I don't understand the rationale that he's "stealing". Is he claiming he took these photographs? Is he trying to promote his own lifestyle/erotica website using these images? The Suicide Girls image may be a studio shot, but it's still trying to convey something via social media, just as a selfie is (though I'll agree that it's perhaps not the best example of this phenomenon). 

Perhaps you don't find this work interesting, and that's certainly your right. It may well be weak and lazy. I just think this simplistic, foot stomping view that he used someone else's image in his work and is therefore some sort of arch plagiarizer is totally missing the point.

You're welcome to post Banksy Instagrams on a gallery wall and try to charge a fortune. No one will pay a fortune of course, because you haven't built an art practice around the concept of appropriation. You'd just be ripping off Richard Prince

yeah i am going to disagree with you on several levels there.  IF you believe that there is something worthwhile and prince has something to say then a manufactured image should be better suited than a found image.  A found image will always be compromised in some way from a pure artistic vision.

I will draw a comparison between art and journalism.  

- IF you think that prince is documenting a cultural phenomenon he should do so, cataloging the found images and leaving them unchanged.  That is called journalism
- IF he is creating art, that seeks to comment on a cultural phenomenon then no found image can typify the phenomenon as he sees it as well as a staged photo can.   In many cases this will become parody, which is protected fair use.  Any found image will by definition be a compromised imitation of his vision.

I do not believe prince has something to say, i do believe his contribution is diminimus, and i do not think that these images add to a cultural discussion on any topic of importance.  They are neither art, nor journalism.  They are self indulgent junk created for people with more money than sense or taste.  I would not mind a thoughtful or thought provoking piece on the corrupting narcissism of social media, this is just not it.

If these images were presented by a journalist, in a setting for journalism (like a newspaper or magazine), and were accompanied by journalistic commentary, I'd call is journalism. But since they're presented by an artist, in an art setting, accompanied by artistic commentary, it's art. Like it or not. Setting matters; that's the crux of Prince's work.

You're free to dislike Prince and think his contribution is diminimus. There are certainly a lot of people who agree with you. However, most art critics would regard appropriation artists like Koons and Prince among the most important and influential of the latter half of the 20th century (how's that for an appeal to authority!).

I saw these works at Art Frieze and they were consistently mobbed by visitors. They clearly interested people and spoke to them.  Is that enough to call it great art? Maybe not, but I think enough to consider them with an open mind.

I think that's ironic, since this exhibit - and most of Prince's career - finds the root of its creativity in money, emotions and ownership of art.

Prince is messing with everyone; he's like the version of Banksy that trolls instead of inspires. Yes, it's "art;" mostly because it upsets a lot of people and creates a discussion. In that sense it's enthralling, but the discussions his works create are always ones where nearly all participants are unhappy. That's why he's a bit of an ass.

Is that not art in itself?

I appreciate Richard Prince, and have followed his work through the Marlboro Men, biker photos, jokes, car hoods, etc.

But what SG is doing here is fanfckingtastic!!! All the players meet and rumble in the same pit. Great!

people watch keeping up with the Kardashinas in droves, is that enough to consider it great television?  IF someone put out a dubbed version of the kardashinas with the voice over that made comments on the nature of watching the kardashians, would it be trans-formative art....maybe.  

not all work done by good artist is good work, but it is undeniable that he did not obtain permission to use the images remains both tacky and disrespectful.

They'd tell the person to come back with a lawyer.

I think my point was that in order to achieve what you expressed - going into the Gallery and successfully getting a portion of the profits from these pieces - would require not only a lawyer, but a good lawyer ready for substantial litigation.

Prince has guiding precedent literally under his name; he's viewed as legally untouchable. Not saying that's the actual case, but he knows that anyone who wants to step up will need to put in significant money toward a suit.

That's why the best entity to shut this whole thing down is Instagram; they have retained counsel and the best legal arguments on their side.

Are you familiar with Prince's litigation history? Not to support his actions, but he knows his legal stuff. Arguably the most-cited copyright case in the United States is the one he won.

www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/landmark-copyright-lawsuit-cariou-v-prince-is-settled/

He knows about copyright; he's just trolling as usual.

I'm playing catch-up with a number of old threads, but many thanks to the contributors on this one.

The debate and exchange of ideas presented here was an enjoyable and interesting read.

Taking a step back (and completely leaving aside ethics, legalities and artistic merit), my view is that, overall, the interest and exposure generated by this playful media battle benefitted all parties.

It's the type of lively drama or faux drama that also helps to reinvigorate the art world and draw additional attention to art more generally.

Some good points. Thanks.

I feel Instagram, FB posts are the new unavoidable mundane. To me Prince is working today in the same space as someone like Yung Jake with his FB posts prints, or tangentially, Mark Flood slapping up LIKE tags at Art Basel Miami. Lots of young artists mining social media in all kinds of ways.

Warhol was doing the same thing with consumerism and advertising, by focusing on the items and elevating them to status of high culture art object. Forcing people to first of all notice them, then rethink relations to them, and how they represented a new dynamic, a culture shift and new paradigm for daily living.

Lichtenstein likewise, elevating comic books while shining a light on any merits they may have. As with any important artist, his work and ideas will migrate out of the fine art bubble and into the mainstream. Can follow his lineage along different paths all the way up through Quentin Tarantino, maybe the glut of Marvel movies in theaters for the last 15 years, etc. (To say nothing of 3rd-generation crap like DFace.)

That small segment of humans who cared about art were exposed to this thinking, got it or at least got in on it, and most others were baffled, non-plussed, got a bit angry about the whole thing.

Robert Hughes (in SOTN) stresses the point about Pop Art not being able to survive on the street, that it could only incubate and survive in the gallery--the images just could not compete with the dazzling madness already out there. He then shows a video clip of some huge Alex Katz portraits--that would astound and titillate in a gallery space--embarrassingly anaemic plastered along the top of a building in some billboard nexus like Times Square.

Lots of people think Prince's appropriation concept is weak. A lot of people think the entire concept of appropriation is weak. He generates a lot of hate. But, that is what he does, and the Marlboro Men and so on are here to stay. Someone was bound to reframe social media interaction as fine art, and many others still are.

For me, due to his history and stature in the art world as an appropriationist, no surprise that Prince emerged with the biggest, clearest, easiest to make, largest target of a social media-based artwork.

I like what the Suicide Girls did with it, and bought a couple. The tube came yesterday and it is a monster, almost as tall as I am.

Gonna put her in my office and sell the other one I have in the future.  Thanks!