Left: Face 1 by Jimbo Phillips [Courtesy of the artist], Right: A look from Jeremy Scott Fall 2013 collection [Getty Images]
Mere moments after the show ended, it was clear what resonated most with reviewers of Jeremy Scott’s Fall 2013 collection: monsters. “Club kid Jeremy Scott did the monster mash for fall...” wrote Women’s Wear Daily. Style.com added, “This [Jeremy Scott show] had cohesion, and not just because little bulging-eye-print bucket bags matched little bulging-eye-print dresses.” And New York Magazine’s influential fashion blog, The Cut, chimed in describing the entire collection with one witty sentence: “If the Disney team animated Monsters, Inc. after a three day-long bender.” But it was Fashionista.com that summed up the industry’s prevailing take on Scott’s efforts, describing the collection as “Yeti Punk” and announcing, “Clearly skate punks are having their fashion moment.”
So too was Jeremy Scott.
The monster faces which dominated his collection had connected with critics and ensured that for his 32nd season in 13 years of business, fashion insiders saw, once again, a fun, irreverent, creative genius in his milieu. Yet, miles away in New Mexico, when skateboard artist Jimbo Phillips got a glimpse at Scott’s Fall 2013 collection online, all he saw was a thief.
“It hit me like a ton of bricks,” Phillips told us in an exclusive interview with SCENE. “If it had been one or two pieces it maybe could have passed off as inspiration, but it was more than a dozen pieces, colored the exact same ways.”
Turns out those “Yeti Punk” monsters that had come to define Scott’s Fall 2013 collection, had already defined another popular artist’s career almost 30 years earlier: his fathers.’ In skateboard circles Jim Phillips, the iconic artist, along with his son Jimbo are closely identified with the figures, called “Roskopp Monster.” The figures are a staple on skateboards produced by the Santa Cruz Skateboard company since the late 80s. Decades after its production, Jim Phillips still holds vivid memories of the process his father took to create it.
“When I was 14 I had a blank skateboard, so I drew this aggro face on the bottom and showed it to my dad. He was stoked,” recalls Phillips. “The next day I got home from school and my dad says ‘Check out mine.’ I looked at the paper and saw the Roskopp Face graphic inked out in black and white. That became the Roskopp street model. I was blown away! Then a few years later, I started working for my dad, doing graphics for Santa Cruz Skateboards and it was time to update the Face graphic. So I had the idea to rot the face out like it was falling apart. My dad liked the idea so he let me run with it. The Face 2 was one of my first graphics.”
The culprit: Jeremy Scott, backstage at his Fall 2013 runway show [Getty Images]
They’ve also become a first for Jeremy Scott, as they’ve launched the first public allegations of plagiarism against the designer. Take one look and you’ll see why. The droopy, dynamic monster faces that Scott sent down his runway look so similar to the Roskopp Monster attributed to Phillips that’s it impossible to compare both without calling foul. Predictably, that’s exactly what happened in the wake of Scott’s show, when members of the skateboard community started buzzing about the similarities. Soon after, Jim and Jimbo Phillips began receiving emails, calls and alerts from friends inquiring about the collaboration. Surprised and confused, Phillips plotted his next steps.
“I wanted to clarify that this is not our stuff, not authorized, licensed or endorsed by me, my dad, or Santa Cruz Skateboards,” said Phillips, “So I posted some side by side comparison photos with the simple letters ‘WTF?’”
Those three tiny letters triggered an avalanche of comments. The majority of which confirmed what was obvious to even the least trained eye: Scott’s furry faces did not seem inspired by, interpreted by, or even informed by the original—it just seemed blatantly copied. Color for color, stroke for stroke, the face appeared and re-appeared on a plethora of skirts, crop tops and signature sweaters.
Cynical posts followed outraged comments on Facebook then on Tumblr, which inspired angry collages on Instagram. In the space of a few hours the digital battle between #TeamScott and #TeamPhillips was fully on. In fact, the only sound louder than the snowballing social media response to Scott’s alleged plagiarism of Jimbo Phillips’ work was the sound of silence from Scott himself.
Left: Work by Jimbo Phillips [Courtesy of the artist], Right: A look from Jeremy Scott Fall 2013 collection [Getty Images]
When asked if Scott had reached out to him, his father Jim, or Santa Cruz Skateboards, Phillips says: “Not one word.” Likewise, when SCENE reached out to Scott’s long time publicist at People’s Revolution, we were greeted with a terse “No comment.” Even more curious, Scott’s personal, constantly updated online Twitter account, which has remained active during and after the eruption of accusations on social media, has never once referenced the allegations.
“I’m not sure how Jeremy should respond to this,” weighs in noted art critic Carlo McCormick, “Other than that he should and should have already. I suspect an apology, a meaningful mea culpa to not only Santa Cruz skateboards but the entire culture of skateboarding is due.”
But, if Scott has yet to publicly speak on this issue through the proper channels, so too has the aggrieved parties of Jim and Jimbo Phillips and Santa Cruz. While Santa Cruz Skateboards released a statement against Scott, at press time none of them have legally filed suit or complaint against Scott. We asked Jim Phillips twice via email why they have yet to take legal action and received no response.
“I have no idea of why Jimbo and Santa Cruz have not pursued this through legal means,” says McCormick, “I’d guess that like many of us they have no natural desire to get litigious, and probably hope that at some point embarrassment will compel Scott to rectify the situation.”
But it’s not likely he will.
