The Meeting With The EVSC Over The Central Bear Art!

If I were to accept what I was offered as the proposal from the EVSC for settling the matter over receiving proper, official credit and recognition for my bear drawing that Central High School in Evansville, Indiana has used for three decades now, the best it may be described as would be a sort of pyrrhic victory.

It appears that short of escalating the matter to a legal one, the best concession I can get from the school was pretty much a worthless gesture where the EVSC would continue its stance on refusing me official, public recognition for my contribution to the school, while I simply would have another, similar work displayed in a case at the school which it would most graciously acknowledge was mine and yet still not acknowledge the older work and its usages by and for the school.

On Friday, August 19, 2016, I met with Jason Woebkenberg, Chief Communication Officer for the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation, Pamela Hight, Director of Marketing and Social Media, and Paul Neidig, Chief of Staff/Director of Athletics at the EVSC Building at 951 Walnut Street in Evansville. I went there along with my mother, Charlotte, who was witness to the proceedings. 

The EVSC members that attended the August 19, 2016 meeting.

While they conceded that my artwork has been used by the school during this meeting, they still argued that the bear image they have used repeatedly is not my art in instances where it is clearly the same drawing to any objective viewer. And, moreso, even with the couple of instances where they would admit it was my drawing -- At least to me in person -- they would not agree to acknowledge this fact publicly.
All three EVSC employees asserted that since my work was based on the mural in the gymnasium, as I was instructed to do by teacher David Koehler in 1987, that somehow the use of the drawing on items where there was no signature present was somehow not my work. They reasoned that without the signature, it was just too close to say for certain.

Can YOU tell the difference between the bear drawing in the top row, far right from the other bears in that row? Jason Woekenberg told me he couldn't see any difference. The bottom row shows more images of the bear drawing I created. The second figure in the bottom row which is in color Paul Neidig said he colored on computer in 2005. That is also when he said he made other changes to the art. Other than the color, do YOU see any discernible differences between that bear and the black-and-white one to its left? 

 They raised a point that if a person recreated the Mona Lisa in pen and ink form that artist would not get credit for his or her work. This was simply an inane suggestion to which I quickly set them straight that indeed the artist would be entitled to receive credit for the recreation. Particularly in such an example when the medium was not paint, but pen and ink art.

To counter their position, I asked them if they knew of the artist Andy Warhol, which, of course being college-graduated school teachers they should. They said they were familiar, and I went on to point out that not only had Andy Warhol made a career of appropriating images from other sources for "pop-art," but that he had taken images straight from comic books, and there was no question he received credit for his works. 

What I did, based on instructions by my teacher David Koehler, basing my drawing on an existing mural at the school, was still done in a fashion that is actually more distinctive from the source of inspiration than the art Andy Warhol had done did in some instances, in fact. I maintain, the style of the bear drawing in question is mine, and distinct from that mural, in any case.

The creator of Batman was also brought up, which they sought to use to prove of another instance in which the original creator was credited, that other artists who have drawn the character were not credited. One shouldn't use comics books against a person who is not only a fan of the medium, but also has made his living from the industry for more than 20 years. 

I pointed out that most definitely later artists have received credit, I asked them if they knew the movie "Sin City." They did know of it. I explained that the man who co-directed that film and the comic on which it was based, Frank Miller, also wrote and drew "The Dark Knight Returns," one of the most celebrated Batman stories of all time. I pointed out that Miller is even credited from his contributions in the recent "Batman v Superman" film, and Frank Miller certainly received credit for his works on Batman, as well as great acclaim for it.

Behind the Central Honeybears in this photo is the mural commissioned by Central from artists Larry Johnson and Kip Husk in honor of the memory of Scott Cowen.

During the discussion about the mural, they mentioned the names of the artists that painted it, Larry Johnson and Kip Husk. The artists not only rightfully received their credit for the work, but was in fact paid for their services by the school.

I asked about that credit and why would the same not be applicable for me and my work? Pamela Height came back with the position that they were adults and were paid to paint that mural, as if that is an acceptable reason to deny me credit. This was something she stressed repeatedly when that mural was brought up in the discussion: They were adults, they were paid.

I shot back at her that just because the other artists were adults and paid for their work does not mean that somehow the school should have exploited a minor and took his work for free. Of course, she could not sufficiently defend her remark, though she did attempt to do so.

Ms. Hight then used the tragedy of a former Central High School student, Scott Cowen, to bolster the stance the EVSC was taking on the matter of my credit. Scott passed away in 1982, sadly, and the mural was commissioned in his honor. She tried to somehow spin this poor boy's death into reasoning why the drawing I did was actually, somehow, not my work, but the mascot and that it's continued use was in honor of his memory. 

Such obvious, disingenuous, and manipulative maneuvering I found to be VERY unseemly. To suggest that exploiting the image I drew by using it on all manner of merchandise over the years was somehow an extension of the reason that mural was created was a weak and frankly disgusting tactic to deprive me of credit for my art. My mother also could not believe that Ms. Hight actually used the death of this young man from over 30 years ago as fodder in the EVSC's attempt to deny me any acknowledgement.

Another shot of the mural with students in front of it.

There was the instance where my signature was left on a printed item from the school, that I recalled being a pocket folder, yet I was presented at the meeting with a basketball program sporting the drawing. Yet, later, after the meeting I realized that the scan I made back in 2003 or 2004 would have had the text at the bottom about basketball, such as the program book has in the picture shown below. Maybe both items were produced with my signature with the added "Evansville Central" illustrative text superimposed over my bear drawing? 

Regardless, it was proof they couldn't deny that showed I drew that bear image, even though they still continued to argue that the exact same bear image on other items could not be proven to be mine simply due to a missing signature.

