The USA constantly attacks, invades, or destabilizes governments all over the planet. Every time you patronize Starbucks or Home Depot, a portion of your sale ends up in the military coffers of the USA. As the USA only understands the power of money, let’s show the USA that world is fed up with wars and aggression!
Reasons for signing
The world is fed up with America’s wars, lies, and aggression. We want to live in peace, not pieces. The only thing Americans understand is money. Let’s hit them where it hurts. Stop buying anything American until the USA minds its own business and stop holding the world hostage!
This petition by itself will go nowhere, but imagine if millions around the world would join. Here in Canada, the US owns about 85% of our economy. So it is a futile attempt, but every time you skip Starbucks or Home Depot you are withholding a few pennies from the US war chest.
Seattle further cemented its reputation as one of the most progressive cities in the U.S. last week, when its City Council passed a law to tax the rich, sponsored by socialist City Councilmember Kshama Sawant along with Councilmember Lisa Herbold. The law places a 2.25% tax on individual incomes over $250,000 and $500,000 for married couples. It’s expected to raise as much as $175 million to fund affordable housing, education, transit, human services, and other critical needs.
Recognizing the significance of Seattle’s new tax on the rich, the Los Angeles Times reported, “a number of cities have adopted local income taxes, but no other city has solely targeted high earners and few have adopted so high a tax rate. The measure has opened the door to political warfare in the state.” Shortly before the vote, former Microsoft CEO and Seattle billionaire, Steve Ballmer, warned city officials, most of whose campaigns are financed by big business and wealthy individuals, that a tax on the rich would “drive up wages here and cause [company executives] to think about moving jobs elsewhere. That will certainly happen.”
Despite this, the City Council unanimously passed the tax on the rich and a chorus of Democratic establishment politicians sung its praises. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray declared, “Our goal is to replace our regressive tax system with a new formula for fairness, while ensuring Seattle stands up to President Trump’s austere budget that cuts transportation, affordable housing, healthcare, and social services.”
As activists in an organization, Socialist Alternative, that have been fighting to tax the rich since the Occupy movement, and which ran campaigns for Kshama Sawant in 2012, 2013, and 2015, and Jess Spear in 2014, with “tax the rich” as a central demand, this is a welcome change of tune. These are many of the same establishment politicians who voted against Sawant’s City Council proposal to fund transit through a progressive tax on business. They also rejected another Sawant initiative to reduce energy rates for working people by making big businesses like Boeing and NuCor Steel at least pay the same rate as individuals.
Those of us in the movement should be crystal clear on how this came about. We didn’t win this because Seattle’s Democratic establishment suddenly began to care about the crushing impact that decades of budget cuts and regressive taxes have had on working people and people of color in our city.
It was the growing might of our social movements that led to this major victory. The establishment may have ultimately voted ‘yes,’ but not because they genuinely support taxing the rich. Mayor Murray and establishment Councilmembers like Tim Burgess and Lorena Gonzalez voted for it because we built a powerful movement over a number of years which made their continued opposition politically unviable. During our election campaigns, Socialist Alternative members spoke with hundreds of thousands of voters at the door and on the phone, held dozens of rallies, and raised a record-breaking half a million dollars from ordinary people with the bold and unambiguous demand to “tax the rich.” It was a pillar of our 2015 campaign and we made it clear to everyone we talked to that we wanted to make big business and the wealthy elite pay to fund public needs.
Once elected to Seattle City Council, Sawant worked with activists from the Transit Riders Union on the proposal to remove a regressive sales tax and instead fund Seattle’s Metro bus system with a tax on business and a commercial parking fee increase. We lost that vote, but over the past months the Transit Riders Union, led by Katie Wilson, spearheaded the Trump Proof Seattle coalition along with the Economic Opportunity Institute, led by John Burbank. The Trump Proof Seattle coalition, of which Socialist Alternative and Kshama Sawant were a part, played the leading role in this year’s fight to win Seattle’s tax on the rich.
Our movement brought together transit and neighborhood advocates, climate justice and affordable housing activists, socialists, retirees, teachers, and unions into a coalition. It met regularly to discuss and decide on the legislation and build a campaign to win it. The coalition organized Town Halls in each district, dragging along Councilmembers and forcing them to take a position with the community watching. In Sawant’s district, she and Trump Proof Seattle held a standing-room-only rally with people clamoring to tax the rich and ready to make the sacrifices necessary to win it.
