raindogs
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 462
๐๐ป 482
June 2011
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by raindogs on Apr 26, 2013 9:06:55 GMT 1, The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday has decided in favor of Richard Prince, overturning a
2011 federal court decision.
Interesting decision about copyright infringement, fair use, appropriation art, transformative work on existing art pieces.
In 2000, Patrick Cariou published Yes Rasta, a book of classical portraits and landscape photographs that he took over the course of six years spent living among Rastafarians in Jamaica.
Richard Prince altered and incorporated several of Cariouโs Yes Rasta photographs into a series of paintings and collages, called Canal Zone, that he exhibited in 2007 and 2008, first at the Eden Rock hotel in Saint Barthรฉlemy (โSt. Barthโsโ) and later at New Yorkโs Gagosian Gallery.
In addition, Gagosian published and sold an exhibition catalog that contained reproductions of Princeโs paintings and images from Princeโs workshop.
Cariou sued Prince and Gagosian, alleging that Princeโs Canal Zone works and exhibition catalog infringed on Cariouโs copyrights in the incorporated Yes Rasta photographs.
See the photographs here
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (here) granted Cariouโs motion, denied the defendantsโ (deciding that the defense of fair use does not apply), and entered a permanent injunction. It compelled the defendants to deliver to Cariou all infringing works that had not yet been sold, for him to destroy, sell, or otherwise dispose of.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (here) defines Prince as a "well-known appropriation artist" and states that "the law imposes no requirement that a work comment on the original or its author in order to be considered transformative, and a secondary work may constitute a fair use even if it serves some purpose other than those (criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research) identified in the preamble to the statute. Instead, as the Supreme Court as well as decisions from our court have emphasized, to qualify as a fair use, a new work generally must alter the original with new expression, meaning, or message.โ
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday has decided in favor of Richard Prince, overturning a 2011 federal court decision. Interesting decision about copyright infringement, fair use, appropriation art, transformative work on existing art pieces. In 2000, Patrick Cariou published Yes Rasta, a book of classical portraits and landscape photographs that he took over the course of six years spent living among Rastafarians in Jamaica. Richard Prince altered and incorporated several of Cariouโs Yes Rasta photographs into a series of paintings and collages, called Canal Zone, that he exhibited in 2007 and 2008, first at the Eden Rock hotel in Saint Barthรฉlemy (โSt. Barthโsโ) and later at New Yorkโs Gagosian Gallery. In addition, Gagosian published and sold an exhibition catalog that contained reproductions of Princeโs paintings and images from Princeโs workshop. Cariou sued Prince and Gagosian, alleging that Princeโs Canal Zone works and exhibition catalog infringed on Cariouโs copyrights in the incorporated Yes Rasta photographs. See the photographs hereThe United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ( here) granted Cariouโs motion, denied the defendantsโ (deciding that the defense of fair use does not apply), and entered a permanent injunction. It compelled the defendants to deliver to Cariou all infringing works that had not yet been sold, for him to destroy, sell, or otherwise dispose of. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ( here) defines Prince as a "well-known appropriation artist" and states that "the law imposes no requirement that a work comment on the original or its author in order to be considered transformative, and a secondary work may constitute a fair use even if it serves some purpose other than those (criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research) identified in the preamble to the statute. Instead, as the Supreme Court as well as decisions from our court have emphasized, to qualify as a fair use, a new work generally must alter the original with new expression, meaning, or message.โ |
|
|
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by searchandrescue on Apr 26, 2013 11:04:46 GMT 1, thanks raindogs, I know someone who bought "Yes Rasta" when it came out, its an awesome body of work unlike anything I've ever seen. It had a profound effect on me and just the recall of the images is causing me to reflect on my feelings thoughts and beliefs engendered by the book. My first thoughts, (admittedly from only reading your post and my hazy recall of the book) are sadness that the rights of the originator cannot be upheld? But prepared to be swayed by a good argument. As much I appreciate remixing, repurposing, reusing, DIY and the "Punk"??!! [sorry, risk dropping into cliche there!] ethos etc etc this is a difficult one to argue. Also there is another element possibly not mentioned, that of beliefs. Those involved in the book would, I think, have sanctioned their images for use solely in that publication? Very difficult one to call without knowing more about the artist their motivations, as to do so would almost be saying "all images are sacred" I think the artist would have taken on board the sensitivity of the source material? Don't want to speak for artists but I'd imagine part of the process is the response the source material engenders? Your thoughts??
