Should Richard Prince's "art" be legal?

[q.g._de_bakker]

What?

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>People miss the point that Prince is a performance artist. He's not a photographer and he's not interested in being a photographer. He's doing something that accomplishes its goal extraordinarily well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If how he is categorized were the point, then his stuff would be even less inspiring to me than the results. Whether I see him as photographer or performance artist, it rings hollow to me. Someone achieving their goal is often to be admired, for achieving what he or she wants, though not necessarily for the actual goal or the results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Regardless of what any of us may think of Prince, he is not the sole representative of the much vilified "Art World".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bravo, Steve Gubin.<br /> <br /> Just last weekend, I saw a string quartet performing works of living composers at the San Francisco Presidio Officer's Club: John Harbison and David Garner (who teaches at the SF Conservatory of Music). The musicians were in their 20s-30s. Great stuff. Art is very much alive. One of the defining characteristics of art (if I dare go there) is its defiance of tradition from century to century (even year to year or day to day). So if I hitch my star to what I already know and like, I will inevitably be disappointed.</p>

<p>Which certainly doesn't mean I will like or think much of everything new that comes along.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Was hoping a response as Jeff outlined would make it into this thread. I was beginning to feel like a stranger in a strange land from all the responses dismissing how Mr Prince is communicating an idea which I find to be quite profound.</p>

<p>I've never heard of Richard Prince, but when I saw his gallery of fashion styled selfie instagram screenshots enlarged on canvas he pretty much crystallized my thoughts on how the internet is affecting how photography is produced, consumed and appreciated by the unwashed masses with regards to respecting copyright law. He basically says in one gallery showing...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"You want your copyrights protected by posting your "art" on the internet?...Who gives a sh*t!...You've turned your creation into an object for public view by your own ego facilitated by an electronic device and process...I'll show you it's now an object by taking a screenshot and enlarging it on a canvas print as a gallery piece for public view... What are they looking at now? They're looking at an idea, the idea being their own reflection on how they judge what they see and how they think of the idea which IMO according to all these responses is quite shallow and a bit lazy."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mr. Prince is a brilliant artist IMO.<br /> <br /> I could not stop thinking about all the points Prince's work touched upon. He got me to think! My thoughts kept unfolding and leading me down this path of understanding of what is to become of the future of photography on the internet and how it's being changed and somewhat devalued with regard to disrespecting copyrights enabled by digital technology and social media while lost in the oblivion of trillions of "pretty pictures" that say nothing and everyone wants for free by just doing a screengrab and printing it out on their inkjet printers.</p>

<p>Now what is that pretty picture really worth? Prince just told you by coming up with an original idea on how to communicate this idea and turn it into gold while the original remains as eye candy because the photographer can't come up with anything original other than a contrived fashion styled selfy. Prince's idea is worth more because it says more than the photographer's idea behind posting a selfy, wouldn't you say?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>Prince's idea is worth more because it says more than the photographer's idea behind posting a selfy, wouldn't you say?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So ... copyright law doesn't apply as long as one finds the infringing use to be intellectually refreshing?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Prince's idea is worth more because it says more than the photographer's idea behind posting a selfy, wouldn't you say?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I wouldn't say. I'd say the selfie is more interesting to me. It's not because there's necessarily an <em>idea</em> behind the selfie, it's because there's an immediacy and authenticity to a lot of them, even though a lot of them look alike stylewise. In the seventies, a lot of us looked alike, yet if you bothered, you'd see a lot of individual expression even among the long hair, torn jeans, and sash belts. And, you'd learn even more if each of us somehow introduced ourselves to you, even by using the conventional "hi there" as an ice-breaker. A selfie, in many ways, is an intro, an ice breaker. And part of its uniqueness lies in its being a likeness of the person posting it, and especially in photography appearances can be important.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Mr. Prince is a brilliant artist IMO."</i><br>Good for him, that he finds people who think so.<br>But do we really need art and artists to make such brilliant observations?<br>I wouldn't call him an artist at all, what he does not art. Part of his uniqueness is that a) that he exploits people's believe that if someone pronounces something to be of a higher order, it must be, and that the fact that it is not immediately obvious why that should be it makes it all the more important not to say you don't see why. Who wants to expose himself as a simpleton not able to see and understand the brilliance of this art? And b) that he is not unique.<br>Yes, he gives occasion for discussions. Legal ones.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>So ... copyright law doesn't apply as long as one finds the infringing use to be intellectually refreshing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, to the extent the idea transforms the original intent of the creator of an image who displays their work freely in public by Prince placing said work in another context in order to express an original idea which has clearly been lost in this thread and in other comment sections online.</p>