Critically, even as our movement picked up steam and corporate politicians started hopping on the tax-the-rich bandwagon, we resisted the siren song of an “easier path” to victory through collaboration with the establishment, rather than class struggle. Our movement maintained an unrelenting political independence and our activist base stubbornly refused to take establishment politicians at their word. Coalition members flooded City Council offices with emails and phone calls and packed City Hall for every discussion and vote, to demand Councilmembers’ support and to warn them not to oppose or water down the legislation. This approach effectively beat back the conservative wing of the Council, which scandalously put out a push poll to test the viability of replacing the tax-the-rich ordinance with a highly regressive “flat tax” proposal.
This model of staking out a bold demand, building a movement independent of the city establishment, and relying on our own strength to win came pretty naturally this time around. That’s not surprising. It’s the same model our movement in Seattle has used to win the Fight for 15, defeat 400% increases on low-income tenants, replace Columbus Day with Indigenous People’s Day, defeat a $160 million police precinct proposal, win $29 million of public money for affordable housing, and divest $3 billion dollars from Wells Fargo in solidarity with no NoDAPL, all in just the last few years.
Yet, Seattle’s tax-the-rich and other trailblazing victories aren’t being won in a vacuum. Ever since the economy collapsed and the banks got bailed out, ordinary people have been searching for a way to beat back attacks on their living standards and win gains to improve their lives. The Occupy movement revealed how broad and deep the anger was. Bernie Sanders showed that tens of millions were ready to rally behind a “democratic socialist” campaign taking no money from big business and calling for a national $15 minimum wage, free college education, and a political revolution against the billionaire class.
Donald Trump’s election upped the ante, and in the months after his election, millions took to the streets to defend the basic rights of immigrants, women, LGBTQ people, Muslims, unions, and workers. Ordinary people are flooding into activist organizations like Trump Proof Seattle and the Neighborhood Action Councils. Socialist organizations like Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Alternative are also seeing a rapid increase in membership.
Many of these new activists are grappling with the question of how we can defeat Donald Trump and win victories in the face of constant attacks. Do we fight Trump and make change by accommodating ourselves to what’s acceptable to the Democratic establishment and big business? Or do we build movements that fight for bold demands and are prepared to use radical tactics, including civil disobedience?
The victories in Seattle – from the Fight for 15 to tax the rich – provide activists with clear answers to these questions. Building determined movements alongside having a voice in City Hall, Socialist Alternative’s Kshama Sawant, is a powerful combination. While we will work in unity with broader forces, including Democrats like those who ultimately voted unanimously for the tax the rich proposal, we do not put our trust in corporate politicians or limit our demands to what they or their big business backers are prepared to accept. As thousands swell the ranks of activist and socialist organizations, the Seattle model has a potential to expand and win gains around the country, if the right strategies and tactics are applied.
In Seattle, the tax-the-rich fight is far from over. The right wing Freedom Foundation has already filed a lawsuit saying the tax violates a Washington state law barring cities from taxing net income. State Republican Party Chairperson, Susan Hutchison, in a press conference where she was surrounded by red “tax the rich” placards, called for “civil disobedience” and to “forcefully resist the tax.” Tax Foundation executive Joseph Henchman complained, “If it was just about the law, it couldn’t survive, but my worry is the judges will think about other considerations.” Henchman is correct that the courts are also subject to the power and pressures of social movements, as shown over and over in U.S. history, and recently with the victory on marriage equality in the Supreme Court. Without a doubt, our movement in Seattle is ready to take our fight into the courthouses as well as back onto the streets.
In the meantime, we are not resting on our laurels. We are channelling the energy that won a tax on the rich into a bold campaign for affordable housing and rent control, and knocking on thousands of doors in neighborhoods around the city. Given our track record, the Seattle real estate lobby and political establishment are already on high alert.
Quick history of the failed war on drugs: First there was opium, which white society decided was bad for society as opium addicts would live wretched lives and rape white women, so it was declared illegal. So a German chemist came up with morphine which is hundreds of times more potent than opium, and easier to conceal. Morphine was outlawed, for the regular unwashed folks anyway, and soon heroin, which is way more potent than morphine, was created to replace morphine. Now we are at the end of the road with Fentanyl and Carfentanil, each one more potent than everything that came before them. When will this end?
