This is actually one of the few cases I have seen where I think "fair use" is not fair. Most European copyright systems do not know the concept of "fair use" and would have found his work as clearly derived from the originals and therefore infringing.
Because art has become a content-free upscale marketing exercise, and Prince is very good at marketing himself.
Of course it's worthless as culture, but rich people buy art as an investment and as store of value, and that only works past a certain price/name threshold.
If you can persuade art buyers that your "work" will be worth even more a few years from now, you can sell them anything at all.
It's not even appropriation art - it's purely a capitalist transaction, very possibly a knowing and cynical one.
More closely, as the 2000 Internet bubble. At this time it was possible to make a startup only with an idea, no business plan and no strategic plan needed. Present the idea and you get the money.
This a million times. I could not have stated it more clearly. These kinds of transactions work 100% by "brand" and 0% by content. Prince has established himself as a brand and probably made other people money in the past so whoever buys his artwork believes there is still a lot of upside in it.
Buying one of his "works" is not any better or worse than trying to ride a bubble in the stock market.
I don't think Prince is even that good at marketing. I think what makes his work appealing as an investment is that a near infinite amount can be generated whenever requested.
I would think it's lack of scarcity would make it UNATTRACTIVE as an investment. How much is your investment worth if he decides to print a bazillion more tomorrow?
Maybe he has become some sort of brand name status symbol? I have the impression that most people are more interested in status symbols than art itself.
Not sure what you mean by this? You're comparing him favorably to the modernists? Picasso, Braque, Miro, those guys? Or do you mean specifically abstract expressionists, who seem to get so much flak in this community? Pollock and Rothko are actually pretty miraculous if you see their paintings in person. So yeah... This didn't make much sense.
Nope, and I'm not criticizing his work based on this article (I defend him elsewhere in this thread). But the GP's comment was over road to the point of being nonsensical. I just wanted to point that out.
Because of the wonderful way copyrights work on photographs. When I take a picture, I own the copyright of that picture, even if it's of a copyrighted thing. That's how photographers stay in business (think about school photos, or wedding photos, with studio logos and expensive "packages").
If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me.
> Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?
This prompts me to think of the case where instead of taking a photo-of-a-photo, one takes a "series of photos in rapid succession of a series of photos also in rapid succession", a la taking a camcorder into a movie theater.
>> If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me.
As was pointed out in the article, only if its transformative in some way does copyright give you cover under the "fair use" doctrine:
Prince’s appropriation was “transformative” enough to qualify for fair use. In the words of the presiding judge: “[Prince’s] work adds new meaning...and the fair use doctrine guarantees [him] breathing space.”
A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws.
It doesn't "follow." You can't just take a picture of a picture, that works be illegal and a copyright infringement. A photograph is only copyrighted if it had a creative aspect. If you duplicate a photo by taking a picture of it, your picture is merely a copy. His screenshots are merely copies. He gets around the issues by "transforming" them. Adding a quote isn't enough, imo.
It doesn't "follow." You can't just take a picture of a picture, that works be illegal and a copyright infringement. A photograph is only copyrighted if it had a creative aspect. If you duplicate a photo by taking a picture of it, your picture is merely a copy. His screenshots are merely copies. He gets around the issues by "transforming" them. Adding a quote isn't enough, imo.
Because there is no RIAA for photographers. Because Richard Prince isn't tussling with Stevie Nicks. The law is not applied equally. You get special treatment if you're rich.
If you're just quoting it, and not doing anything transformative with it (or other things protected by fair use e.g. criticism), then yes that's infringing. Per the article a judge ruled that Prince's work was transformative.
While his art isn't in galleries, Banksy can certainly count himself among the wealthiest of artists, despite his anti-capitalistic nature, he's still raking in millions from his works.
As someone who works in the art industry, I can say that this is really not the case for the majority of artists, gallerists, and collectors. A lot of people working in this industry, especially outside the major centers of wealth (New York, London, LA, etc.) are really just making fairly unremarkable middle-class incomes, and do it because they like art and genuinely believe in its cultural importance.
That might not be the case if you're looking at the Saatchi collection or wandering about in one of Larry Gagosian's spaces, but they are the wild exception to the rule.
I think his "work" is interesting. It asks questions just like Warhol's did. And he makes money by "adding value" which by prevailing definition boosts the economy—interesting!
Instagram itself does something comparable:
> By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services.
Both Prince and Instagram are protected by U.S. law.
Ads are part of public spaces. Appropriating them into artworks is a pretty interesting thing to do, though of course the ad photographer union (so to speak) will oppose it.
They have entered into an agreement with the original owner to distribute on their behalf.
However, if you're not instagram and "new portraits" are not, then they do not have a license. More importantly I don't think instgram has right to sub license your content. So unless it is instagram selling these "art works" he's breaking the law.
