At this point, I do not doubt most of you have encountered the work of Keith Haring in some capacity. His iconic style is instantly recognisable. The simplified cartoon-like form, complemented with warm block colours, could be spotted in all corners of New York City during his rise in the 1980s. Unfortunately, now these can be seen plastered lazily on mass produced garments from the biggest culprits of the fast fashion industry, devoid of the critical and provocative messages they were created with.
Haring’s art was not subtle in highlighting social issues. Utilising a stripped back, flat composition and often very basic colour palettes to not distract from the commentary he was providing. His activism concerned issues such as AIDs research, apartheid, income inequality, consumerism and the environment. In 2014 the de Young Museum in San Francisco hosted The Political Line. An exhibition dedicated to the social justice side of Haring’s work. Many of the pieces belonged to the Keith Haring Foundation and were loaned out by friend of Haring’s and executive director of the foundation, Julia Gruen. In conversation with NBC, she viewed the exhibit as ‘fighting oppression’ and ‘bucking the system’. It is clear that social justice was a central theme of Haring’s body of work.
Haring’s work also focused on accessibility. He had a strong belief that true validation of his art came from the masses, as the aged and elitist circle of critics at the time were falling out of touch with contemporary art. His art questioned authority and rejected the status quo of a capitalist market. In 1986, prompted by the rise in prices and exclusivity of his art, Haring set up the ‘Pop Shop’ in New York, where he could sell his own merchandise and work at affordable prices making it far more accessible. Haring was met with criticism for ‘commercialising’ at the time, largely from art critics who were unhappy that Haring was not making the great profits he would at traditional art markets like galleries. Rather he was making a financial loss from the Pop Shop, as it prioritised making high quality art available for people. As Amy Raffel of the City University of New York explains in her 2017 dissertation on Haring, ‘There’s a difference in price, types of markets, access, and perceived cultural value attached to the sale of a painting versus the sale of a t-shirt, but at their most basic, they are both economic exchanges.’ The Pop Shop offered low prices for all people; art markets consisted of inflated prices, usually for the art elites. The Pop Phop in its first incarnation was anti-capitalist, and anti-establishment movement, something Haring achieved with great intent.
Fast forward a couple decades, and Haring’s work exists yet still as a cultural phenomenon, but arguably devoid of the artist’s intent and passion. The Keith Haring foundation has collaborated with brands such as Primark, H&M, Uniqlo, and Pull and Bear. One google search, and you will see this is only scratching the surface. They all offer a range of various jumpers, shirts and hoodies with different iconic Haring designs on them. A lot of them, though I couldn’t see myself in any of it, look good. Price points of these products vary depending on the brand of the retailer. Abercrombie and Fitch sold jumpers for around £60, whereas something very similar could be found at Primark for under a tenner. Undeniably, the Foundation’s decision to collaborate with the numerous brands has worked in favour of making Haring’s work accessible. But at what cost? When questioned on the ethical issues with working with fast fashion companies, Gil Vasquez, an executive director at the Foundation, said to the Guardian “Fast fashion gets a bad rap at times because of ecological concerns but, for us, it’s thinking about access.”
Unfortunately, I believe this is missing the point. Haring’s work brought inspiration, a belief that anti-establishment, anti-capitalist initiatives could succeed. After all, is that not exactly what the Pop Shop represented? A rejection of assimilating to the repressive systems that are the status quo. Instead, Haring showed us first-hand how significant social, economic, and cultural change could happen. Seeing Haring’s work mass produced by the biggest names of the fast fashion industry, who can make such profits using his work, seems inherently contrarian. Companies like Primark and H&M have had a history of unethical production practices, capitalising on garment workers of South, East Asia, and North Africa. All of these companies favour business models which rely on overproduction, cheap unethical labour, cheap garments, and despite any virtue signalling sustainable initiatives they attempt, they will continue to harm the environment.
At its core, it is sad to see Haring’s work lose its original meaning. I’d even argue, it takes away from the beauty of his work all together.
“keith haring, 1/2” by massdistraction is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.