Remove politicians from the debate and allow health exerts, scientists, to guide and regulate the new market where you can obtain these dangerous drugs at your local pharmacy.
Why do you think US soldiers are guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan?
Calgary region had 51 overdose deaths, Edmonton had 36 in first quarter of 2017
This graph shows the number of people who died from an apparent drug overdose related to fentanyl, broken down by health zone, for each three-month period from Jan. 1, 2016 to Mar. 31, 2017. (Alberta Health)
New statistics released by the province show that 113 people died from fentanyl overdoses in the first three months of this year.
The numbers show that the crisis in Alberta continues to grow in both size and scope.
By comparison, there were 70 fentanyl-related deaths in the first three months of 2016.
The latest statistics, released Friday by Alberta Health, show that 363 people in Alberta died from fentanyl overdoses in 2016. Those numbers reflect the most recent data available. In its update, Alberta Health said the numbers are subject to change because certification about the cause of death can take six months or longer.
The Alberta Health statistics report shows that fentanyl, 100 times more powerful than morphine, is by far the leading cause of opioid overdose deaths in the province.
But deaths related to another, even more powerful drug, are also rising sharply.
Carfentanil, which is 10,000 times more potent than morphine and 100 times more potent than fentanyl, was detected in 21 deaths in the first three months of 2017. That drug, commonly used by veterinarians to tranquillize large animals, was detected in 29 deaths during all of 2016.
Soon after the latest numbers became public, Alberta opposition parties renewed calls for the government to take stronger action.
“This is an issue where we have to start marshalling the resources of this province,” said Wildrose mental health critic Mark Smith. “And one of the things that we could be doing that we’ve called for is declaring a public health emergency. They’ve done that in B.C. But mysteriously, we’re not sure why the NDP seem to be very reluctant in calling a public health emergency.
“We need to start addressing this through many different areas, through a public health emergency, by making sure we’ve got our doctors and nurses trained to deal with this. We need to start attacking this with the seriousness in which the numbers in this report indicate.”
Dr. Karen Grimsrud, the province’s chief medical officer of health, said the Alberta government will continue with public education campaigns and will work to make sure that naloxone, a medication used to block the deadly effects of an opioid overdose, is easily accessible.
“Alberta has had a strong take-home naloxone program, but we could improve it and we are working to try to increase that access,” Grimsrud said. “We continue to see too many people die from overdose deaths due to fentanyl and other opioids, so the questions we’re asking ourselves is what more can we be doing?”
Alberta Liberal Leader David Swann renewed his call for the province to declare a public health emergency to deal with the growing problem.
“We are starting to see the same trends here as in British Columbia, but without our government taking the same emergency measures,” said Swann, a former medical officer of health in southern Alberta. “This is a mistake.”
Swann also called on the province to reinstate the province’s chief addictions and mental health officer. Dr. Michael Trew, a long-time psychiatrist, was appointed to that position by the Progressive Conservative government in 2013 to help deal with psychological assistance for flood victims.
His contract was not renewed in September 2015. At the time, Health Minister Sarah Hoffman said the work to help flood victims had been largely completed and the position was no longer needed.
The Liberal leader also questioned the timing of the latest report on overdoses.
“I find it highly disrespectful to concerned Albertans to release such important information without formal commentary from the minister on a Friday afternoon, and, in this case, just ahead of a long weekend,” he said. “It hints at an NDP government that is more concerned about biding its time, protecting its political skin, and avoiding accountability for a crisis that it clearly does not have a handle on despite its best efforts.”
The statistics released Friday show that more than 90 per cent of the deaths in the first quarter of 2017 occurred in larger urban municipalities.
During that period, 51 overdose deaths were recorded in the Calgary health zone, and 36 in the Edmonton zone.
This graph shows the number of people who died of apparent opioid (including fentanyl) drug overdoses in Edmonton in 2016. The central urban core, as defined by Alberta Health, includes: Boyle Street, Central McDougall, McCauley, Oliver, Queen Mary Park, Riverdale, Rossdale Cloverdale, Garneau, Strathcona and University of Alberta. (Alberta Health)
This graph shows the number of people who died of apparent opioid (including fentanyl) drug overdoses in Calgary in 2016. The central urban core, as defined by Alberta Health, includes: Downtown (including the Downtown West End and Downtown East Village), Eau Claire, Chinatown, Beltline, Connaught/Cliff Bungalow, and Victoria Park. (Alberta Health)
During a 15-month period, beginning Jan. 1, 2016, and end on Mar. 31, 2017, the province has averaged more than one overdose death every day.