But, he's got more money than most of you, so good luck proving that.
But the court explicitly judged that he is not breaking the law. He doesn't need a contractual agreement—his work is "fair use." You can argue that he's ethically wrong, but why do you say he's breaking the law?
The article says it was ruled he wasn't breaking the law when it came to the modified “Yes Rasta” picture. Unless I missed it I don't think his Instagram "art" has been challenged in court.
One image, that he actually changed was judged as not breaking the law. Other works, including the Instagram detours, were he merely added a quoted have not been challenged. I personally don't think adding a quote is enough to transform the work
I'm not sure what comment you're replying to, but I'm assuming it's not mine since you're not replying to anything that I actually said.
> No definitive decision, and the case was settled.
Both statements are factually wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the Second Circuit's decision, I'm saying that there was a definitive decision, the case was not settled.
And I'm not sure a single appeal constitutes "perpetual."
"The court found 25 of 30 works to be transformative fair use under its standard, and remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration of 5 of the works under the Second Circuit's new standard."
"On March 18, 2014, Cariou and Prince announced that they had settled the case."
Seems like they mostly found for him, but not 100%. And before the lower court could have the final say, I'm guessing Prince settled out of court. The last thing he needs is any judgment against him. Seems like that could open him up to a flood of lawsuits.
So it's kind of ambiguous. And, yeah, probably only ambiguous because he has the cash to put up a fight.
How is his work interesting? And how is he asking value?
The user have Instagram permission to reuse the work, no one gave Prince permission, so you can't compare them. I don't think Prince (in the Instagram case) is protected by US law.
The fact that we're talking about it shows that it's interesting on some level.
As it happens I was talking with my family last night about making money from photography and different business models, and then I stumbled on this article. So that's part of why I found it interesting.
I also think it's generally interesting the effects that happen when you put a different frame around something and show it in a different context. An art gallery room full of huge Instagram pictures is weirdly appealing to me. Warhol's soup cans, too.
By adding value I just mean that his work sells for millions while the stuff he "cites" doesn't. That's the free market... I don't make any ethical claims about that—I just think it's interesting (and kind of funny).
How is his work interesting? And how is he asking value?
The user have Instagram permission to reuse the work, no one gave Prince permission, so you can't compare them. I don't think Prince (in the Instagram case) is protected by US law.
How is his work interesting? And how is he asking value?
The user have Instagram permission to reuse the work, no one gave Prince permission, so you can't compare them. I don't think Prince (in the Instagram case) is protected by US law.
Personal opinion as a lifelong artist, so take it with a grain of salt:
What a consummate jackass - not an artist, not an innovator, just a sleazy rip-off gutter dweller. He's essentially a fore-father for the mentality perpetrated by "The Fat Jew" on Twitter, who is, rightfully, being excoriated for making a business model of profit by way of theft. If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk wanted to achieve something useful in the space race, they'd find a way to grab both those guys, shove them in a rocket on a one way trip to the moon, broadcasting a camera feed back to Earth, and with just enough water to make it there before they have to turn to cannabalism as a last resort before their inevitable, well-deserved end.
By Richard Prince's logic, I should totally be entitled to steal his identity and empty his bank account in the name of performance art. He doesn't believe in copyright? Fine. I don't believe in the illegality of stealing from thieves.
Art is like comedy... In comedy, you can get away with a lot. As long as you're funny. In art, you can get away with a lot. As long as the art is good. (I'm not talking legally, I'm talking morally/ethically/aesthetically/culturally.)
(Banksy's a good example. I'd really rather not have to see shitty graffiti all over the neighborhood. But when a Banksy piece turns up, I'm okay with it. Because I think his art is interesting and relevant.)
Prince's "New Portraits" series is shitty art. It's somewhere between tone deaf and behind-the-times. It's obvious. He's not adding anything interesting to the photos. He's not saying anything interesting about copyright. Etc.
Parody is ageless art form. I would not have canned shit in gallery over and over again. Having different kinds of bad art in gallery is always hilarious.
But I have to admit I'm but of troll. The real treat is art snob fetishising over paint stains.
You can view it as a commentary on the shallowness of the elitist art collector world. Artists like Prince are all playing a game trying to con multi-millionaires into forking over megabucks for crap that everyone in their client's social sphere fawns over as some sort of status symbol.
How about you actually link a somewhat-credible source claiming that, and not a bunch of commenters?
Also, googling "Onement VI money laundering", the first result is StormFront...nice.
A blue painting with a white stripe does not take an ounce of talent. Nor should that painting sell for more than the cost of paint to paint the canvas with. Believing it is a front for money laundering is far easier to believe than a fool spending millions of dollars for a color separated by a stripe of another color.