thanks raindogs, I know someone who bought "Yes Rasta" when it came out, its an awesome body of work unlike anything I've ever seen. It had a profound effect on me and just the recall of the images is causing me to reflect on my feelings thoughts and beliefs engendered by the book. My first thoughts, (admittedly from only reading your post and my hazy recall of the book) are sadness that the rights of the originator cannot be upheld? But prepared to be swayed by a good argument. As much I appreciate remixing, repurposing, reusing, DIY and the "Punk"??!! [sorry, risk dropping into cliche there!] ethos etc etc this is a difficult one to argue. Also there is another element possibly not mentioned, that of beliefs. Those involved in the book would, I think, have sanctioned their images for use solely in that publication? Very difficult one to call without knowing more about the artist their motivations, as to do so would almost be saying "all images are sacred" I think the artist would have taken on board the sensitivity of the source material? Don't want to speak for artists but I'd imagine part of the process is the response the source material engenders? Your thoughts??
|
|
raindogs
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 462
๐๐ป 482
June 2011
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by raindogs on Apr 26, 2013 13:17:46 GMT 1, good point, searchandrescue.
The case is only a copyright infringement lawsuit between Cariou and Prince, where the main question is about the fair use of the transformative Prince's work on Cariou's copyrighted material.
It reminds the Shepard Fairey vs. Associated Press case (see Fairey complaint and AP answer) with the Obama Hope image. Or some Jeff Koons lawsuit (Rogers v. Koons; United Features Syndicate, Inc. v. Koons; Blanch v. Koons; or the bizarre Park Life vs. Koons).
But as stated in the decision, Cariou over the course of six years in the mid-1990s, lived and worked among Rastafarians in Jamaica. The relationships that Cariou developed with them allowed him to take a series of portraits and landscape photographs then published in 2000 in the book titled Yes Rasta.
And the Rastafarians rights after the transformative work of Prince?
good point, searchandrescue. The case is only a copyright infringement lawsuit between Cariou and Prince, where the main question is about the fair use of the transformative Prince's work on Cariou's copyrighted material. It reminds the Shepard Fairey vs. Associated Press case (see Fairey complaint and AP answer) with the Obama Hope image. Or some Jeff Koons lawsuit ( Rogers v. Koons; United Features Syndicate, Inc. v. Koons; Blanch v. Koons; or the bizarre Park Life vs. Koons). But as stated in the decision, Cariou over the course of six years in the mid-1990s, lived and worked among Rastafarians in Jamaica. The relationships that Cariou developed with them allowed him to take a series of portraits and landscape photographs then published in 2000 in the book titled Yes Rasta. And the Rastafarians rights after the transformative work of Prince? |
|
|
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by searchandrescue on Apr 26, 2013 13:41:24 GMT 1, Blimey! Nice research, wouldn't like to take the stand against you!!!! [smiley face] yeah your right the ruling is on the face of it fairly cut and dried. Since I last posted I took a look at some of the images from Princes works featuring the content from Yes Rasta [caveat: I didn't go to exhibition so am see work out of context] and I feel a lot less comfortable with his work. The examples you site are good, suppose the "moral authority" issue is a side one in this case, guess that comes from the artists affinity with subject or not etc etc??
Blimey! Nice research, wouldn't like to take the stand against you!!!! [smiley face] yeah your right the ruling is on the face of it fairly cut and dried. Since I last posted I took a look at some of the images from Princes works featuring the content from Yes Rasta [caveat: I didn't go to exhibition so am see work out of context] and I feel a lot less comfortable with his work. The examples you site are good, suppose the "moral authority" issue is a side one in this case, guess that comes from the artists affinity with subject or not etc etc??
|
|
raindogs
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 462
๐๐ป 482
June 2011
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by raindogs on Apr 27, 2013 7:57:00 GMT 1, Huge debate on appropriation art, following the Second Circuit decision:
Cariou v. Prince: A victory for appropriation art on IPWatch
Mixed comments on The Art Law Blog
Court Rules in Artistโs Favor on New York Times
Richard Prince Wins Major Victory in Landmark Copyright Suit on Art in America
Huge debate on appropriation art, following the Second Circuit decision: Cariou v. Prince: A victory for appropriation art on IPWatchMixed comments on The Art Law Blog Court Rules in Artistโs Favor on New York Times Richard Prince Wins Major Victory in Landmark Copyright Suit on Art in America |
|
Zippy
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 6,810
๐๐ป 2,637
April 2006
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Zippy on Aug 25, 2013 22:35:07 GMT 1, I'm letting go of my signed Richard prince print. It was released by exhibition A on 6th march 2012.
