prevents it from having that effect? If street art is to be populist (as Fairey suggested on NPR this morning!) then this is a strange way of achieving that effect. If he is interested in using his art to help people uncover the hidden assumptions (social, economic, whatever) that nefariously guide their lives, then producing an ersatz ad will most likely not achieve that effect (but rather only reinforce those hidden assumptions). Populism can either reinforce bad habits (as I think this mural might do) or it can help the populace become aware of them (as, arguably, Banksy might do).

"What, exactly, would we have to change on this mural to turn it into an ad for Target?"

We'd have to put a Target logo on it.

Or put an Apple logo on it, and it could be an Apple ad. Put a CBS logo on it, and it could be a CBS ad.

But as it is, it's clearly not any of those things.

Right, so that would be the obvious answer to the question (although the red target in the middle does look like the Target icon!), assuming that ads have to present themselves as ads in order to be ads. I think we can all agree that advertising has evolved past that point.

Target has put a lot into their branding, and the distinctive minimalist target logo, red on a white background, is a very good example of success in that effort.

But this simply doesn't look like their logo. If that's what you see when you look at it, I don't know... you have some inexplicable Target obsession? This photo certainly didn't evoke the department store chain in my mind when I saw it; the "target" is a common icon.

Do all of these look like Target Stores logos to you?

http://www.google.com/images?q=target+image

So, it looks like our conversation has come to an impasse: you think that the thing in the middle of the mural does not resemble Target's logo, and I think that it does. What to do? Let me try to find a way around the impasse. So, we can agree that the thing in the mural is composed of red rings, arranged in a target pattern, that the rings are perfect circles, and that the rings are arranged against a non-white background. We can also agree that Target's logo is sometimes composed of concentric red rings, that are perfect circles, that are arranged against a non-white background. So, when you say that it doesn't resemble their logo, you are not saying that red isn't similar to red, or that a perfect circle isn't similar to a perfect circle, or that an object composed of concentric circles isn't similar to an object composed of concentric circles, etc. In other words, what else but color, shape, spatial orientation etc. would we need for graphic similarity? Similarity comes in degrees, so what are the differences here? Well, the Target logo only has two rings, while Fairey's has three. In other words, the two images are very similar (they only differ in one relevant respect). If Fairey's target was blue, it would be even less similar, etc. In short, see FaceFace's comment.

So, when you say that the two images are not similar, you must mean something else. And here's what I think you mean:

"Saturnus and I are looking at an object that is graphically very similar to the Target logo, but Saturnus sees it AS a Target logo and I don't see it AS a Target logo."

What accounts for that disagreement? Well, you suggested that I might be obsessed with Target. And let's say that you are right. In that case, my unhealthy obsession with Target might very well explain why I see that object "as" a Target logo. (And we can probably gauge the severity of my obsession by comparing the graphic similarities of objects that I see as Target logos with the Target logo. The greater the dissimilarity, the worse my obsession. So, if I see a blue target as a Target logo, then my obsession is even unhealthier, etc.) My question, however, is this: Is it likely that someone who is not obsessed with Target will see the object that is graphically very similar to the Target logo as a Target logo? I suggest that the answer is "Yes".

Now, why don't you see it as a Target logo? Well, the only explanation is that you have not been exposed enough to the Target logo (i.e. your commute doesn't take you through Atlantic Terminal on a regular basis!). Otherwise, I think that you do see it as a Target logo, but since you are a vigilant consumer of media, you suspend judgment as to whether or not it IS a Target logo. But here's the point: in advertising, there is a fine line (if there is a line at all) between something "appearing as" something and something "being" something.

no, not all bullseyes look like target logos. but that's not the question. the question is does this piece look like a target ad. I think it'd fit in seemlessly with these:

http://images.google.com/images?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=target%20ad&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Er, this was meant as a response to Ted.

I don't think this could be a Target ad. If it was, then some people would be impressed, and confused, and most people wouldn't get it --it would be a failure as an ad. But it's close enough and so that's the point, it's supposed to cause some cognitive dissonance. It's so easy for people to criticize, but I think some actual thought went into this mural. I still think it is a bit ugly though and falls short aesthetically, Fairey seems best with the posters and smaller scale stuff from what I've seen.

"I don't think this could be a Target ad. If it was, then some people would be impressed, and confused, and most people wouldn't get it --it would be a failure as an ad."

I guess I'm assuming that it might be plausible to assume that a significantly large enough percentage of passersby could mistake it for a Target ad. But if they did, then it's not clear why they would be confused. Once you pick something out as an ad for a particular brand name product, the ad has done it's job. I think you're totally right to point out that cognitive dissonance is what he's after, but who's to experience that dissonance? The person who picks it out as a Target ad isn't going to find anything in the image that will challenge her interpretation - the aesthetics of the mural are perfectly consistent with Target's image. If the mural had a more radical subject matter (I dunno, Andre the Giant blanking a chicken) then there might very well be some widespread cognitive dissonance. As it stands, only those who are fairly well-versed in street art aesthetics will see the subversion.

And I think it's actually quite a beautiful image (why do you say it's ugly?), but that's another aspect of the same problem - it has that Target ad graphic slickness to it.

I'm clearly overstating the case (but not by much). Nonetheless, I don't think that any of us would be too shocked if Gothamist were to post an article tomorrow reporting that the mural was commissioned by Target (not that I think it was).

Oh so that was all that commotion, he was still working on it when I was around there at 4ish but I didn't really think much of it.

Asking Gothamist commentors for their opinion on a piece of art = asking a chimpanzee what he thinks about Dickens.

yes, keep calling it a target logo - the actual logo has one red band - this has two.

who's brainwashed? fairey, or yourselves?

expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less. expect more. pay less.

a stupid advertisement for target. the worst sell out in all of street art, the asthamtic shepard fairy whoring himself for that vampire of art jeffrey douche. i hope a bunch of real street artists keep it real and tag all over this commercial affront to new york. or better yet, whitewash the whole thing. it would be hot if banksy came over and did his thing to it, exposing fairy the asthmatic "giant" for what he is...

CALLING ALL BOMBERS. COMMENCE TONIGHT. DESTROY THIS PLEASE!