There's also "Voice of Fire" [0]. Same concept but uh... red and blue instead of blue and white. Really speaks to me ya know?
Don't forget Onement I [1]. The same painting, again, but brown with a yellow stripe! How does he come up with it!
I actually quite like those paintings. Maybe not worth $44m (to me, maybe to others), but probably a lot more than paint + canvas.
From afar, it seems that being an artist is actually sort of similar to being a developer/entrepreneur. Let's say you're a technically able artist. You can create anything. But what do you actually deliver? How do you create "value" (i.e. a piece someone, somewhere, loves)
As a comparison: there are plenty of developers who can reverse engineer device drivers. But knowing which driver to actually reverse engineer, that can actually deliver value to someone, that's the tricky part.
My point is things like this are why people "outside the scene looking in" see it as nothing but millionaires losing a bet, money laundering, or some form of joke rich people pull just because they can. "Look how rich I am. I can spend $35m on an unpainted canvas." [0]
I have respect for two things: Things that require such skill that other humans are not able to trivially reproduce it and things that are so damn simple that it is amazing it took us 10s/100s years to figure it out.
I feel there are two schools of thought. Those who "get" modern/contemporary art and those who don't.
Those who do say: "Yeah, you could have done this. But did you?"
Those who don't say: "I don't think I'd get paid $10 million for a 20ft canvas covered in my own feces and I don't think any reasonable person would. So they don't."
Looking back, I should have used a less criminal/more light-hearted example to try or made a better attempt at illustrating where I stand on these things.
[0] At least I hope this hasn't happened and there was at least some paint on them. [1]
[1] But a redditor did hang up 3 blank canvases on their wall out of laziness and others saw "art" in it. So there's that at least. http://i.imgur.com/oTKPb.png
> He's not adding anything interesting to the photos.
I like this about it. He adds a banal, trivial, perhaps non-sensical comment that satirizes the emptiness and one-sidedness of communication on today's most popular social platform. And the timing was perfect.
Why all this moral outrage? Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Just take a look at modern art paintings and how much they sell for.
Probably everybody would be laughing about this guy if he wasn't making big bucks. The problem is in the art market where millions can be made by just selling overhyped garbage.
Can anyone seriously make the point that a picture of a smiling woman is worth 1 billion?
Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko stole their art from somebody else and I'd be just as morally indignant. Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope. Can I appreciate their works as individual expressions in spite of not sharing the perceived value? Yep. "Creating" unauthorized, uncredited, compensation-free derivative works, in this case in particular, is what fuels the hostility.
And yes, many people can seriously make the point that the original, 1 of 1 version of the Mona Lisa is worth $1 billion because of the amassed cultural value and exlcusivity of the original, in that the demand for that one original painting far exceeds the available supply. Pretty simple, actually.
Not really a fan, but his framing of his techniques as social commentary are, to me, quite functional and a verifiable artistic endeavor; as in, he may have used and somewhat appropriated pop-culture reference points, but with genuine thought and constructive 'addition' in the nature of art.
Just to add on to your point, I tend to think of relative value in terms of my relationship to a cheeseburger and a vegan's relationship to same cheeseburger. I might spend $10, maybe even $20 on a good cheeseburger. The vegan would spend money to not have to eat a cheeseburger. Does that change the cheeseburger at all? Not one whit. Does that make either consumer better than the other? Well, only the vegan thinks so, but that's a different issue entirely.
Considering you felt the need to get this anti-vegan dig in when you could have used literally any other example, it seems like you might think so as well.
Those guys aren't collage artists. This guy isn't doing anything different than most collage artists. I'm sure you've heard of Warhol and Liechtenstein (sp?).
Long story short, this is free speech and clearly his buyers think his work has monetary value. The same way other works do - via market forces. The Mona Lisa's importance can't be quantified with a "cultural value" detector.
>Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope.
You don't get to make that assessment. The art market does.
It's free speech until it starts infringing on the rights of others insofar as there are laws on the books against what he's doing - which he proudly admits to not care about. Should there finally be a court (civil?) case that tests the applicability of fair use in his Instagram method, he very well could be found no better than a person who sits in a movie theater and records the film on a camcorder and says because they coughed every once and a while or farted or rustled a bag of popcorn that they've "added" something to the art. By implication, the buyers will have implicity supported an unauthorized work - they'd be no better than pirates buying bootleg DVDs on the street.
And, for the record, yes, I do get to make the assessment that I, as an individual, do not believe Rothko's art is worth millions, and the art market can not force me to believing otherwise as a person. Am I allowed to pay what I believe it is worth? No, the art market does indeed set that value. Trying to split "market forces" from "cultural value" is, to me, a short-sighted proposition when in the context of art, which, by its inherent existence, doesn't have intrinsic monetary value (unless it's made from precious metals or stones or whatnot, which is a tangential notion of value).