Looking for ยฃ850 Ono. Print has been stored flat. Collection / meet up in London or shipped via flight logistics.
Richard Prince was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1949 and is widely recognized for popularizing "re-photography", perhaps most famously with his cowboy pictures appropriated from classic Malboro advertising. His landmark 2007 retrospective at the Guggenheim, "Spiritual America", featured many iconic Prince pieces from his nurse paintings to his upstate photographs, monochromatic jokes, car hoods, t-shirt paintings, and his de Kooning women.
Signed on the front.
I'm letting go of my signed Richard prince print. It was released by exhibition A on 6th march 2012. Looking for ยฃ850 Ono. Print has been stored flat. Collection / meet up in London or shipped via flight logistics. Richard Prince was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1949 and is widely recognized for popularizing "re-photography", perhaps most famously with his cowboy pictures appropriated from classic Malboro advertising. His landmark 2007 retrospective at the Guggenheim, "Spiritual America", featured many iconic Prince pieces from his nurse paintings to his upstate photographs, monochromatic jokes, car hoods, t-shirt paintings, and his de Kooning women.
Signed on the front. |
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Deleted on Aug 25, 2013 22:40:41 GMT 1, Really liking this one zippy hope you get a buyer real soon.
Really liking this one zippy hope you get a buyer real soon.
|
|
Zippy
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 6,810
๐๐ป 2,637
April 2006
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Zippy on Nov 26, 2013 0:15:37 GMT 1, I'm letting go of my signed Richard prince print. It was released by exhibition A on 6th march 2012.
Looking for ยฃ850 Ono. Print has been stored flat. Collection / meet up in London or shipped via flight logistics.
Richard Prince was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1949 and is widely recognized for popularizing "re-photography", perhaps most famously with his cowboy pictures appropriated from classic Malboro advertising. His landmark 2007 retrospective at the Guggenheim, "Spiritual America", featured many iconic Prince pieces from his nurse paintings to his upstate photographs, monochromatic jokes, car hoods, t-shirt paintings, and his de Kooning women.
signed on the front.
I'm letting go of my signed Richard prince print. It was released by exhibition A on 6th march 2012. Looking for ยฃ850 Ono. Print has been stored flat. Collection / meet up in London or shipped via flight logistics. Richard Prince was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1949 and is widely recognized for popularizing "re-photography", perhaps most famously with his cowboy pictures appropriated from classic Malboro advertising. His landmark 2007 retrospective at the Guggenheim, "Spiritual America", featured many iconic Prince pieces from his nurse paintings to his upstate photographs, monochromatic jokes, car hoods, t-shirt paintings, and his de Kooning women. signed on the front. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 0:30:20 GMT 1, Is that u in the pic zippy?
Is that u in the pic zippy?
|
|
Zippy
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 6,810
๐๐ป 2,637
April 2006
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Zippy on Sept 6, 2014 22:56:01 GMT 1, Richard prince signed print from exhibition A.
Ed 100 with COA.
Archival inkjet print on fine art paper.
Unframed and kept flat.
London meet up or can post insured.
Richard prince signed print from exhibition A. Ed 100 with COA. Archival inkjet print on fine art paper. Unframed and kept flat. London meet up or can post insured. |
|
Zippy
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 6,810
๐๐ป 2,637
April 2006
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Zippy on Mar 25, 2015 11:53:02 GMT 1, RICHARD PRINCE
What We Lose In Flowers..., 2012
Archival inkjet print on paper
30 x 24 in (76.2 x 60.96 cm)
Edition of 100 and accompanied by a numbered certificate of authenticity
Signed lower right
original purchaser from Exhibition A in March 2012.
Looking for ยฃ850 ono.
London based - happy to meet up or will ship (at your cost) with FL.
RICHARD PRINCE What We Lose In Flowers..., 2012 Archival inkjet print on paper 30 x 24 in (76.2 x 60.96 cm) Edition of 100 and accompanied by a numbered certificate of authenticity Signed lower right original purchaser from Exhibition A in March 2012. Looking for ยฃ850 ono. London based - happy to meet up or will ship (at your cost) with FL. |
|
Zippy
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 6,810
๐๐ป 2,637
April 2006
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Zippy on Mar 25, 2015 22:51:36 GMT 1, Had a few pm's. Yes, will consider trades.
