Sunday, February 17, 2013

Chod's Rebuttal to Annie Preece


The plot has thickened.

In response to having her painting purchased, and then painted over, and then returned to the streets, it turns out that it was Annie who took the NONE OF THIS IS REAL painting from the streets.

The street art community has been abuzz with talk about this event, as has Annie's Facebook page with all kinds of accusations and insinuations as to why Chod would have done such a thing.  Well, Chod thought that it might be best to try and explain what he was trying to accomplish, and issue some sort of 'rebuttal' to the hate that has been hurled at him so far.

Read Chod's full rebuttal below:

My latest piece seems to have raised the ire of a fellow street artist named Annie Preece. I've been privy to some of her posts on Facebook and my Youtube video of the piece's creation (seen HERE) which I'll now do my best to address in the order in which I saw them. But before I do that I'd like to generally say that Ms. Preece seems to have missed the point of the piece and is incorrect in many of her assumptions about me and the artistic intent behind all of this.

Ms. Preece maintains that I am "trying to prove some point or make a mockery" of her. I am trying to prove a point. All art does or at least should attempt to. I am not, however trying to make a mockery of her nor would I attempt to mock any artist. I'm concerned with making my own work and little else.

The point: The intent of the piece is to explore the idea of value, specifically monetary value where art is concerned and even more specifically where gallery art done by a street artist is concerned, but generally the idea of what values we assign to objects and who specifically attaches value to them. In this case it's quite clear that Ms. Preece herself attaches the highest amount of value to the object, removing it from the wall it was attached to literally twelve hours after it was placed and taking personal offense to my use of her original piece in the creation of a new collaborative piece. More interesting though, is that the level of value she attaches to the piece obviously far exceeds just monetary value. She feels some ownership over it. This is clearly evidenced by her repeatedly calling the the object "my painting" in her response posts despite the fact that I purchased the painting which removes her claim to it. I'm curious if she still considers the object "hers" now that it's been altered by another artist, or if she'll continue to consider it hers after she sells it again and gives the proceeds to charity (which is commendable). I never expected Ms. Preece to reclaim the canvas but I must admit this turn of events has added something to the piece that far exceeded my expectations in terms of examining value.

Why Annie Preece?: Ms. Preece continually claims that I have in some way singled her out, that I'm attempting to gain some sort of notoriety by attacking her work. This couldn't be further from the truth. Ms. Preece was selected for a few very simple reasons. I wanted to keep as many variables in this piece (which includes not just the object itself but the location and manner of its placement, the final value ascribed to it, and the entire conversation that has now begun as a result of its creation) similar to one another. My end goal was to add my own work to the work of another artist (only the purchased work of another artist - I would never alter anything in the street), and then return that collaborative effort to a location we had both placed individual pieces. Annie Preece was simply the most readily available artist in terms of knowing the location of her individual work, knowing the location of a piece of hers that I could buy and knowing that we share a space of individual display - a wall that we have both put work on several times.

Ms. Preece's reaction: When I conceived this idea, I had no idea where the final piece would end up. I assumed there was a high likelihood that it would just get painted over by the proprietors of the wall it was attached to, which would ultimately reduce its perceived value to nothing proving the point that art only has value to those who give it value. I never imagined Ms. Preece would reclaim the object and have such an enraged reaction. In terms of fully exploring the concept of the value of art, Ms. Preece's reaction couldn't have added anymore to the piece.

The money: Ms. Preece and some of the other posters on her page mention wasting money or the amount of money spent to purchase her original piece. Much of my work deals with examining the systems of control that we created to govern our reality. Money is one of the primary systems. Its value is arbitrary and determined by collective agreement. The value of the materials in a one dollar bill and a hundred dollar bill are worth roughly the same - about nine cents. But we collectively agree that something with a number one-hundred printed on it is worth one hundred dollars and something with a one printed on it is worth one dollar. Money, like many other systems we're governed by isn't real. So while some people may see the original piece as having a value of only $2500, I see it as having the potential artistic value to open up the conversation we are now having which doesn't, for me at least, carry a monetary value.