Why is this a problem. If another artist cuts out stuff from a bunch of different magazines and makes a collage, does he owe money to every magazine? That would be absurd. Why should these photos be different?
>Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Just take a look at modern art paintings
No.
>and how much they sell for.
Perhaps. I guess it depends on the perspective you're approaching it from. As a use of capital resources in a world of crushing and grinding poverty, I say yes.
As a potential investment: if the someone is willing to pay more in the future then it's not bullshit.
Yes. Murial Gray (scottish broadcaster) has some amazing stuff about this. She had a TV show (Art is Dead, Long Live TV (1991, thus hard to find info about)).
It's music, TV shows, movies, posters, novels, games, that amazing dinner you had the other night, expensive stuff hanging in galleries, that goofy widget sitting on your desk, etc.
Art is awesome.
The problem is shitty artists who exploit the talent of others, but otherwise don't contribute much.
There are artists who are born to craft art. They wake up and want to paint, no matter what, they have a drive to refine their craft. They better the world through pure visual joy.
There are artists who are born to scheme. The art is the vessel, the craft is the thought. The concept is king and and to be successful is to create tight, conceptually sound pieces. To craft relevant and provoking statements out of abstract language. They better the world through debate and response.
Many successful artists combine the two but it's not a necessity.
I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in.
Therefor, my review of Richard Prince and 6stringmerc's collaboration...
3 out of 5. Deductions made due to the cruelty of your "well-deserved end" bit. Maybe next time consider a scenario in which they are trapped and punished but are given an opportunity to redeem themselves through an exercise of traditional craft. Also a smaller deduction due to your trite invocation of Musk and Bezos. Even the most casual HN comment readers have explored their entrepreneurial motif enough.
> I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in.
Which, according to logic, makes people who successfully provoke others already artists half way. Not a very good definition of art in my opinion...
While I can see the humor in your taking a stance as an arbiter and unquestionable authority on all things artistic and therefore leveling criticism at my personal opinion as conveyed using over-the-top creative writing for effect, I kindly decline the relevance, necessity, or functional benefit of your review, and believe it should be shot into space, where it will meet its well deserved audience.
> I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in.
But it's not like it's an interesting reaction, it's so obvious. It's like when kids say "Hey look at that over there" and then "Made you look" when you look. You don't have a reason not to look, it's maybe funny the first time because it's so stupid but after it's been done over and over (and appropriation has) then there's nothing left. Or like an older brother who maneuvers his siblings hands and then says "Stop hitting yourself". These produce exactly the same reaction as the provocateur is intending but it's not an interesting reaction at all.
Personally, I think the only reason that this guy is famous is because some very wealthy people chose him specifically because he can generate an endless stream of his art so that they can buy and trade them to make more money. The art is an investment for them and has no aesthetic value.
Nicely put; also for relevant context, recently there was publicity around a 'comedian' by the name of Nicole Arbor who put together some incendiary, willfully offensive "Dear ____ People" videos, none of which I'll link. Basically, when called out for being highly offensive, she doubled down on the comedy and art being offensive is part of tradition but side-stepped acknowledging a lot of people found her material, well, just not funny. So it failed the artistic merit test by consensus. Thus, it wasn't really art, just bad rhetoric. Not all things claiming to be art are actually art.
As everyone is saying Prince's method is not okay, I will try to defend him. First, Copyright should nurture creation, not ban it. So what Prince is doing should not be illegal/impossible, but maybe he should have to pay the original artist. How much is fair? Before Prince entered the room, we had a simple selfie on instagram. Or a Marlboro ad most people did not care to look at. Everyone could have just gone to the copy shop and hang it on their wall, but noone did so. It was not very valuable. Now Price enters the room. He does something simple, and people are willing to give him a lot of money for it. It's not because of the original work, but because of his work. He could have choosen many other original works, it would have worked the same. Should Price pay money to the original artist? Sure ... but not more than a regular stockphoto licence. Maybe 500USD? I guess he would be fine with that.
As everyone is saying Prince's method is not okay, I will try to defend him. First, Copyright should nurture creation, not ban it. So what Prince is doing should not be illegal/impossible, but maybe he should have to pay the original artist. How much is fair? Before Prince entered the room, we had a simple selfie on instagram. Or a Marlboro ad most people did not care to look at. Everyone could have just gone to the copy shop and hang it on their wall, but noone did so. It was not very valuable. Now Price enters the room. He does something simple, and people are willing to give him a lot of money for it. It's not because of the original work, but because of his work. He could have choosen many other original works, it would have worked the same. Should Price pay money to the original artist? Sure ... but not more than a regular stockphoto licence. Maybe 500USD? I guess he would be fine with that.