Had a few pm's. Yes, will consider trades.
|
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Deleted on May 28, 2015 21:24:48 GMT 1, One day he will steal an image from the wrong people.
One day he will steal an image from the wrong people.
|
|
|
|
monsoonking
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 143
๐๐ป 81
July 2011
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by monsoonking on May 28, 2015 21:40:46 GMT 1, Most of the furor over these works stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between plagiarism and appropriation.
The work may be uninteresting or facile, but to claim he's stealing work from other artists is sort of idiotic. The particular images themselves don't really matter. They're totally interchangeable with thousands of other Instagram images. Their artistic interest is derived from presenting an artifact of digital culture in a fine art context, not the images themselves. By putting them on the wall of a gallery, we think about them differently than we would scrolling through a feed on our phones.
As for the pricing, whatever. It should come as a surprise to exactly no one that the work of celebrity artists sells for astronomical prices that have little baring on the cost or complexity of production.
Most of the furor over these works stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between plagiarism and appropriation.
The work may be uninteresting or facile, but to claim he's stealing work from other artists is sort of idiotic. The particular images themselves don't really matter. They're totally interchangeable with thousands of other Instagram images. Their artistic interest is derived from presenting an artifact of digital culture in a fine art context, not the images themselves. By putting them on the wall of a gallery, we think about them differently than we would scrolling through a feed on our phones.
As for the pricing, whatever. It should come as a surprise to exactly no one that the work of celebrity artists sells for astronomical prices that have little baring on the cost or complexity of production.
|
|
coller
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,384
๐๐ป 2,371
April 2015
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by coller on May 28, 2015 21:47:50 GMT 1, Richard Prince is a glorious troll and he knows it, as do most art historians.
I think he may find himself in hot water this time though if any of these girls have likeness rights heavily protected. I know he used Sky Ferreira and she's a pretty famous actress/model/singer with a lot of fashion campaigns; I could see that particular image use being a problem. Not exactly the same thing as the Cariou issue re: transformative nature of work, since those Rastas weren't famous celebs. And he also added so much less here.
Most just don't want to put up the $ to bring him to court since he has some good precedent on his side.
Pricing makes sense; he's a famous artist, and this is very much his style of work. I'm sure they're already worth more.
Richard Prince is a glorious troll and he knows it, as do most art historians.
I think he may find himself in hot water this time though if any of these girls have likeness rights heavily protected. I know he used Sky Ferreira and she's a pretty famous actress/model/singer with a lot of fashion campaigns; I could see that particular image use being a problem. Not exactly the same thing as the Cariou issue re: transformative nature of work, since those Rastas weren't famous celebs. And he also added so much less here.
Most just don't want to put up the $ to bring him to court since he has some good precedent on his side.
Pricing makes sense; he's a famous artist, and this is very much his style of work. I'm sure they're already worth more.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Deleted on May 28, 2015 21:51:43 GMT 1, Yes , however the majority of people don't need Prince to point out this obviosity to them.
It's still stealing other people images.
If one takes a photo which is personal to them and someone steals it to re sell.
(Changing it slightly might be technical but the image is the same)
It's still theft.
Of course this type of stuff is just more mass brainwashing that we do not own anything we create or produce.
Yes , however the majority of people don't need Prince to point out this obviosity to them.
It's still stealing other people images.
If one takes a photo which is personal to them and someone steals it to re sell.
(Changing it slightly might be technical but the image is the same)
It's still theft.
Of course this type of stuff is just more mass brainwashing that we do not own anything we create or produce.
|
|
andrewd
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,079
๐๐ป 33
September 2006
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by andrewd on May 28, 2015 22:06:23 GMT 1, Suicidegirls appear to sell alternative/soft porn. Porn raises questions of ownership of women and their bodies. Suicidegirls seem to attempt to place their models in a position where they are in greater control of their bodies / images than the typical porn site. I can only assume [ hope ] that Prince attempts to perpetuate the emancipation of women with these images.
Suicidegirls appear to sell alternative/soft porn. Porn raises questions of ownership of women and their bodies. Suicidegirls seem to attempt to place their models in a position where they are in greater control of their bodies / images than the typical porn site. I can only assume [ hope ] that Prince attempts to perpetuate the emancipation of women with these images.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Deleted on May 28, 2015 22:18:44 GMT 1, They own their bodies, unlike Prince.
