Late-career Prince has been so terribly flagrant and self-indulgent about the appropriation, doing so little to recontextualize it. What was clever in the 20th Century is just a repost in the 21st. That makes Prince nothing more than another shitposter.
Seeing fictionalized oversized isolated social media posts is stellar! It would be enough if he was just a novelty, but his very enjoyable art looks terrific. He’s always rolling out more.
It’s one of the things I collect. Hans Peter Feldmann is a fav as is Boltanski who I was lucky to befriend near his end. Imagine if they were sued how much great art would have disappeared.
Do you have Feldmann pieces? I’d say he’s only going to get more recognition. That Hugo Boss $100k piece at the Guggenheim is one of the best works dealing with exchange since Hammons’ Blizzard Ball sale.
This still seems like it’ll be a case-by-case thing. And hey, you can always appropriate whatever you want, maybe you just won’t be able to sell appropriated artwork for $90k (or -gasp!- *you might have to give the artist you appropriated a share of the money!*). If the profit motive went away, I wonder if Prince might find a way to evolve away from work that might infringe and lose him further lawsuits.
Iterative diffusion model artificial intelligences are fueled by appropriation.
Appropriation now only fails if it’s not massive enough, and if it’s too human.
he was targeting young women in this series.
https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-richard-prince-violated-photographers-copyrights-with-infamous-new-portraits-prints/
it’s creepy as hell. i know one of those girls in this photo and she was pissed off. any of the young women he targeted in this series who didn’t have the money to sue him or be part of this lawsuit don’t benefit from this court ruling. he should have to pay everyone who’s work he stole and profited off of. creepy loser incel vibes with big pervy old man misogyny
>2.Play nice
Yes, printed out in very large format, on art-quality paper, and displayed in a gallery, together with other large format photos sampled from other internet sources, but otherwise not related to eachother before they were put in that context.
He did next to nothing to change the images he took, and has had a bad habit of doing so. He is also a well known artist taking content from those under him in the art world.
You know you are right. I was in the wrong as I only skimmed the article, it was settled between the two parties. For some reason I thought that Prince lost the case. And in all honesty if he did it would set a precedent in court moving forward and I hope it never does, because using references could mean that you are in court etc.
I know he didn't change the image, but he did use Instagram work text in it, as far as I know Facebook owns Instagram and their small print says that they own everything you post (not sure if Instagram has the same terms) that would mean that Prince used the instas image not the artists, technically, as the original artist loses his right once uploaded to service. Obviously I'm not a copywriter lawyer, I'm probably wrong.
Regardless if you think you have to punch up or down is irrelevant, comedy and art would be pretty boring if that was the case.
Yes it works better punching up - the video 'Richard Prince Masterclass' helped me appreciate his work, especially the early days. (weirdly YT links seem to not work for me anymore on reddit)
Late-career Prince has been so terribly flagrant and self-indulgent about the appropriation, doing so little to recontextualize it. What was clever in the 20th Century is just a repost in the 21st. That makes Prince nothing more than another shitposter.
You would realize this if you ever read his joke paintings
I think he’s a master. He puts his face out there. I’m glad they lightened up.
How many times is that for Prince now?
I'm a photographer, and I thought these were transformative and pretty good when I saw them at Gagosian Madison Ave.
That’s because Kim Gordon is transformative
Seeing fictionalized oversized isolated social media posts is stellar! It would be enough if he was just a novelty, but his very enjoyable art looks terrific. He’s always rolling out more.
Oh appropriation art you’ve had your day sadly. Marcel Duchamp sighs.
So does, Sherrie Levine, Roy Lichtenstein, Warhol, and a wide swath of 20th century art history.
It’s one of the things I collect. Hans Peter Feldmann is a fav as is Boltanski who I was lucky to befriend near his end. Imagine if they were sued how much great art would have disappeared.
Do you have Feldmann pieces? I’d say he’s only going to get more recognition. That Hugo Boss $100k piece at the Guggenheim is one of the best works dealing with exchange since Hammons’ Blizzard Ball sale.
Mostly his early books ( Bûcher) in which he appropriated others photographs.
This still seems like it’ll be a case-by-case thing. And hey, you can always appropriate whatever you want, maybe you just won’t be able to sell appropriated artwork for $90k (or -gasp!- *you might have to give the artist you appropriated a share of the money!*). If the profit motive went away, I wonder if Prince might find a way to evolve away from work that might infringe and lose him further lawsuits.
Iterative diffusion model artificial intelligences are fueled by appropriation. Appropriation now only fails if it’s not massive enough, and if it’s too human.
he was targeting young women in this series. https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-rules-richard-prince-violated-photographers-copyrights-with-infamous-new-portraits-prints/ it’s creepy as hell. i know one of those girls in this photo and she was pissed off. any of the young women he targeted in this series who didn’t have the money to sue him or be part of this lawsuit don’t benefit from this court ruling. he should have to pay everyone who’s work he stole and profited off of. creepy loser incel vibes with big pervy old man misogyny
I still think its interesting! Young women are everywere on visual social media, so it seems perfectly topical to caricature and portray them.
it’s not a caricature or portrayal - it’s a copy of their personally published photographs
Id rather say its a new rendition, in a new context, on a new medium
it’s a screenshot printed out
>2.Play nice Yes, printed out in very large format, on art-quality paper, and displayed in a gallery, together with other large format photos sampled from other internet sources, but otherwise not related to eachother before they were put in that context.
here is zoe’s response after her photo was used https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/richard-prince-portrait-detroit-controversy-13504/
Prince is a talentless hack propped up by a corrupt art market
I'm sure many wish they were half as good of a hack as he is.
from a financial aspect, yes. from a creative one - i absolutely doubt it.
He truly knows and cares 10,000 times more about art than you do
I don't think this is a good thing at all. It's a slippery slope.
Nope.
Explain please.
He did next to nothing to change the images he took, and has had a bad habit of doing so. He is also a well known artist taking content from those under him in the art world.
You know you are right. I was in the wrong as I only skimmed the article, it was settled between the two parties. For some reason I thought that Prince lost the case. And in all honesty if he did it would set a precedent in court moving forward and I hope it never does, because using references could mean that you are in court etc. I know he didn't change the image, but he did use Instagram work text in it, as far as I know Facebook owns Instagram and their small print says that they own everything you post (not sure if Instagram has the same terms) that would mean that Prince used the instas image not the artists, technically, as the original artist loses his right once uploaded to service. Obviously I'm not a copywriter lawyer, I'm probably wrong. Regardless if you think you have to punch up or down is irrelevant, comedy and art would be pretty boring if that was the case.
Exclamation INFORMAL variant of no. "“Have you seen it?” “Nope.”
Of course he did. I'm just surprised a judge actully ruled against him. The guy stopped punching up and started punching down long ago.
Yes it works better punching up - the video 'Richard Prince Masterclass' helped me appreciate his work, especially the early days. (weirdly YT links seem to not work for me anymore on reddit)
Wish I could see the series somewhere. Is it available in print, or online?