Copyright dues nurture creation. But that doesn't mean someone can take my creation and build on it.
Just because someone is willing to pay money to him doesn't mean that he had created anything of value.
And who are you to set the price on someone else's stuff?
Fair use means someone can take your creation and build on it. The exact limits of that are determined by the judicial system. Basically under U.S. law you don't have a right to control artworks that you publish—you are merely granted a temporary exclusive copyright with exceptions for fair use.
Copyright dues nurture creation. But that doesn't mean someone can take my creation and build on it.
Just because someone is willing to pay money to him doesn't mean that he had created anything of value.
And who are you to set the price on someone else's stuff?
Someone should just photograph his work, repackage it, and sell it. He would be totally okay with that. Use something like Office Lens on your smartphone to do your image transformation and print them on canvas.
So far, none of the women Prince stole images from have sued him -- but one of them, a user by the name of “Missy Suicide”, has done something even better: she’s begun selling (wait for it) photos of Prince’s photo of her original photo. While Prince’s version sold for $90,000, she offers hers for a mere $90; all proceeds have been donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that fights to preserve digital content rights.
I get that a photograph can qualify as having it's own copyright. But what he's done here is take a screenshot on iOS. Surely screenshots don't qualify as photographs.
"ownership", like money, is a fiction that relies on consensus for its power.
The ease of reproduction, which photography heralded more than a hundred years ago, only helps reveal this fiction to those still held in its thrall.
The cognitive dissonance between a nascent realization of lack of ownership and the belief in the fiction of ownership causes outrage, particularly in those who benefit from the fiction.
Walter Benjamin would agree with you; but in an age when economic security still means personal security, and creativity is one way of achieving economic security, stealing other people's creativity is pretty low, and isn't a cultural habit we should encourage.
Whether theft of something no one owns is possible at all is the question.
As for achieving economic security off of making art, that is a reality only for a very lucky and very tiny minority of artists. The overwhelming majority of those who benefit from art are the middle men.
We should carefully consider as a society whether we want to enable the middle men and a handful of lucky artists at the expense of almost all artists and the rest of society, who could well benefit from free and unfettered access to earlier cultural products.
Since art went conceptual the creativity is in the sales pitch rather than the piece but this is also a case of someone who established themseleves long before the internet its maddening to see these baby boomers get to live like this we got these music and art industries closed off because these boomers hate competition lol who wouldnt want to make money so easily lol.
I'm pretty surprised that his work stands up as not infringement after Shepard Fairey and the AP. It seems that his work was much more transformative than what Prince is doing here, and yet he lost. I can't help but feel that the real argument Prince has here is the money to pay better lawyers than the people he "borrows" his work from. I think the result would be different if he was snagging AP photos.
Also, I'm not sure whether this applies specifically to Prince, but this clause in the instagram policy would seem to suggest that Prince is at least violating Instagram's policy:
The Service contains content owned or licensed by Instagram ("Instagram Content"). Instagram Content is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and other laws, and, as between you and Instagram, Instagram owns and retains all rights in the Instagram Content and the Service. You will not remove, alter or conceal any copyright, trademark, service mark or other proprietary rights notices incorporated in or accompanying the Instagram Content and you will not reproduce, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works based on, perform, display, publish, distribute, transmit, broadcast, sell, license or otherwise exploit the Instagram Content.
Right. I have absolutely no doubt that there's precisely zero coincidence that he doesn't do this to AP/Reuters/Getty images.
He may not "believe" in copyright (though it would be awesome if someone took a photo of his "work" and what his reaction would be), but he sure as hell knows that it wouldn't survive through court.
He just doesn't care, though. "Even if they didn't give me permission, I'd do it anyway."
It's probably reasonable for him to calculate that Instagram is unlikely to take action against him because his success means free advertising for them.
Also, I'm not sure how you can claim that "his work stands up as not infringement"; to my knowledge, he hasn't been sued over this so these pieces haven't been put to any legal test.
Of course Joe & Jane Average's outraged howls of "it's not art!" are the precise reason why Prince is so rich & awesome. What you think is a critique is in fact the entire value proposition.
There is a common idea when faced with abstract or conceptual art that "I could do that," or "my kid could do that." Usually though, you couldn't. I don't find the arguments in the article very convincing – to my eye he appears to be producing original works of art.
Important to note that his Instagram ripoffs haven't been tested in court. He has prevailed in previous court cases with art pieces that had a stronger "transformative" argument, which is a key aspect of fair use. This time the infringement seems more clear-cut. He's not transforming anything, but merely adding his own caption to an existing work. The original work is unaltered.