They own their bodies, unlike Prince.
|
|
monsoonking
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 143
๐๐ป 81
July 2011
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by monsoonking on May 29, 2015 1:33:01 GMT 1, Yes , however the majority of people don't need Prince to point out this obviosity to them. It's still stealing other people images. If one takes a photo which is personal to them and someone steals it to re sell. (Changing it slightly might be technical but the image is the same) It's still theft. Of course this type of stuff is just more mass brainwashing that we do not own anything we create or produce.
1) Prince doesn't claim he took the photos, nor does even a casual observer believe that he did. Heck, attribution to the photographer is right there on the work.
2) People aren't buying the art because they think the photo is interesting (if they are, they should buy the work for a fraction of the price from the original photographer), they're buying it because they think an Instagram thread posted on a gallery wall is interesting art, i.e. that Richard Prince's work is interesting. The work is valuable and interesting because it's a Richard Prince appropriation, not because it's a good photograph. Without its transformation from digital flotsam into a gallery piece, it's just another Instagram post.
The original artists aren't harmed by the appropriation. If anything, the publicity from these works is a boon to their practice.
So if he's not representing that the photos are his work, and the original artists aren't harmed, how is it stealing and theft and not just a building block in his artistic practice?
Yes , however the majority of people don't need Prince to point out this obviosity to them. It's still stealing other people images. If one takes a photo which is personal to them and someone steals it to re sell. (Changing it slightly might be technical but the image is the same) It's still theft. Of course this type of stuff is just more mass brainwashing that we do not own anything we create or produce. I disagree, primarily based on two distinctions: 1) Prince doesn't claim he took the photos, nor does even a casual observer believe that he did. Heck, attribution to the photographer is right there on the work. 2) People aren't buying the art because they think the photo is interesting (if they are, they should buy the work for a fraction of the price from the original photographer), they're buying it because they think an Instagram thread posted on a gallery wall is interesting art, i.e. that Richard Prince's work is interesting. The work is valuable and interesting because it's a Richard Prince appropriation, not because it's a good photograph. Without its transformation from digital flotsam into a gallery piece, it's just another Instagram post. The original artists aren't harmed by the appropriation. If anything, the publicity from these works is a boon to their practice. So if he's not representing that the photos are his work, and the original artists aren't harmed, how is it stealing and theft and not just a building block in his artistic practice? |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Deleted on May 29, 2015 2:01:37 GMT 1, Overheard 50 years ago:
"What!?! Those are just soup cans! $500! I'll down to the Kroger's and buy me a real one for 27 cents!"
"Comic book pictures!? My kid's got a bunch of them up in his room. I could just go rip one out and frame it!"
Overheard 50 years ago:
"What!?! Those are just soup cans! $500! I'll down to the Kroger's and buy me a real one for 27 cents!"
"Comic book pictures!? My kid's got a bunch of them up in his room. I could just go rip one out and frame it!"
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Deleted on May 29, 2015 2:50:46 GMT 1, Most of the furor over these works stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between plagiarism and appropriation. The work may be uninteresting or facile, but to claim he's stealing work from other artists is sort of idiotic. The particular images themselves don't really matter. They're totally interchangeable with thousands of other Instagram images. Their artistic interest is derived from presenting an artifact of digital culture in a fine art context, not the images themselves. By putting them on the wall of a gallery, we think about them differently than we would scrolling through a feed on our phones. As for the pricing, whatever. It should come as a surprise to exactly no one that the work of celebrity artists sells for astronomical prices that have little baring on the cost or complexity of production.
Most of the furor over these works stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between plagiarism and appropriation. The work may be uninteresting or facile, but to claim he's stealing work from other artists is sort of idiotic. The particular images themselves don't really matter. They're totally interchangeable with thousands of other Instagram images. Their artistic interest is derived from presenting an artifact of digital culture in a fine art context, not the images themselves. By putting them on the wall of a gallery, we think about them differently than we would scrolling through a feed on our phones. As for the pricing, whatever. It should come as a surprise to exactly no one that the work of celebrity artists sells for astronomical prices that have little baring on the cost or complexity of production. The argument on this is that the photos were taken professionally and THEN added to instagram for a social boost. SG pointed out that they have the original photos, which will be in much better quality than the IG photos. |
|
|
|
monsoonking
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 143
๐๐ป 81
July 2011
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by monsoonking on May 29, 2015 3:13:45 GMT 1, Most of the furor over these works stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between plagiarism and appropriation. The work may be uninteresting or facile, but to claim he's stealing work from other artists is sort of idiotic. The particular images themselves don't really matter. They're totally interchangeable with thousands of other Instagram images. Their artistic interest is derived from presenting an artifact of digital culture in a fine art context, not the images themselves. By putting them on the wall of a gallery, we think about them differently than we would scrolling through a feed on our phones. As for the pricing, whatever. It should come as a surprise to exactly no one that the work of celebrity artists sells for astronomical prices that have little baring on the cost or complexity of production. The argument on this is that the photos were taken professionally and THEN added to instagram for a social boost. SG pointed out that they have the original photos, which will be in much better quality than the IG photos.
