here is another "obey" one... I did a while back
http://supermarkethq.com/product/898

I was a Shephard Fairey fan until I read this article.

http://blog.printmag.com/dailyheller/

I would love to see if he has ever rebutted the plagiarism claims.

This is a great series of visuals. If you have more, I'd love to see a second group of them.

Another visual I would love to see compiled is a grouping of "stenciled" visuals that are spray painted in different places. We have one in particular here in Saint Louis that I see all over town. I'll try to get a good photo of it and send it to you.

Crap, put in the wrong link...

http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

Thanks for your post, Steve. In looking at that link, I found what I mentioned above, a book of Stencilings from around the world.

Everyone knows that Fairey has been riffing on Barbara Kruger since he made the move from those pathetic Xerox stickers to this black, white & red thing he calls design.

Futura type. Black and White. Unlike Kruger, Fairey used high contrast images. My vote goes to Barbara Kruger being the most imitated designer when looking at the above work. And Kruger isn't even a designer.

I admit I coveted (and ended up acquiring) Fairey's HOPE poster

http://obeygiant.com/post/obama

Literary pundits are aware that denotation and connation are part and parcel of the meaning of any word or, in this case pictures or drawings. In the drawing of "Fundamental Islamic" Obama there are at least two interpretations but fro sure two main interpretations depending upon the audience.
For one audience, the majority, it as it seems; beware the Islamic background of Obama.
For the literary scholar, who can count the number of angels on a pin head, he sees satire. So we have to ask what view point is more relevant? The literary scholar or the average working guy on the street? Let the majority rule opinion here because it is they who will really be concerned with the angels on the pin head in the real world and not the scholar.
A picture does not stand alone. Its perspective is subjective and based on the world's opinion of what ever the picture displays, whether a meadow or a nuclear bomb, their interpretation is quite clear; as is the "Obama Islamic fundamentalist".
It is not only in poor taste it is offensive and portrays the New Yorker's real ignorance of real world views and perspective and shows how literary arrogance can demean the common perspective and insult the character of the portrayed and the sensitivities of the observer.