I was talking about this with a friend, and she said if that was sufficiently transformative for fair use to apply, then one could simply write notes in the margin of a book, call it art, and claim ownership of the book's contents.
Indeed. But the ruling also claims transformation isn't necessary for fair use and mentions other aspects. I also found it interesting to read the cited judge who talked about the purpose of copyright and how it is not a God-given right but a kludge to encourage creativity, like patents.
I'd like to see more people doing that. Maybe then it would become obvious that monetary value of a creation has nothing to do with the creation but rather with who sells it to whom.
Maybe when creators see that, they will stop living their dream that at some point their things will magically sell and focus either on selling if they are in it for the money or on creating if they are in it for creating. And copyright will gradually become obsolete.
I think it would improve both selling and creating.
I would be interested to hear from an art historian or dealer why his work is considered so important. The article lists other artists like Warhol who appropriated found photos into their works. So if he wasn't the first, what did he do so differently that makes his work so valuable?
It seems like everyone here has this mentality that "of course he's evil, he's a thief!" Can someone explain what actual harm this causes anyone? I think it's ridiculous that people pay so much for his "work", but that's their choice. It's not like people are going to him as an alternative to the original source; if he didn't copy it, nobody would give a damn about the original.
EDIT: I'm sorry if this came off as aggressive, but somebody's downvoted me without answering my question. I seriously want to know why his actions are so terrible. What harm does this cause to anyone?
I know someone with a really similar name. He should take photos of the Richard Prince ones in a gallery, add a caption or something to claim fair use, and sell them as his-similar-name originals. Sounds like the key to plausibility would be to sell e.g. 10 at $100K rather than 100K at $10, plus it would be a lot less effort.
119 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 195 ms ] threadOf course it's worthless as culture, but rich people buy art as an investment and as store of value, and that only works past a certain price/name threshold.
If you can persuade art buyers that your "work" will be worth even more a few years from now, you can sell them anything at all.
It's not even appropriation art - it's purely a capitalist transaction, very possibly a knowing and cynical one.
Like a market for tulip bulbs[1]? ;-)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
Buying one of his "works" is not any better or worse than trying to ride a bubble in the stock market.
He's just a money printing machine
Infinite logic recursion detected, abort!!!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672934
How the heck can Richard Prince's use of other people's works be considered fair use if quoting a single line from a song is not considered fair use?
If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me.
Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?
https://www.lumendatabase.org/topics/16
This prompts me to think of the case where instead of taking a photo-of-a-photo, one takes a "series of photos in rapid succession of a series of photos also in rapid succession", a la taking a camcorder into a movie theater.
As was pointed out in the article, only if its transformative in some way does copyright give you cover under the "fair use" doctrine:
Prince’s appropriation was “transformative” enough to qualify for fair use. In the words of the presiding judge: “[Prince’s] work adds new meaning...and the fair use doctrine guarantees [him] breathing space.”
A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws.
Ever seen it happen IRL? Got a link?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster
I'm unclear on whether that was before or after it was revealed that Fairey had fabricated evidence.
That might not be the case if you're looking at the Saatchi collection or wandering about in one of Larry Gagosian's spaces, but they are the wild exception to the rule.
Instagram itself does something comparable:
> By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services.
Both Prince and Instagram are protected by U.S. law.
Ads are part of public spaces. Appropriating them into artworks is a pretty interesting thing to do, though of course the ad photographer union (so to speak) will oppose it.
They have entered into an agreement with the original owner to distribute on their behalf.
However, if you're not instagram and "new portraits" are not, then they do not have a license. More importantly I don't think instgram has right to sub license your content. So unless it is instagram selling these "art works" he's breaking the law.
But, he's got more money than most of you, so good luck proving that.
Not entirely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariou_v._Prince
No definitive decision, and the case was settled.
> No definitive decision, and the case was settled.
Both statements are factually wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the Second Circuit's decision, I'm saying that there was a definitive decision, the case was not settled.
And I'm not sure a single appeal constitutes "perpetual."
"The court found 25 of 30 works to be transformative fair use under its standard, and remanded the case to the lower court for reconsideration of 5 of the works under the Second Circuit's new standard."
"On March 18, 2014, Cariou and Prince announced that they had settled the case."
Seems like they mostly found for him, but not 100%. And before the lower court could have the final say, I'm guessing Prince settled out of court. The last thing he needs is any judgment against him. Seems like that could open him up to a flood of lawsuits.
So it's kind of ambiguous. And, yeah, probably only ambiguous because he has the cash to put up a fight.
As it happens I was talking with my family last night about making money from photography and different business models, and then I stumbled on this article. So that's part of why I found it interesting.