In my opinion, the work is about putting narcissistic selfie culture under a microscope. This is accomplished by taking these photos and comments out of a scrolling digital feed and putting them in jumbo scale on a gallery wall and forcing us to ask, what's this all about?
Most of the furor over these works stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between plagiarism and appropriation. The work may be uninteresting or facile, but to claim he's stealing work from other artists is sort of idiotic. The particular images themselves don't really matter. They're totally interchangeable with thousands of other Instagram images. Their artistic interest is derived from presenting an artifact of digital culture in a fine art context, not the images themselves. By putting them on the wall of a gallery, we think about them differently than we would scrolling through a feed on our phones. As for the pricing, whatever. It should come as a surprise to exactly no one that the work of celebrity artists sells for astronomical prices that have little baring on the cost or complexity of production. The argument on this is that the photos were taken professionally and THEN added to instagram for a social boost. SG pointed out that they have the original photos, which will be in much better quality than the IG photos. I don't follow. The particulars of the origins of the photos (and certainly the photo quality) are totally irrelevant to Prince's work. In my opinion, the work is about putting narcissistic selfie culture under a microscope. This is accomplished by taking these photos and comments out of a scrolling digital feed and putting them in jumbo scale on a gallery wall and forcing us to ask, what's this all about? |
|
Ottomatik
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 4,233
๐๐ป 2,471
March 2009
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Ottomatik on May 29, 2015 3:24:13 GMT 1, I wish I could be that lazy and make that much money at the same time.
I wish I could be that lazy and make that much money at the same time.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by Deleted on May 29, 2015 3:42:59 GMT 1, The argument on this is that the photos were taken professionally and THEN added to instagram for a social boost. SG pointed out that they have the original photos, which will be in much better quality than the IG photos. I don't follow. The particulars of the origins of the photos (and certainly the photo quality) are totally irrelevant to Prince's work. In my opinion, the work is about putting narcissistic selfie culture under a microscope. This is accomplished by taking these photos and comments out of a scrolling digital feed and putting them in jumbo scale on a gallery wall and forcing us to ask, what's this all about?
The argument on this is that the photos were taken professionally and THEN added to instagram for a social boost. SG pointed out that they have the original photos, which will be in much better quality than the IG photos. I don't follow. The particulars of the origins of the photos (and certainly the photo quality) are totally irrelevant to Prince's work. In my opinion, the work is about putting narcissistic selfie culture under a microscope. This is accomplished by taking these photos and comments out of a scrolling digital feed and putting them in jumbo scale on a gallery wall and forcing us to ask, what's this all about? What I mean is, in the case of the Suicide Girls images, theyre not "selfies" but professional or semi-pro photos taken of amateur models. Just because its later posted on a social platform by the model does not give anyone the right to re-appropriate it anywhere they feel, and especially doesnt wave the photographers or the purchasers rights of the image in any way. I know Suicide wasnt about to fight it, but its flat out wrong to do what he did. |
|
thomasmer
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,107
๐๐ป 565
July 2014
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by thomasmer on May 29, 2015 4:21:31 GMT 1, Art, for me is portraying a snapshot of time, telling a story about a moment.
Though what he's done feels a little wrong, if they didn't have a 90k price tag on them there whould be a lot less whining.
Art, for me is portraying a snapshot of time, telling a story about a moment.
Though what he's done feels a little wrong, if they didn't have a 90k price tag on them there whould be a lot less whining.
|
|
skendo1
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 241
๐๐ป 162
June 2014
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by skendo1 on May 29, 2015 5:03:21 GMT 1, I see a vicious (and illogical) circle if the legal argument for permitting Prince to use the images hinges (at least, in part) on his being able to successfully get them into high-end galleries/buyers because the legal condonation of the appropriation presumably makes it that much harder for less-established artists to place their art in those types of distribution channels.