A post from Ms. Preece on Facebook: "Fuck him he's trying to get attention by vandalizing my painting an hating on me then blasting it on the Internet. The point I was trying to make when I posted this is that his attempt to get noticed backfired. hes some young kid trying to come up but..."

Ms. Preece incorrectly assumes here that the painting is hers again. Because I owned the painting, I could legally do anything to it that I desired so her accusation of vandalism is blatantly incorrect. She also claims that I'm a "young kid trying to come up." This is equally inaccurate.

She refers to me as an asshole multiple times. Ms. Preece and I have never met therefore I can only assume her assessment of my character is based on our disagreement over the ownership of the object, my addition of work to the object and her continued attachment to it after its sale. 

Ms. Preece claims than I'm "not an artist.' Everyone defines art differently but this brings up an interesting aspect of the piece that far exceeds value. In claiming that I'm incapable of creating art, she now begs the question - is the final object art or not? I'm curious to know how she would classify the piece we collaborated on. Is it art? Does it still have value as art to her, or to anyone else for that matter? These claims are precisely the reason why I created the piece. Again, her reaction elevates the piece to a place that I personally find extremely interesting.

While it's clear that Ms. Preece and I will likely never see eye to eye on this piece, I'd still like to thank her for adding an extra dimension to it that I never saw coming.


After reading Chod's well reasoned response, check out these screen shot's of Annie's Facebook page and another level of conversation with more emotional based ad hominem responses.










31 comments:

  1. next level street art! keep up the great work CHOD!

    ~teacher

    ReplyDelete
  2. the sad part is that the elitist mentality of chod and the childish mentality of annie are all too common in the streets.

    it's ridiculous and doesn't further the cause.

    ReplyDelete
  3. awesome work CHOD, some people just don't understand art `nico

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's interesting that this site seems to condone this behavior and yet when an "unapproved collaboration" happens on the street it's deemed as capping and frowned upon. Is there a ton of difference between this and slapping a pink face over a Bankrupt Slut paster? Or a Fonzie head? Even Chod says "I would never do this on the street" which to me is a cop out. I get that he paid for the piece and considers it his, to do with what he pleases- but Preece will always be the author of the work, just because someone buys something from you doesn't mean you didn't create it and have some level of creative ownership for as long as it exists in any form. To me this was a standard riff on the subjectivity of value when it comes to art. He's obviously making his point because he thinks that the price for Preece's work is absurd- and he has a right to think that, but to go out of his way to buy a piece just to make a somewhat tired point is kind of cruel I think. I've never met either of those artists but I think there are a lot more negative targets to point your creativity at than other artists that you deem yourself more artistic than. Especially since the moment that Chod makes even a penny through his art he is (and should be) labeled a hypocrite. Whether a piece of art is bought for 25 bucks or 25 hundred bucks, it's value is dependent only on what someone will pay for it. If it is universally decided that Annie Preece's work is not worth what she charges, than no one will pay for it. Obviously though in this case, someone did. We can hate Annie Preece or Mr. Brainwash and accuse them of exploiting the scene and of band wagon mentality but why waste the time and energy (and in this case, money) in calling them out? Just don't buy their work. Don't read articles about them. Instead, spend that energy making your own work- that doesn't require altering someone else's. I guarantee that it is much more creatively fulfilling. Damien Hirst has made a career out of articulating ideas that question the monetary value of art but he's used his own art as the basis (ditto for Banksy) and doing so required a much more clever and nuanced approach. Altering someone else's work just seems rude and honestly... not very creative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you're rude and not very creative. CHOD created this conversation. you're just another critic with an opinion. =)

      Delete
    2. this conversation has been ongoing before chod was even born. i agree with where you are taking the analysis but it seems to be a bit too high brow for the typical person here to understand.

      if all chod wanted was attention his stunt sure worked. then again people also pay attention to shit on the ground so that they don't step in it.