In 2016, there were 443 overdose deaths in Alberta. Almost seven in ten, 68 per cent, were caused by fentanyl or another opioid.
The numbers further show that opioids and other drugs resulted in 9,037 emergency room visits in Alberta hospitals. That total represented 6,866 individuals.
This graph breaks down the overdose deaths for 2016 by quarter. (Alberta Health)
From sustainability to the education system to protests against the Vietnam War, there’s a documentary here to interest everyone.
Credit: Films for Action
The idea of changing the world may seem vast and unattainable, but with the many ways people are achieving this on a daily basis it seems more and more doable as time goes on. With social media, it’s easier to find out about people making a difference in their community all around the world, and those people often inspire others to do the same, creating this beautiful ripple effect of positive change.
With the rise of documentaries being produced comes a rise in the awareness of all kinds of problems, from the ethics of the palm oil industry to the starvation of children in different parts of the world, and with it has come a new generation of people looking for a way to help.
If you are one of those people, you might be confused about where to start when it comes to learning about what’s going on and what needs to be done, but you need look no further. This article contains a comprehensive list of documentaries that are life-changers and will motivate you to get up and make a difference.
The best part is that all of the below films are free to watch online, unless otherwise stated. Just click on the title and it will direct you to the site where they can be viewed. Go forth and watch these films, then let us know in the comments what you thought of some of these titles.
The film reveals the inner workings of the human experience in the 21st century, urging viewers to step out of the box and challenge their own assumptions about who we really are, and why we do what we do.
One couple sold all of their belongings to “bike-pack” 6500 miles around the U.S. to explore 100 ecovillages, cohousing communities, co-op houses, communes, transition towns, and their own principles and commitment.
This is in response to the blog post, “Over 4000 Migrants have drowned in the Mediterranean this Year”
It is a harsh response and I’m not apologizing for it because this point needs to be made.
Of course my heart goes out to these refugees, and I feel my own frustration, and anger. But deep down, as a student of history I’m reminded of those incredibly brave Russians who stuck it out in Stalingrad against the German onslaught and heroically held on against all odds, suffering unimaginable horrors throughout an unusually harsh winter. They didn’t run. So many didn’t run, they stood up to their would be conquerors and fought back by every means the human mind can conjure up. How many people remember these people were offered a chance to escape, to withdraw deep into the wilds of Siberia. They chose to stand and fight, men, women and children… mostly women and children!
It happened in Greece, in Italy, basically throughout Europe as it had happened in Spain during the Spanish civil war which the Fascists and Nazis won only because of overwhelming force garnered from arms and support received (as in the case of IS and other terror groups now in the Middle East) from the American military industrial complex.
My own parents in the French Resistance during WWII didn’t attempt to flee to England though they lived on the coast with a very narrow channel between them and freedom, and they were fisher folk with access to boats: they held their ground and fought back. That’s how people were “made” in those pre-boomer, entitlement years.
Isn’t that what you would do if groups of nut jobs invaded your country and began to systematically spread terror among your own people, perhaps even taking your daughters, lovers, wives as sex slaves, burning your homes, forcing your sons into their madness as suicide bombers, torturing and killing your neighbours? Tell me that you wouldn’t fight back, even if it meant using broken shards of glass, throwing rocks or ripping their faces off with your bare hands! I certainly know I would, tooth and nail, as there always comes that time when a certain kind of vile violence can only be countered with same because THERE IS NO LONGER A CHOICE. Either you oppose them, or you become like them. Is the word, “freedom” just another politically correct term now?
What’s wrong with these people that they can’t stand and fight for themselves but can only think of running to hopefully save their own skins? I don’t get this. Has the human race so quickly become dis-empowered, turned into cattle, as were the Jews in Nazi Germany, meekly and silently walking to their slavery and death in concentration camps without making any attempt to help themselves? When you know you are going to die regardless, why whimper into it? That’s just not normal, nor natural! What’s wrong with these people that they can only rely on power groups for their survival? Don’t they have a life, that innate rage to live free?