To put it another way, while reasonable minds can differ, I personally don't see how creating a fixed and sized version of a piece of digital art and then using one's marketplace position to have the analog image offered to high-end buyers through a gallery is materially transformative or promotes the creation of new generative work---the latter being the main point of having copyright laws in the first place.
I am aware of the Second Circuit's holding in Cariou but (a) see the works in the Cariou case as having been much more modified than the Instagram pictures/captions here, (b) think the panel got it wrong on some of the legal issues related to the traditional fair-use factors when viewed with the underlying purpose of the Copyright Act in mind, (c) question whether some of the calls---which seemed to be fairly typical factual questions---were appropriately decided by an appellate court at all, and (d) don't view the issue as nationally settled given the cert denial.
I don't follow. The particulars of the origins of the photos (and certainly the photo quality) are totally irrelevant to Prince's work. In my opinion, the work is about putting narcissistic selfie culture under a microscope. This is accomplished by taking these photos and comments out of a scrolling digital feed and putting them in jumbo scale on a gallery wall and forcing us to ask, what's this all about?
I see a vicious (and illogical) circle if the legal argument for permitting Prince to use the images hinges (at least, in part) on his being able to successfully get them into high-end galleries/buyers because the legal condonation of the appropriation presumably makes it that much harder for less-established artists to place their art in those types of distribution channels. To put it another way, while reasonable minds can differ, I personally don't see how creating a fixed and sized version of a piece of digital art and then using one's marketplace position to have the analog image offered to high-end buyers through a gallery is materially transformative or promotes the creation of new generative work---the latter being the main point of having copyright laws in the first place. I am aware of the Second Circuit's holding in Cariou but (a) see the works in the Cariou case as having been much more modified than the Instagram pictures/captions here, (b) think the panel got it wrong on some of the legal issues related to the traditional fair-use factors when viewed with the underlying purpose of the Copyright Act in mind, (c) question whether some of the calls---which seemed to be fairly typical factual questions---were appropriately decided by an appellate court at all, and (d) don't view the issue as nationally settled given the cert denial. I don't follow. The particulars of the origins of the photos (and certainly the photo quality) are totally irrelevant to Prince's work. In my opinion, the work is about putting narcissistic selfie culture under a microscope. This is accomplished by taking these photos and comments out of a scrolling digital feed and putting them in jumbo scale on a gallery wall and forcing us to ask, what's this all about? |
|
monsoonking
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 143
๐๐ป 81
July 2011
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by monsoonking on May 29, 2015 14:54:21 GMT 1, I see a vicious (and illogical) circle if the legal argument for permitting Prince to use the images hinges (at least, in part) on his being able to successfully get them into high-end galleries/buyers because the legal condonation of the appropriation presumably makes it that much harder for less-established artists to place their art in those types of distribution channels. To put it another way, while reasonable minds can differ, I personally don't see how creating a fixed and sized version of a piece of digital art and then using one's marketplace position to have the analog image offered to high-end buyers through a gallery is materially transformative or promotes the creation of new generative work---the latter being the main point of having copyright laws in the first place. I am aware of the Second Circuit's holding in Cariou but (a) see the works in the Cariou case as having been much more modified than the Instagram pictures/captions here, (b) think the panel got it wrong on some of the legal issues related to the traditional fair-use factors when viewed with the underlying purpose of the Copyright Act in mind, (c) question whether some of the calls---which seemed to be fairly typical factual questions---were appropriately decided by an appellate court at all, and (d) don't view the issue as nationally settled given the cert denial.
The original posters all have their own motives for posting whether they're narcissistic selfies, staged image-crafting, or promotion for a lifestyle/erotica website. Prince is putting these images on the wall to lay-bare a cultural phenomenon. To place them large, in our face, and disembodied from their natural habitat. He's forcing us to ask what these images mean in our culture, why their creators posted them, and what the dumb chatter in the comments says about us and our methods of cultural and social engagement.
He did the same thing with Marlboro Cowboys. By pulling these images off a billboard and putting them in a gallery, we engage with them differently. Rather than just viewing it as an advertisement, we ask about the romance of cowboys and the west in our culture and value system. We ask why this image was used, what it says about cigarette buyers, cigarette sellers, and Americans in general. Even though the image on the billboard is identical to the one on the gallery wall, the effect is totally different. The image is the same, but transformed. That's the power of appropriated images.