At press time—nearly two months have passed since the allegations erupted on social media—Scott has remained mum. Whatever explanation for his silence, it speaks volumes about the evolution of the centuries old tradition of collaboration between fashion designers and artists. Historically, designers have collaborated with artists since the late 1800s. Notable early collaborations include iconic designers like Paul Poiret and Elsa Schiaparelli both of whom produced collections inspired by artists (and personal friends) like Leon Bakst and Salvadore Dali, respectively.
The modern day fashion industry has formalized this link between art and commerce, yielding collections that boldly state and capitalize on the artist’s involvement with the brand. Successful examples include Valentino’s latest collaboration with Liu Bolin and a previous one with the late Jean-Michel Basquiat, Patricia Field’s long-standing collection featuring work by the late Keith Haring, Marc Jacobs’ latest collaboration with the controversial, London-based Chapman Brothers for Louis Vuitton menswear and Cynthia Rowley’s collaboration with noted artist Richard Phillips (no relation to Jim and Jimbo Phillips).
The majority of these creative endeavors are cemented in contract, in consent and in the true spirit of collaboration, a point Phillips makes about his work with Rowley.
“Cynthia and I worked closely together in selecting and styling works of hers for my films,” says Phillips. “We also have collaborated on creating custom cloths for artworks. So in each case it was more about our creative discussion rather than that of appropriation.”
The nuances of this could not be possibly lost on Scott himself, a seasoned designer, who is not new to working with artists or harnessing his inspiration from established works. For one, his Fall 2012 collection, which referenced Bart Simpson of the famed cartoon series The Simpsons, secured rights to the artwork in advance. Similarly his Keith Haring collection for Adidas, which debuted in 2006 also utilized proper licensing channels prior to design.
From Jeremy Scott's Fall 2013 collection [Getty Images]
“I remember him visiting our offices and checking out the archives. He made sure to get all the proper licensing for the collection,” shares Matthew Barolo, Operations Manager for the Keith Haring Foundation. “He was a pleasure to work with.”
This track record makes it all the more surprising that for his latest collection Scott would eschew formalities and proceed with collaboration without consent. Could this have been a matter of inspiration and less one of appropriation and collaboration? It’s a possibility Richard Phillips finds improbable.
“If Mr. Scott had not set a precedent by previously seeking a license with Fox for The Simpsons imagery,” says Richard Phillips, “Perhaps he could have made that claim. [But] any argument at this point regarding how inspiration ‘played out’ could read as disingenuous.”
A history of blurring the lines between inspiration and appropriation is nothing
new for Scott, according to those in New York City’s creative community. One member who asked to speak off the record revealed, “I know artists who have had him over to their studio only to see work remarkably akin to what they were doing as part of Scott’s next season.”
Not all were privileged by a visit before the alleged plagiarism. Acclaimed stencil artist Mike Roman, now based in San Francisco, is a staple of 80s era New York City who’s worked with designers such as Betsey Johnson in the past. Roman’s signature skulls, which played a huge visual role in the Madonna movie Desperately Seeking Susan, were also referenced quite literally in Scott’s Fall 2013 collection, something that Roman discovered online.
“When I look at what he did,” says Roman “It’s clear he has invested a lot of time and money and the atmosphere looks good, but it is lacking in individuality.” Like the Phillips family, Roman too has yet to file suit citing a lack of time, but his anger is real and present.
“Yes I am mad,” said Roman by phone. “To me, art is a heritage and it seems like a lot of people [like Scott] can go pillage it for profit.”
Work by Jimbo Phillips [Courtesy of the artist]
Arguably, that Scott would appropriate others’ work seems unnecessary. As the resident upstart of the American fashion scene, he has achieved an enviable status: cultivating world-renowned reputation for being maverick genius. In a field where even well-known designers grasp to create something new every season, Scott seems to effortlessly re-invent the wheel show and after show with an endless parade of creative couture which garner him praise and profit in equal measure. Editors respect him, consumers applaud him, and celebrities adore him.
Scott’s closest celebrity client and friend, Katy Perry, captured what sets him apart in the firmament of celebrity designers: “A lot of designers are scared and try to please their audience,” Perry told The New York Times in a 2011 profile of Scott. “Jeremy designs to please himself.”
It’s that brand of gravitas, which has attracted long-standing and lucrative contracts with corporate brands like Adidas, Swatch and Longchamp. Undeniably, the young boy from Kansas City, Missouri has grown into a very successful man. Ultimately, it may be this very success that protects Scott from ever having to be accountable to Phillips, Roman or Santa Cruz Skateboards.
“Scott has a loyal following,” says a Senior Account Executive for a leading Fashion PR House in New York City. “If his team is good enough, they won’t focus on the negativity, but promote the cool things that his customer obviously loves him for.”
So far, it’s a strategy that has worked and will continue to for Scott.
A quick scan of the latest news on the designer points to any and everything but the substantial allegations against him—from news on his Adidas collection to a photo shoot with K-Pop icon, CL. For the celebrity designer it’s business as usual, but silence doesn’t negate the fallout in terms of pride and profit for the smaller artists he may have taken advantage of.
“The real insult,” says McCormick “is the way that Jeremy has gotten this so wrong. Skate culture is all about DIY ethos. It’s never been about perfection, but about making it one’s own, on one’s own. Whatever tribute he may have meant—and that is generous since this has come without credit or even a response to everyone’s general outrage over this—he has missed the crucial point of what this subculture is about.”
Even more, he may have missed the human point of what true artistry and collaboration is all about.
“I’ve felt everything from flattered to furious over the course of dealing with this,” shared the younger Phillips. “It bothers me to think people who are not familiar with skateboarding would associate some of that style to his fashion and not our graphics. I think all artists are influenced by other artists they like. But when you directly copy another artist’s body of work for your own fame and monetary gain, without any acknowledgment, you’ve crossed the line!”