<p>Clearly, Matt, you and others here are being way too logical in your interpretation of Prince's intent behind what he's done with screengrabs of instagram selfies while not taking into account his history of similar perceived/interpreted copyright violations where he applied similar transformative approaches to other publicly displayed works such as he did with the Marlboro ads and won.</p>

<p>You guys really need to study and learn something about visual communications and how perception of reality can be changed/transformed just by pointing the lens, composing and tripping the shutter. COME ON! PEOPLE! You still don't understand that or are even aware of it as part of the power of a photograph or image creation?! Any image made by any means necessary tells the viewer the decisions made by the image creator. The decision can be seen as subtle or extremely obvious. It's up to the viewer to bring something to the table with their thinking on discerning what those decisions are.</p>

<p>In Prince's case he just did a screengrab which is not a real photo by definition. It's like me taking a picture of my TV that's showing copyright protected Disney cartoons with my feet in the frame to show it's a photo I'm taking of my TV which changes the context and demonstrates my decision making.</p>

<p>Prince's posting comments in the instagrams before making the screengrab is the equivalent of him putting himself (his feet) into the photo which changes the context behind the original owner of said photo and their decision and intent they attempted to communicate.</p>

<p>It's a screengrab, basically glorified morse code (1's & 0's signal processing) a capture of a video frame buffer enabled by the technology of his viewing device which anyone is free to do and is done constantly making it even more a public domain type of works. Prince didn't steal a print of those photographer's works and call it his own. He used technology and its affect on public perception in distinguishing between public access vs copyright law or ownership to communicate even further the idea of what's happening to photography in the digital age. It's a freakin' brilliant way to express this original idea and worth every penny he gets from the sales of his canvas prints.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Mr. Prince is a brilliant artist IMO."</em><br />Good for him, that he finds people who think so...</p>

<p>...Part of his uniqueness is that a) that he exploits people's believe that if someone pronounces something to be of a higher order, it must be, and that the fact that it is not immediately obvious why that should be it makes it all the more important not to say you don't see why.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where has Prince actually pronounced what he does as higher order art? I've never heard of the guy but for some reason whatever he's pronounced has motivated me to post my POV here and elsewhere online when before these thoughts never existed. Who put those thoughts in my head? Richard Prince? How the hell did he do that?</p>

<p>Clearly I've been enriched by discovering Prince's Instagram selfy screengrabs and the rest of his work more so than others. That's their loss, not mine. I just wish their criticisms were more original than the thoughts Prince has enabled me to explore in my own mind. </p>

<p>I'm getting chills over this just thinking about it. Are ya'll? Too bad. I now have something no one else has and I'm the better for it. That's my reality. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Who put those thoughts in my head? Richard Prince? How the hell did he do that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He didn't. He put something before you and you are responsible for the thoughts you have in your head which, I would say, have very little to do with Prince's work and very much to do with you. He talks a good game, but his words say a lot more than his performance/photos do and all of it still rings hollow to me. In that quote you provided, he sounds a hell of a lot like he's trying to convince us with words of the significance of his acts, which those acts were unable to put across on their own. He's justifying himself, which no artist (performance or photographer) needs to put themselves in the position of doing.</p>

