Is it a sticker, is it a magnet, why is it so old looking and all falling off?

some sort of manifesto

Soo, this started as a response to a comment made by cone' (http://stencilrevolution.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=34386&password=&sort=1&cat=508&page=2 ) in a forum displaying an image i made(a sticker).The sticker was made from part of an image made by another artist (erosie http://www.erosie.net ). I thought it was an obviouse quote.anyway...

Stencilling as reproduction

Rarely does anybody think of stencils as primary objects, there is always a sense of fragmentation. A ‘where is that from’, ‘what’s the greater whole?’, ‘where has that been put?’. Every stencil is made to exist within some frame of reference. (political comment, corporate comment, portraits, self portraits, self promotion, humour, et al).
In part what drives this thinking is the propensity for the reproduction of photographs as stencils.
What is the motivation for reproducing someone else’s image, especially (in regard to stencilling) when it is done for studio works. Oh wow! A change of scale. Oh Oh Oh different colours. Hey! I did this, memememe. Essentially nothing new is brought to light. Sometimes if these ‘new’ productions are taken outside we get some changes. New contexts, juxtapositions, fresh eyes (leaving aside all aspects of ‘getting up’ for now). Do we need to know of or at least understand the origins of this image. YES, especially if you are looking to see these ‘interventions’. Especially if you are making these public ‘interruptions’. Some images (read makers) rely on internal factors by being technically sound and aesthetically balanced. But the bulk lean heavily on a context of origin (accented by displacement). That is to say rebuilding existing ,often uncredited, images and putting them somewhere we may not think to see them.
Uncredited sources is not a simple copyright/ownership issue. Especially when reproduced and distributed for a loss(as a rule). I believe in the ideal of producing iconic images (much noise should that happen). I also believe that if you do, it can not be taken from you. Look at Shepard faery{sic}, anything produced remotely in the obey format links back to him. More quietly (less recognized perhaps) is that bloody colour scheme now synonymous with ‘stencilling”. Red fawn/olive and black on a white ground. It is unwritten in this culture that we pirate ’mainstream’ culture. We assume to use corporate(read evil) imagery, recontexturalized and so own it. But we still need these images to maintain their histories, to exist as fragments. Here it becomes tricky, because the best of these ‘new’/’liberated’ images are quiet about their histories. They rely on an educated viewer, sure they may be pretty (read technically sound and aesthetically pleasant) but they resonate. They stir things on a number of levels.
Look to contemporary ‘mainstream’ cinema Kill Bill vol I & II or anything by Pixar studios ( lets say the incredibles for now). Embedded [not like cheap journalists –sic] in these movies/ films are elements of other films and a variety of pop culture references. A quote without quotation marks, the viewer is expected to recognise them. Be they subtle like the James Bond (circa sean cannery) sound scape elements supporting set similarities in The Incredibles, or the more overt use of same same costumes (bruce lee/ the bride) by Tarenteno. These are homages to other film makers and a quiet nod to the nerds in the audience. Why can’t contemporary art do the same? It’s not about me, it’s about us.
I think this sub-culture, street arts, post graffiti call it what you find least grating, is both broad and self aware enough to cop this kind of activity. Building on the iconic images of our peers. Not imitation as flattery, visual quotes used to point each other to the far corners of our diverse and rich actions. And if you don’t read it, if you see something and assume authorship, more fool you. It is all free to air visual noise.