I also think it's generally interesting the effects that happen when you put a different frame around something and show it in a different context. An art gallery room full of huge Instagram pictures is weirdly appealing to me. Warhol's soup cans, too.
By adding value I just mean that his work sells for millions while the stuff he "cites" doesn't. That's the free market... I don't make any ethical claims about that—I just think it's interesting (and kind of funny).
There are so many easy ways I could make gobs of money if I threw ethics out the window, and so few if I won't.
In my view this guy is a total assclown, and the "scare quotes" (I see them more as mocking than scary here, but whatever) are well deserved.
What a consummate jackass - not an artist, not an innovator, just a sleazy rip-off gutter dweller. He's essentially a fore-father for the mentality perpetrated by "The Fat Jew" on Twitter, who is, rightfully, being excoriated for making a business model of profit by way of theft. If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk wanted to achieve something useful in the space race, they'd find a way to grab both those guys, shove them in a rocket on a one way trip to the moon, broadcasting a camera feed back to Earth, and with just enough water to make it there before they have to turn to cannabalism as a last resort before their inevitable, well-deserved end.
By Richard Prince's logic, I should totally be entitled to steal his identity and empty his bank account in the name of performance art. He doesn't believe in copyright? Fine. I don't believe in the illegality of stealing from thieves.
(Banksy's a good example. I'd really rather not have to see shitty graffiti all over the neighborhood. But when a Banksy piece turns up, I'm okay with it. Because I think his art is interesting and relevant.)
Prince's "New Portraits" series is shitty art. It's somewhere between tone deaf and behind-the-times. It's obvious. He's not adding anything interesting to the photos. He's not saying anything interesting about copyright. Etc.
But I have to admit I'm but of troll. The real treat is art snob fetishising over paint stains.
http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-l...
There's also "Voice of Fire" [0]. Same concept but uh... red and blue instead of blue and white. Really speaks to me ya know?
Don't forget Onement I [1]. The same painting, again, but brown with a yellow stripe! How does he come up with it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman#/media/File:New...
From afar, it seems that being an artist is actually sort of similar to being a developer/entrepreneur. Let's say you're a technically able artist. You can create anything. But what do you actually deliver? How do you create "value" (i.e. a piece someone, somewhere, loves)
As a comparison: there are plenty of developers who can reverse engineer device drivers. But knowing which driver to actually reverse engineer, that can actually deliver value to someone, that's the tricky part.
I have respect for two things: Things that require such skill that other humans are not able to trivially reproduce it and things that are so damn simple that it is amazing it took us 10s/100s years to figure it out.
I feel there are two schools of thought. Those who "get" modern/contemporary art and those who don't.
Those who do say: "Yeah, you could have done this. But did you?"
Those who don't say: "I don't think I'd get paid $10 million for a 20ft canvas covered in my own feces and I don't think any reasonable person would. So they don't."
Looking back, I should have used a less criminal/more light-hearted example to try or made a better attempt at illustrating where I stand on these things.
[0] At least I hope this hasn't happened and there was at least some paint on them. [1]
[1] But a redditor did hang up 3 blank canvases on their wall out of laziness and others saw "art" in it. So there's that at least. http://i.imgur.com/oTKPb.png
I like this about it. He adds a banal, trivial, perhaps non-sensical comment that satirizes the emptiness and one-sidedness of communication on today's most popular social platform. And the timing was perfect.
Probably everybody would be laughing about this guy if he wasn't making big bucks. The problem is in the art market where millions can be made by just selling overhyped garbage.
Can anyone seriously make the point that a picture of a smiling woman is worth 1 billion?
And yes, many people can seriously make the point that the original, 1 of 1 version of the Mona Lisa is worth $1 billion because of the amassed cultural value and exlcusivity of the original, in that the demand for that one original painting far exceeds the available supply. Pretty simple, actually.
Those guys aren't collage artists. This guy isn't doing anything different than most collage artists. I'm sure you've heard of Warhol and Liechtenstein (sp?).
Long story short, this is free speech and clearly his buyers think his work has monetary value. The same way other works do - via market forces. The Mona Lisa's importance can't be quantified with a "cultural value" detector.
>Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope.
You don't get to make that assessment. The art market does.
And, for the record, yes, I do get to make the assessment that I, as an individual, do not believe Rothko's art is worth millions, and the art market can not force me to believing otherwise as a person. Am I allowed to pay what I believe it is worth? No, the art market does indeed set that value. Trying to split "market forces" from "cultural value" is, to me, a short-sighted proposition when in the context of art, which, by its inherent existence, doesn't have intrinsic monetary value (unless it's made from precious metals or stones or whatnot, which is a tangential notion of value).
Why is this a problem. If another artist cuts out stuff from a bunch of different magazines and makes a collage, does he owe money to every magazine? That would be absurd. Why should these photos be different?