<p>Now, get out there and try to understand what a selfie is and learn how to spell it otherwise I might start telling you what's YOUR loss and I might start following in your footsteps by telling you I wish you were more "visual communication" literate just as you've said to us.</p>

<p>Is it not possible for many of us to disagree even while we are all pretty well versed in visual communication?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>How is interpreting another's photograph by manipulating it not art? And if a better interpretation results than was in the original, don't we all gain? And if someone owns something they aren't using to the best benefit, should they have any property rights in it other than its cost of production?</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>How is interpreting another's photograph by manipulating it not art?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking for myself, I said I didn't consider this particular appropriation art. I didn't say interpreting another's photograph by manipulating it couldn't be art. Consider what Duchamp did with the Mona Lisa. That, to me, was art. But because that was art doesn't make every appropriation art any more than it would make sense (to me) to claim that because Picasso's paintings are art anyone who ever takes a paintbrush to a canvas is making art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if a better interpretation results than was in the original, don't we all gain?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not all of us, though perhaps those who see in it a better interpretation do gain. In my opinion, a better interpretation didn't result. I think the selfies themselves have a great deal more meaning and significance, so I think Prince's work actually loses something vital and misses the point, which his words seem to communicate as well. He comes across to me as cynical and angry. He sees the original selfies as mere objects and his whole "artistic" statement seems to depend on that view. I don't see them in that way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if someone owns something they aren't using to the best benefit, should they have any property rights in it other than its cost of production?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course they should. I know I don't use my camera as well as some photographers could who I admire. That doesn't give them the right to come and take my camera. Besides which, who's going to determine who's using what to the best benefit? You? The state? Tim? No, I think the best bet is that it belongs to the person who bought it or made it, all else being equal.</p>

 

[charleswood]

<p>If I made a collage from internet found selfies then I would have added value to them as a collection. Who then gets that added value? We can say Prince did no work, or that his work didn't add value, or that his work was an unjust appropriation of another's. And we wouldn't be wrong. But were I a 'prince' I might with reason disregard the minuscule effort whose result was the individual elements of my 'greater' collage. Had I instead taken grains of sand from a public beach and made a work of art, whom should I then pay for the grains of sand? I just don't see behind a claim against Prince much of a case for value having been taken from the originators.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>If I made a collage from internet found selfies then I would have added value to them as a collection.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily. It might be a very bad collage which would, IMO, have added no value.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just don't see behind a claim against Prince much of a case for value having been taken from the originators.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see that either. I don't think he took away value from the originators. I think he missed the value of their selfies in his self-desribed attempt to one-up them. And this is a different matter than the points I responded to.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

As in everything else we humans do, we must (!) distinguish between attempts at (in this case) making art, the pretense of making art, and (succesfully making) art itself.<br>The fact that someone pretends, or is seen as, making art doesn't make it so.<br><br>The value taken by from the originators is that of having say about what happens to and with their photos. That's what the convention and the law aim to protect.<br>It doesn't always have to be about money...<br><br>Money may get involved if this comes to court, yes. That is because of our concept of crime and punishment. Punishment must hurt. The crime resulted in financial gain. So the obvious, but not necessary, way of dealing out punishment is to target that benefit gained.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I still say that, whatever else it may be, it's<em> theft!</em></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Q.G. "The value taken by from the originators is that of having say about what happens to and with their photos."</p>

<p>OK, got it.</p>

<p>Fred I think that, sure, Prince missed the value of their selfies and add that for me Prince in his work misses the idea of value entirely. </p>

[leo_papandreou1]