      Delete
    3. CHOD is awesome!!!! i've only seen a few pieces of his work around the streets but they are soooo artistic! i love what he is trying to say about society and how awesome he is by spending his own money to support another artist! this guy is the next big thing! you guys just don't know what art is.

      Delete
  5. yes, you're a really good sign painter. Really good.

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_for_Fake

    .B

    ReplyDelete
  7. First off, they "Chod" guy paid CASH for that painting. So he can do whatever the fuck he wants to do with it.... if he wants to hang it up, Paint it, or even burn the damn thing, it's his choice! The man paid for it! He can do whatever he wants with it !

    From an outsiders point of view, I feel like the guy paid $2,500 dollars for that thing (Which is crazy) and the "Ms. Preece" or who ever she is, just is upset that some one went over her crappy painting... it seems "Ms. Preece" simply thinks WAY too highly of herself...
    The fact that someone paid $2,500 dollars for that thing is crazy to me.. She should be happy she got ANY money for that thing!

    But after all that, "CHOD" paid $2,500 CASH for something, then puts the canvas up on the streets for anyone to have?? I think that's pretty cool!!!The man paid $2,500 dollars for something and then just gives it away or donates it for the community.... I think that was a pretty cool thing for the "Chod" guy to do if you ask me! That was an expensive donation to the streets!! I feel it's somewhat sad that after the guy PAYED CASH for the canvas, Annie took it back? damn wasn't the $2,500 in cash enough??

    "Chod" paid for the item in CASH, he can do whatever he wants with it!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey- I paid a prostitute money- why shouldn't I be allowed to beat her up? I PAID CASH! Annie Preece isn't suing the guy- is she not allowed to be upset that someone went out of his way to piss on the art that she put a piece of herself into? Man- people forget that street artists are people too and that they aren't JUST the art they put on the street. Chod comes off more like a bully and less like an artist if you ask me- and hiding behind this idea that "hey, I paid for it, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it" is just an excuse to be elitist. And this is coming from a dude known for stenciling monkey photos and not much else. What gives him the right to use someone else's work in his exercise without their permission? JUST the fact that he paid money? Because it sure isn't street rep. Neither of them have much of that if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think I might buy some of chods work and write dooooosh on it. Then put it on the streets for free. Now I'll be cool!

    ReplyDelete
  10. ^ You're a dumb ass.... Trying to compare paying for a Prostitute and paying for a canvas is insane!

    First off Prostitution is ILLEGAL, so you're breaking the law. Buying an overpriced canvas is 100% legal. Buying a canvas=NO crime , beating up anyone = is a crime.... Assault is illegal last time I checked... I'm pretty sure buying an overpriced canvas is still 100% legal, so the comparison is pretty stupid. Aside from making stupid comparisons, You're argument about "I paid a prostitute money, Shouldn't I be allowed to Beat her up" is so stupid!!
    you can Assault another human being, but ASSAULT is a crime. Painting over a shitty painting is NOT a crime last time I checked... You're trying to compare assaulting another human being to painting over a shitty canvas...Pretty ignorant

    Sounds like "Annie Preece" is butt-hurt. I don't think the "Chod" fellow had intentions of putting you on blast, however Mr. "Chod" paid for the canvas, he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it, despite how bad it is... ( Personally, I feel "Mr, Chod" overpaid) so person who actually got $2,500 in CASH for that canvas, should be LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK!

    As long as "Mr. Chod" never physically harmed anyone, nor stole from that gallery, I see nothing wrong with what he did...