But it isn’t just Syrians. Look how few people are standing boldly against the DAPL predators and their government armed supporters when the entire nation of free individuals should be standing with them, either at Standing Rock or in front of every capitol, every corporate HQ’s and every bank that funds the “Damn All Pipe Lines” monstrosity.
There is a connection throughout these current events clearly showing that people in general have become mindless cowards, thralls on their way to abysmal slavery to State and Banksterism. There is no more stand and fight, only run for your life. Is that THE sign that humanity knows it’s doomed already and has no heart left, sees no point in fighting back against oppression and oppressors everywhere?
Perhaps T.S. Eliot said it best in his poem, The Hollow Men, “This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.”
“We are Life, in human form. Descendants of the stars and galaxies, children of the oceans and forests, creative expressions of Nature. As much a part of this planet as the rivers, trees, mountains and butterflies.
As more and more of us wake up to that deeper sense of identity we will be more easily able to transcend old thought patterns and beliefs. Observing Nature’s Systems closely, studying her ways, we can re-write and delete old programming.
To truly bring an end to the destructiveness of humanity- to really transform the world- a deeper wisdom has to first arise from within. We must “be the change” as Gandhi put it. We have to free ourselves first, transform our ways of thinking, feeling and behaving.
Then take the wisdom of our wholeness and apply it to everything we say and do, to all fields of human activity. Economics, entertainment, education, law, medicine, transportation, energy technologies- they all can (and must) be transformed.
We are not the solitary individuals we have believed ourselves to be. We are expressions of Universal life, Children of our Galaxy. We are the “leaves of grass” Walt Whitman spoke of – the Awakening voices of Eden, instruments of the great turning.
Nature’s Agents of Transformation- The Global Butterfly Effect.
Postdoctoral Research Associate, The Rockefeller University
Yoav Litvin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
The Conversation is funded by Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Knight Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Alfred P Sloan Foundation, Rita Allen Foundation and the Simons Foundation. Our global publishing platform is funded by Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
Intellectuals, academics and artists play a unique role in society: they preserve and defend both freedom of expression and the morality of choices. Artists can use their work as a means to communicate messages of dissent and hope in the face of injustice, repression and despair.
Meanwhile, those in power who seek to control public opinion typically consider untethered freedom of thought and expression a threat.
But in any capitalist system, it’s difficult to survive as a full-time artist. Artists need to be industrious in order to make a living from art, and may choose to work with government organizations or corporations to supplement their income.
Herein lies what I’ve dubbed the “artist’s dilemma”: how does one cooperate with a large entity while ensuring moral ground? In other words, what constitutes “selling out,” arguably the worst insult that can be lobbed at an artist?
It’s an issue that has come to the forefront, especially for street artists, who seem to be increasingly collaborating with businesses and corporations. Companies will often seek to cultivate artists as a way to enhance their brand, and street art can have the effect of making a product look more authentic, edgy and gritty.
Meanwhile, in some instances, the boundaries between political activism and commodification have blurred. Earlier this year, the street artist Gilf! made headlines for wrapping yellow caution tape with the words “Gentrification in Progress” around shuttered buildings throughout New York City. But the caution tape can now be had for the price of US$60.
In response to these trends within the world of street art, some claim that the genre – specifically, its festivals – have “sold out.” Others make the puzzling argument that this debate is outdated because the genre of street art “has been recognizable since the ‘70’s and ’80’s.”
What is apparent is that with the growth of corporate control over public spaces – along with the relentless attempt of corporate entities to commodify anything and everything – the debate about street art and artists “selling out” is not only relevant, it’s necessary.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma: an analogy
In order to methodically tackle this issue, it’s useful to look at it through the lens of The Prisoner’s Dilemma, a game analyzed by use of principles of game theory.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma, developed by mathematicians Merrill Flood and Melvin Dreshner, is an analysis of a hypothetical situation. The police apprehend two accomplices for committing a minor crime, but they’re suspected of a greater offense. The evidence for the greater offense, however, is circumstantial. The police need their confession to convict.
For this purpose, the accomplices are separated and individually presented with the following options: squeal on your partner and go free (and be absolved of the lesser crime) or remain silent and risk your partner squealing on you, in which case you’ll get the maximum prison term for the major offense.
But there are two more possible scenarios: if both prisoners squeal, they each get an intermediate sentence. Lastly, if both prisoners stay silent, they’ll be tried for the lesser offense, and could still end up in jail.