The 2003-2004 Evansville Central basketball program which bears my signature (sorry for the pun). Even with this evidence, the EVSC will not acknowledge my contribution. This copy of the program was given to me by the EVSC at the meeting, meaning they don't contest that is my signature and it is on that cover. 

In further attempts to further their assertion that several bears images look too much alike, and therefore it would be much too difficult to assign me credit for my art without a signature present, I was presented with several scans of different bear drawings. I recognized more that came from that Walter Foster "How To Draw Bears" book mentioned in my past blog. I did spot my bear in that mix, and drew their attention to it. There was also something else I noticed that escaped their notice: Another instance where my signature was left with the drawing. It had been placed at a different spot by another artist that added a busted brick wall in the background, but there it was, with a reproduction of my bear drawing!

This CHS "Senior Activities" booklet from 1999 is another example of my art being reproduced with my signature. No, not an official acknowledgement, though. In fact, the EVSC members at the meeting didn't even realize my signature was on the piece until I showed them where it was.

The red circle I added to show where my signature is on the cover. Compare it with the cover to the basketball program booklet. It was cut and moved to a new spot by the artist that added the background, but it is there.

It's almost amusing, if sad, how they unwittingly had in their own evidence another instance of my signature left on a use of my bear art, which ironically supports my claim even more.

Jason Woekenberg was quick jump on the signatures as being proof that I have been credited before. But I pointed out to him and the others that the fact that there were at least a couple of instances where my signature did not get fully removed was not in itself an official public acknowledgement or credit for said work. 

The basketball program, according to Paul Neidig, had actually been printed for Central outside of the school, so maybe that is why the signature did not get removed in that instance?

And here's something to chew on: If Jason Woekenberg believes those signatures are sufficient acknowledgement, then why is it that the EVSC maintains a position where it will not recognize identical, yet unsigned reproductions as my work, and why would he tell me that the ESVC and Central will not publicly acknowledge my work now?

Another interesting thing was how he, and Ms. Hight, in particular dismissed my attempts to examine the history of the drawing as being in the past, and somehow not worthy of discussion, when to understand what Central has neglected to do here it is relative to discuss that past. 

Yet, if the past is irrelevant to them, then certainly giving me my recognition now, in the present for the use of my art which still graces the halls of Central would still be in order. Also, if Ms, Hight seeks to invoke the past herself by using the passing of a teenager in 1982 to justify not giving me my art credit, is she not also bringing up the past after deeming it not pertinent in the discussion of the credit?

Neidig and the EVSC claims they don't have possession of my original artwork. But, Neidig also tells me that he scanned the bear drawing into a computer in 2005 and "cleaned it up" and added color to it, too. The fascinating thing is that the two examples I now have that retained my signature both predate 2005, one being from 1999, the other from 2004. He said he had to clean up the artwork and darken it to make it usable for reproduction, yet these earlier examples prove that was not needed as he stated and I pointed this out to him. He could offer no suitable argument. 

Ms. Hight, when bringing up the painted bear mural again, said she was concerned that Kip Husk and Larry Johnson might take issue if I were credited for my drawings somehow. This was most confusing logic. If what she means is the EVSC fears legal action from those other artists, then what's it matter who is credited for the bear drawing that I know to be my art? First, the bear mural itself was obviously appropriated using the two bear images from the Walter Foster book, itself. Secondly, my version is distinctive enough from their work, even more than their work was distinctive from the Walter Foster publication. 

The arguments presented by the EVSC are simply without substance, and I think they know it. There was a lot of spinning and double-speak going on at that meeting. 

Here is the proposal they are offering me:


They have agreed that if I want to offer up a new drawing of my bear and sign it, that they would display it at Central High School in its "Hall of Fame." The catch is this: They basically are saying that, "Yep, that new drawing is from Matt Hawes, a former student of Central" Meanwhile, they would not be willing to publicly acknowledge me for the 1987 artwork and it's various uses by the school for going onto 30 years.


I asked Neidig what about having something stated in the frame from the new drawing that acknowledges my past contribution. He just replied, "We'll see what we can do," or words to that effect, but it was clear that the kind of recognition I am seeking would not be granted.

There is much resistance from the EVSC to grant what is really so simple a request. Is it the fear of opening themselves to a lawsuit from Larry Johnson and Kip Husk? They seemed to be wary that giving me credit would somehow do that, but what basis would exist for such a suit in that instance?

I have contacted Kip Husk on this matter by e-mail and at the time I posted this blog I await his response.

So, yeah... This looks like as far as I can take this short of seeking legal counsel. I have tried desperately to avoid escalating this matter. I nearly conceded to go along with their proposal, but on reflection I cannot do it. It's not right.

Credit where credit is due. Never give up, never surrender.

SUPPORT THE BEAR CREDIT CAUSE for HAWES!!!

BUY A BEAR SHIRT and Wear It To SHOW SUPPORT!

I have a Cafepress page where I put out an image of my NEW bear image on different items (I will NOT be donating that bear drawing to Central).

I MAKE NO MONEY WHATSOEVER FROM THE CAFEPRESS PAGE!

The cost of the shirts and other items are the base costs set up by CafePress. I am using this as a means to get the word out about my artwork, and not making money. 

Check with CafePress if you want to see how its' "base price" works. I have elected not to go beyond the base costs, as this has never been about the money. 

The price given is what Cafepress charges to print up the items.

I would like to raise awareness about the history behind that artwork. GET THE SHIRT THE EVSC DOESN'T WANT ANYONE TO WEAR! It's 100% MY ARTWORK, and I own the copyright to it, so the EVSC has NO say in the sale of this shirt.

SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION and TELL EVSC TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE!


Thank you sincerely, with deepest gratitude, everyone who has supported me, and I hope will continue to support me on this issue!