<blockquote>

<p>In retaliation, Missy began selling portraits from the Suicide Girls Instagram account for only $90 in the same size and using the same materials (inkjet on canvas) that Prince used. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>He should sue her for copyright infringement.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Leo sometimes you just have to leave some of your money on the table and walk away.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>"You want your copyrights protected by posting your "art" on the internet?...Who gives a sh*t!...You've turned your creation into an object for public view by your own ego facilitated by an electronic device and process...I'll show you it's now an object by taking a screenshot and enlarging it on a canvas print as a gallery piece for public view... What are they looking at now? They're looking at an idea, the idea being their own reflection on how they judge what they see and how they think of the idea which IMO according to all these responses is quite shallow and a bit lazy."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry for not being more clear. That quote is my interpretation of what I perceive Richard Prince is saying with his form of performance art which is how I define his method of visual communication.</p>

<p>You can agree or disagree. I'm the one enriched unless I can get a more convincing and more original opinion to the contrary of Prince's work and I haven't so far.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>get a more convincing and more original opinion to the contrary</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You keep saying that but I sense, given the anger and cynicism in your "interpretive" quote of Prince, you're not likely ever to be convinced of anything. In other threads, you've said as much. You've come out and said you don't care what anyone else thinks and that attitude would belie an ability to be open to being convinced by other opinions let alone simply hearing them. Negatives are much harder to argue than positives but I think I've provided pretty good reasons for my negative feelings about this project of Prince, without needing to even bring up copyright or legality or theft. You may disagree with them, and I'm sure many would, but to claim you've heard no original opinions to the contrary and not to have dealt with any of my points but rather keep saying you've heard no original opinions to the contrary tells me you've got your mind closed and are not even listening.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it not possible for many of us to disagree even while we are all pretty well versed in visual communication?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course you can disagree but I'ld like to see how well versed you all are in visual communication you can use to counter the level of skill I've seen of Richard Prince's work with regard to conceptualization and execution.</p>

<p>You all, including myself, haven't even scratched the surface. But at least I know it when I see it and I'll be the first to admit I don't have that level of skill to communicate an idea as well as Mr. Prince.</p>

<p>The Marlboro cowboy shots are probably the best protest against cancer sticks I've come across because Prince is acting as a court jester by just being as subtle as possible as a copyright law breaker malcontent and allowing the viewer to fill in the rest by hopefully concluding the contrast of peaceful and serene shots of cowboys should be as distasteful as the advertiser's use of them to lure millions into their graves by using their products.</p>

<p>He's a protestor on a whole other level I've never encountered. He's holding a mirror to the viewer on what they should be more enraged by... his copyright infringement or the idea behind what he's saying with his performance art which is often far worse especially in the Marlboro pics than copyright infringement.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>As in everything else we humans do, we must (!) distinguish between attempts at (in this case) making art, the pretense of making art, and (succesfully making) art itself.<br />The fact that someone pretends, or is seen as, making art doesn't make it so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure how a judge is going to decide what is and is not art in a copyright infringement case. Ideas, conjures within the mind are not copyright protected. Prince didn't patent his methods of communicating this way so others are free to do the same. Prince will have to prove if his idea he's communicating and the method of execution behind what he's done violates copyright law.</p>

<p>Since he's won other cases using basically the same methods, I'ld say he's most likely going to win again. </p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>He's trying too hard to appear hip to trolling social networking, and it shows. Leave the internet trolling to the kids, they're better at it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty much how I see it, too. But it also occurs to me that the NYC art scene, the only sort of environment where work like this can exist, is a far more peculiar and (to many people) less familiar subculture than the goth girl selfie thing promoted on sites like SuicideGirls. It might be more interesting (but less lucrative) to appropriate and satirise the Frieze Art Fair on Instagram than the other way around. But of course it's much easier (and socially acceptable) to exploit the work of some random online image poster than that of a fellow card-carrying Artist, especially if you're hypocritical enough to 'borrow' visually appealing (and therefore marketable) images you're going to sneer at while raking in the cash. His customers are paying for the name and 'concept' of course, but the original work is such a substantial component of the final piece (bet he sells the more striking pictures of pretty girls first) that to me this goes beyond acceptable borrowing. But I don't make the laws (probably fortunately).</p>