Studies show that although game theory predicts that the rational choice for each prisoner (dictated by self-preservation) is to squeal on his or her partner, most humans will attempt to at least remain faithful to their partner once before giving them up, which demonstrates the tendency of humans to value social bonds.
The artist’s dilemma
So what does this have to do with artists, their art and the idea of selling out?
Let’s apply a similar “two-by-two” approach to the artist’s dilemma.
Many artists use the streets as an ad space for their art; they view the public as potential clients and pride themselves on corporate partnerships, which can be quite lucrative.
In this case, as long as artists are clear about their overarching goal – promoting sales in a capitalist market – they can’t “sell out.” In a sense, these artists are smaller versions of commercial enterprises that use public space to advertise their products (often without having to pay for the space).
At the same time, artists who have any kind of moral presumptions guiding their work need to assume certain responsibilities. For one, if they are receiving funding from a corporation or government organization, they need to research each entity’s respective agendas. It could simply mean doing some background research on the internet, but it could also entail communicating with the organization itself and asking what it stands for, what it opposes and what its mission and goals are.
If, after adequate research, the entity’s agenda coincides with the artist’s, the work is morally kosher.
However, education also entails risk: if the artist discovers the entity is morally corrupt, at least by his or her definition, it’s the obligation of the artist to forfeit the financial opportunity in order to hold moral ground.
If the artist has found that the organization is morally corrupt and still chooses to work with it – well, the artist is, by definition, selling out.
There’s another outcome: the artist can choose to stay ignorant and work with any organization solely for the money. If the artist is lucky, the organization turns out to be morally sound. However, if the organization turns out to be morally corrupt, the artist can’t simply plead ignorance when being called a sellout.
Pleading ignorance, of course, doesn’t excuse the artist from the consequences of collaborating with a morally corrupt organization. At the very least, he or she must assume responsibility after the fact.
Organizations and corporations involved in the arts also have a moral responsibility. They need to be transparent about their policies and political agendas so that artists can make informed decisions, and don’t have to do all the work themselves.
The case of Shepard Fairey
Shepard Fairey (known for his iconic OBEY slogan) is one of the world’s most renowned street artists. But in addition to his work on the streets, Fairey runs a thriving graphic design business that caters to big corporations, including some with questionable moral standing, like Nike and Saks Fifth Avenue. (For a full list, click here.)
if it was not supplied to the corporations by me, then it would be supplied by other hungry designers.
According to this statement, it’s apparent that even though Fairey is aware of the questionable moral agendas of some of the corporations that commission him, he still takes their money.
So is he a sellout? Not according to Fairey’s definition of selling out.
In one interview, Fairey defines selling out as “compromising your values to pander to the lowest common denominator.”
In another, he elaborates: “To me selling out is doing things purely for the money without concern for the consequences to integrity.”
And in his new book Covert to Overt, Fairey details what he calls his “inside/outside” strategy of work:
…doing things on my own terms outside of the system when necessary, while also seizing opportunities to infiltrate the system and use its machinery to spread my art and ideas, hoping to change the system for the better in the process.
Here, Fairey assumes a Robin Hood-like approach: taking from exploitative corporations and using his commissioned art to chip away at their influence by, for example, raising awareness about war.
Fairey’s dealings with corporations fall within the definitions of selling out, as outlined by the artist’s dilemma. And one must wonder how much influence corporate entities have over Fairey’s art and messaging – surely the commissioned work, but also his street works.
Nevertheless, it is undeniable that these dealings have enabled him to devote significant time and resources to putting up works on the streets that endorse progressive, noncommercial (even anti-commercial) causes. So in order to evaluate whether or not Fairey is selling out, it seems that one must weigh the influence of corporate interests on his work versus the benefits of Fairey’s works on the streets.
The example of Fairey demonstrates the limitations of applying a simple two-by-two theory as a sweeping criterion. Nevertheless, the artist’s dilemma can act as a frame for this important discussion: it unequivocally demonstrates that artists need to be transparent and accountable. They have a responsibility to forge moral alliances with employers that could have potentially conflicting agendas.
“Our citizens should know the urgent facts…but they don’t because our media serves imperial, not popular interests. They lie, deceive, connive and suppress what everyone needs to know, substituting managed news misinformation and rubbish for hard truths…”—Oliver Stone