I see a vicious (and illogical) circle if the legal argument for permitting Prince to use the images hinges (at least, in part) on his being able to successfully get them into high-end galleries/buyers because the legal condonation of the appropriation presumably makes it that much harder for less-established artists to place their art in those types of distribution channels. To put it another way, while reasonable minds can differ, I personally don't see how creating a fixed and sized version of a piece of digital art and then using one's marketplace position to have the analog image offered to high-end buyers through a gallery is materially transformative or promotes the creation of new generative work---the latter being the main point of having copyright laws in the first place. I am aware of the Second Circuit's holding in Cariou but (a) see the works in the Cariou case as having been much more modified than the Instagram pictures/captions here, (b) think the panel got it wrong on some of the legal issues related to the traditional fair-use factors when viewed with the underlying purpose of the Copyright Act in mind, (c) question whether some of the calls---which seemed to be fairly typical factual questions---were appropriately decided by an appellate court at all, and (d) don't view the issue as nationally settled given the cert denial. Legalities aside, I think the key distinction is with the intent of the artist. The original posters all have their own motives for posting whether they're narcissistic selfies, staged image-crafting, or promotion for a lifestyle/erotica website. Prince is putting these images on the wall to lay-bare a cultural phenomenon. To place them large, in our face, and disembodied from their natural habitat. He's forcing us to ask what these images mean in our culture, why their creators posted them, and what the dumb chatter in the comments says about us and our methods of cultural and social engagement. He did the same thing with Marlboro Cowboys. By pulling these images off a billboard and putting them in a gallery, we engage with them differently. Rather than just viewing it as an advertisement, we ask about the romance of cowboys and the west in our culture and value system. We ask why this image was used, what it says about cigarette buyers, cigarette sellers, and Americans in general. Even though the image on the billboard is identical to the one on the gallery wall, the effect is totally different. The image is the same, but transformed. That's the power of appropriated images. |
|
twist65
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,289
๐๐ป 582
November 2008
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by twist65 on May 29, 2015 15:09:42 GMT 1, Nice rationale for a weak and lazy idea. You can rationalise anything if you try hard enough. I don't see how the artists intention or the setting the work is shown in can get round the fact that it is stealing someone elses work. As others have said, the Suicide Girls image was a studio shot, not a quick selfie, so it completely misses the mark in terms of a commentary on selfie culture / social media etc. It is also totally plausible that the original photographer has already displayed this work on a larger scale in a gallery context so I don't see what Richard Prince is contributing.
Banksy images are all over social media, surrounded in dumb chatter, misappropriation and whatever else. Is it now ok for me to reproduce an Instagrammed Banksy image onto a large canvas, display in a gallery to create a different viewer experience, and charge fortunes for it, citing myself as the artist?
Nice rationale for a weak and lazy idea. You can rationalise anything if you try hard enough. I don't see how the artists intention or the setting the work is shown in can get round the fact that it is stealing someone elses work. As others have said, the Suicide Girls image was a studio shot, not a quick selfie, so it completely misses the mark in terms of a commentary on selfie culture / social media etc. It is also totally plausible that the original photographer has already displayed this work on a larger scale in a gallery context so I don't see what Richard Prince is contributing.
Banksy images are all over social media, surrounded in dumb chatter, misappropriation and whatever else. Is it now ok for me to reproduce an Instagrammed Banksy image onto a large canvas, display in a gallery to create a different viewer experience, and charge fortunes for it, citing myself as the artist?
|
|
|
|
Richard Prince ๐บ๐ธ Painter & Photographer โข Art For Sale, by maddoghoek100 on May 29, 2015 15:32:17 GMT 1, he SHOULD be carefully generating some new image. Hire a model, take a photo, think about the text surrounding the model carefully, maybe go through a few revisions. generate some subtext, and additional meaning through the specific words and screen names he chooses. throw in some of the casual racism or other things that completely slide by in internet comments and so on. then he would be creating art. from the ones i have seen they are banal at best, and i shudder to think of what they are at worst.
This is lazy first, second clearly disrespectful to the original creator, probably illegal. The legality is third with 2 far more important reasons for it not to exist 1st and 2nd.
he SHOULD be carefully generating some new image. Hire a model, take a photo, think about the text surrounding the model carefully, maybe go through a few revisions. generate some subtext, and additional meaning through the specific words and screen names he chooses. throw in some of the casual racism or other things that completely slide by in internet comments and so on. then he would be creating art. from the ones i have seen they are banal at best, and i shudder to think of what they are at worst.
This is lazy first, second clearly disrespectful to the original creator, probably illegal. The legality is third with 2 far more important reasons for it not to exist 1st and 2nd.
|
|