    If I go and buy a Car or skateboard, I can paint it any fucking color I want to!!
    If someone (in this case Mr."Chod") buys a Car, Skateboard, or CANVAS he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it!! He can burn it if he wants to!! He never stole anything, never "Beat up a Prostitute" or hurt anyone, other than your feelings! Get over it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So many words and you didn't even grasp that I was making an extreme example about someone's twisted sense of what paying for something gives them the right to do. Yeah, sure Chod has the right to do whatever he wants to do to his physical property but don't we visit this blog because we believe that art is more than just a car or a skateboard? If you really think that art is just a product to exchange money for than you're more guilty of whatever Chod is accusing Annie Preece of. I also find it hilarious that you spent so much time talking about what's illegal and what's not- uhhh, street art is illegal. Putting the canvas on the streets was illegal. He "vandalized" the wall he left it on. Maybe re-think your use of the word "ignorant" in the future. The point is that it doesn't matter what's illegal, the point is that is was a dick move. Plain and simple. Add as many exclamation points as you want, but a dick move is a dick move.

      Delete
  11. After seeing this, I would say Chod is the brightest shining star from LA's street art scene

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nice to see that you only glorify chode... You and I both know that what chode did was an asshole thing to do. I also notice that you love making a bad name for Annie as much as possible. Just to let you know, karma is a bitch..And thats why Annie ironically found out about your little plan. So fuck you and your blogs. You fuckin fuck! Post that shit....wussy..

    ReplyDelete
  13. this is clown shit. in 5 years both of these people will need to find real jobs

    ReplyDelete
  14. $500 FOR THE PIECE, DONATE THE PROCEEDS TO THE CHARITY OF YOUR CHOICE.

    THE PIECE IS SICK!!!!!!!! I LOVE IT.

    MOHAMED S.

    ReplyDelete
  15. art....hmmm. I ripped a sticker off the wall yesterday that said fuck art! Its all about the damage!
    I'll go with that. Lame people.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Annie Preece is an overrated cunt..."I like turtle" "I hate dubsteb" "Im a big 31 year old with small boobies"...her 15mns of crappy fame is up and its time for real artist to take back the streets!.GO CHODE!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YEAH. Bring out the "Threshold" Masters of the real Photoshop talent. Bring out those "Stencil Lords" of the San Serif variety.

      -Wasa B Ltdown

      Delete
  17. check "the Visual Artists Rights Act"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

    ReplyDelete
  18. To all the "Anonymous" posters...

    a·non·y·mous
    /əˈnänəməs/
    Adjective
    (of a person) Not identified by name; of unknown name.
    Having no outstanding, individual, or unusual features; unremarkable or impersonal.
    Synonyms
    nameless - authorless - unnamed

    cour·age
    /ˈkərij/
    Noun
    The ability to do something that frightens one.
    Strength in the face of pain or grief.
    Synonyms
    bravery - valour - valor - pluck - gallantry - nerve

    cow·ard
    /ˈkouərd/
    Noun
    A person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
    Adjective
    Excessively afraid of danger or pain.
    Synonyms
    noun. dastard - recreant - funk - poltroon - craven
    adjective. craven - cowardly - recreant - chicken-hearted - timid

    ReplyDelete
  19. 2 awful street "artists" that no one cares about. the craziest part of this story is that LAB ART guy makes a living off this bad art.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm not really sure if any of this really matters. It's an interesting debate as to what is art, what has value, what are artistic rights, but as I take it, most people on here create part-time or full-time which would make them "artists". That being said, let the critics call other artists work amazing, crap, undervalued, overvalued, and have some support for a community of people that create in any way whatsoever. To beat up an artist's style (undeservingly so I think, but it doens't matter what I think) is silly because you're all the ones that are doing something different, taking a stand, making a change, or simply adding a little life to a mundane world. Give yourselves some more credit and be better than the idiots that don't have the balls to put something on canvas, paper or the streets.

    I think you're all fucking awesome.

    -Greg

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is nothing more than a rehashed artists fight from forever, look into your history, more than likely orchestrated to garner hype, just like most recently Banksy and Robbo. I'm do believe that "NONE OF THIS IS REAL"!! FUCKING HYPE!

    ReplyDelete
  22. CHOD calling this a collaboration is like me recording myself singing over a Sinatra record and calling it a duet.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Everyone commenting go look up "cultural exception" and read up on that if you think what Chod did was anything other than the rape of someone else's work.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is pretty interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiDLWtqm7P8

    ReplyDelete