No.
>and how much they sell for.
Perhaps. I guess it depends on the perspective you're approaching it from. As a use of capital resources in a world of crushing and grinding poverty, I say yes.
As a potential investment: if the someone is willing to pay more in the future then it's not bullshit.
Yes. Murial Gray (scottish broadcaster) has some amazing stuff about this. She had a TV show (Art is Dead, Long Live TV (1991, thus hard to find info about)).
http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/archive/readArticle/677
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Gray
Just as easily as i can make the point that a 100 dollar bill is worth 100 dollars
Because other people believe that to be its value.
It's music, TV shows, movies, posters, novels, games, that amazing dinner you had the other night, expensive stuff hanging in galleries, that goofy widget sitting on your desk, etc.
Art is awesome.
The problem is shitty artists who exploit the talent of others, but otherwise don't contribute much.
There are artists who are born to scheme. The art is the vessel, the craft is the thought. The concept is king and and to be successful is to create tight, conceptually sound pieces. To craft relevant and provoking statements out of abstract language. They better the world through debate and response.
Many successful artists combine the two but it's not a necessity.
I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in.
Therefor, my review of Richard Prince and 6stringmerc's collaboration...
3 out of 5. Deductions made due to the cruelty of your "well-deserved end" bit. Maybe next time consider a scenario in which they are trapped and punished but are given an opportunity to redeem themselves through an exercise of traditional craft. Also a smaller deduction due to your trite invocation of Musk and Bezos. Even the most casual HN comment readers have explored their entrepreneurial motif enough.
Which, according to logic, makes people who successfully provoke others already artists half way. Not a very good definition of art in my opinion...
But it's not like it's an interesting reaction, it's so obvious. It's like when kids say "Hey look at that over there" and then "Made you look" when you look. You don't have a reason not to look, it's maybe funny the first time because it's so stupid but after it's been done over and over (and appropriation has) then there's nothing left. Or like an older brother who maneuvers his siblings hands and then says "Stop hitting yourself". These produce exactly the same reaction as the provocateur is intending but it's not an interesting reaction at all.
Personally, I think the only reason that this guy is famous is because some very wealthy people chose him specifically because he can generate an endless stream of his art so that they can buy and trade them to make more money. The art is an investment for them and has no aesthetic value.
So far, none of the women Prince stole images from have sued him -- but one of them, a user by the name of “Missy Suicide”, has done something even better: she’s begun selling (wait for it) photos of Prince’s photo of her original photo. While Prince’s version sold for $90,000, she offers hers for a mere $90; all proceeds have been donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that fights to preserve digital content rights.
I'm going with the former.
Also, I don't like him or his concept of art. Maybe if he was donating most of the proceeds to charity with enough to make a living.
The ease of reproduction, which photography heralded more than a hundred years ago, only helps reveal this fiction to those still held in its thrall.
The cognitive dissonance between a nascent realization of lack of ownership and the belief in the fiction of ownership causes outrage, particularly in those who benefit from the fiction.
As for achieving economic security off of making art, that is a reality only for a very lucky and very tiny minority of artists. The overwhelming majority of those who benefit from art are the middle men.
We should carefully consider as a society whether we want to enable the middle men and a handful of lucky artists at the expense of almost all artists and the rest of society, who could well benefit from free and unfettered access to earlier cultural products.
Also, I'm not sure whether this applies specifically to Prince, but this clause in the instagram policy would seem to suggest that Prince is at least violating Instagram's policy:
He may not "believe" in copyright (though it would be awesome if someone took a photo of his "work" and what his reaction would be), but he sure as hell knows that it wouldn't survive through court.
He just doesn't care, though. "Even if they didn't give me permission, I'd do it anyway."
Such a rebel.
If only some random user took one of those images, and then he re-stole it without noticing until too late...
Also, I'm not sure how you can claim that "his work stands up as not infringement"; to my knowledge, he hasn't been sued over this so these pieces haven't been put to any legal test.
There is a common idea when faced with abstract or conceptual art that "I could do that," or "my kid could do that." Usually though, you couldn't. I don't find the arguments in the article very convincing – to my eye he appears to be producing original works of art.
I was talking about this with a friend, and she said if that was sufficiently transformative for fair use to apply, then one could simply write notes in the margin of a book, call it art, and claim ownership of the book's contents.
Maybe when creators see that, they will stop living their dream that at some point their things will magically sell and focus either on selling if they are in it for the money or on creating if they are in it for creating. And copyright will gradually become obsolete.
I think it would improve both selling and creating.
EDIT: I'm sorry if this came off as aggressive, but somebody's downvoted me without answering my question. I seriously want to know why his actions are so terrible. What harm does this cause to anyone?