Richard Prince's 'Instagrams' - Maybe legal, but morally deprived?

Cameron

Cameron

Established
Local time
10:32 AM
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
188
Location
Brooklyn, NY
View My Gallery
Schjeldahl-Prince-Instagram-1-690.jpg

Possible cogent responses to the show include naughty delight and sincere abhorrence. My own was something like a wish to be dead—which, say what you want about it, is the surest defense against assaults of postmodernist attitude. Come to think of it, death provides an apt metaphor for the pictures: memento mori of perishing vanity. Another is celestial: a meteor shower of privacies being burnt to cinders in the atmosphere of publicity. They fall into contemporary fame—a sea that is a millimetre deep and horizon-wide.
Click to expand...


Source: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/richard-princes-instagrams

There's a thread on Reddit that's currently discussing the legitimacy and legality of Prince's 'Instagrams' work. I'm curious to know what you RFF'ers think? Is this bordering copyright infringement laws? Is Richard Prince an arrogant, masturbatory asshole?

P.S. browsed/searched the forum for this topic, didn't see it anywhere. If it exists somewhere else, please mods, feel free to delete.
 
I couldn't even finish the article. The works are so boring that they can't even be talked about in an interesting way.

I'll just say this: stupid people give stupid people money for stupid things.
 
A few years back a German artist did something similar with photos harvested from flickr. There was quite a bit of an uproar within flickr at the time, still, I don't think he got noticed by any art critic, let alone the New Yorker's one. 🙄

...Possible cogent responses to the show include naughty delight and sincere abhorrence. My own was something like a wish to be dead—which, say what you want about it, is the surest defense against assaults of postmodernist attitude. Come to think of it, death provides an apt metaphor for the pictures: memento mori of perishing vanity...
Click to expand...

Wonderful. 😀

.
 
Schjeldahl made an apt comment years ago, in regards to Jeff Koons: Each age gets the artists it deserves.

To engage some works as humanist works of art, with attendant meanings and significance concerning the human spirit or condition, will lead to banging your head against the wall. But as distillations of certain elements in the contemporary culture, with all the attendant meaning of Vonnegut's summation of alcohol- yeast sh*t- can allow for enough detachment to not be swallowed by the pathos of today.
 
tunalegs said:
I couldn't even finish the article. The works are so boring that they can't even be talked about in an interesting way.

I'll just say this: stupid people give stupid people money for stupid things.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. Stupid people give SMART people money for stupid things. The fact that they end up with the money demonstrates their intelligence.

Cheers,
Dez
 
It isn't art to some of us, to some - it is. Otherwise, he wouldn't be given a time of day. It is like with any collectable item, which is worth exactly how much someone is willing to pay for it. Apparently, there are some people out there, who think his work needs to be seen in a gallery and written about in New Yorker. I am not one of them, but who am I to judge?
 
35mmdelux said:
what is the beef?
Click to expand...

I think people are supposed to be confounded/stupified/shocked/indignant that he is "taking pictures" of pictures other people made, and then calling it art.

I think if one is going to do that they should at least take pictures of interesting pictures. 🙂
 
cy·no·sure/ˈsīnəˌSHo͝or,ˈsin-/


noun
  1. a person or thing that is the center of attention or admiration.
This is a new word I learned from the New Yorker article. Art-appropriation -- just call it what it is -- stealing. Whatever, I have more important things to worry about like breakfast-appropriation -- which I intend to do forthwith.
 
Gagosian gallery's not an illegitimate operation. They do big, museum-quality shows - currently of Peter Lindbergh, Dennis Hopper and Helen Frankenthaler (color 1962-1963, curated by John Elderfield, former curator at MoMA).

If nothing else, the Ricard Prince works (Princeograms?) are very handsomely mounted – as demonstrated here:

http://www.gagosian.com/current
 
... I've always kept scrapbooks, but never thought they'ed be worth exhibiting ... but I suppose appropriation handsomely mounted in a Madison Av gallery makes it Fine Art .... I wonder if the gallery enforces their copyright
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom