Richard Prince Smells Bad
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- Richard Prince created quite a stir with his recent exhibition. Prince created a series of images that consisted of Instagram screenshots. Comprised mostly female "selfies" in somewhat suggestive poses, the images have slight alterations to what look like comments. These were printed large and displayed at Gagosian and Frieze.
Photographers have every right to be upset over this, but everyone seems to have ignored the bigger issue - the work is bad. Yes, Appropriation art is a thing. But why does Shepard Fairey get a pass on the Obama "Hope" Poster? What makes Jeff Koons different? Didn't Duchamp already do this with the toilet? What was so great about Andy Warhol's soup can prints?
Prince is recycling easy, overdone concept art. And when people get upset, they're playing right into the concept.
Subscribe for more videos!
www.youtube.com...
Watch More Episodes:
Is Photography Art?
• Harold Feinstein :: Is...
What Is A Photograph?
• What Is A Photograph?
Should I Work For Free?
• Should I Work For Free?
Twitter: / tedforbes
Instagram: / tedforbes
Facebook: / aop.podcast
Pinterest: / tedforbes
Website: theartofphotogr...
And get on our mailing list to stay up to date on photography news and the latest episodes:
theartofphotogr...
Thanks for watching - if you like this video, remember to share it with your friends!
Ted Forbes
The Art of Photography
3100 Main St #135
Dallas, Texas 75226
My name is Ted Forbes and I make videos about photography. I’ve been making photographs most of my life and I have a tremendously deep passion for photography that I want to share with you on TH-cam.
The Art of Photography is my channel and I produce photography videos to provide a 360 degree look into the world of making images. We all want to get better so lets do this together!
I make videos covering famous photographers, photography techniques, composition, the history of photography and much more.
I also have a strong community of photographers who watch the show and we frequently do social media challenges for photographers to submit their own work. I feature the best and most interesting on the show when we do these so come check it out and get involved!
So come check it out! If you’re a fan of DigitalRev, Fro Knows Photo (Jared Polin), Matt Grainger (That Nikon Guy) or Tony Northrup - you’ll love The Art of Photography. I make video’s giving you a deeper dive into photography techniques, composition and history to compliment the other channels you love to watch.
Hi, Ted.
Interesting episode indeed. I want to respond to a couple of things that you said in a roundabout manner.
One thing I find frustrating with some pro photographers (often those who shoot film) is the perceived need that they project to create a caste system for photographers. They posture and position themselves at the top of a flowchart... and then berate the rest of the photographic herd for not embodying the decades of voluminous knowledge/experience that they have in the field. They will go on and on about how crappy photography got after Minolta implemented AF (auto-focus) in their cameras in 1985.
I'm also an educator and have done so for a couple of decades. The thing that pi$$e$ me off the most is when other teachers/instructors/mentors take students who are keen/talented/latently-gifted... and kill or cripple their passion by weighing them down with technical skills TO THE NEGLECT of equally nurturing their budding artistic 'soul'. It is shameful how many people leave the arts because of narcissistic or egomaniacal instructors/mentors.
Yes, of course technical skills are required to operate a camera and to understand how photons (light!) impacts subjects and objects. Do we want students shooting in Manual mode on their cameras as often as possible? Yes, that seems reasonable... because I can teach/assist/serve students who feel that their unique angle on life and reality can be incorporated in their artistic expression. How can I assist people on their journey if they quit school because of an exceedingly demanding teacher/instructor? I can't. Will students be able to recover all the money they spent on education when they begin working in the industry? Many won't... because the number of jobs in the field in total has shrunk each of the last tens years.
In steps Richard Prince.
I think Richard Prince did this to show how absurd the 'art scene' really is... and to grab bags of cash for himself while doing so. It is our concept of what solely defines a 'successful artist' ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$) that should come into question more often. Prince simply re-purposed images from other people and was able to use his cult-of-personality branding to assign significant monetary value to the work. It's almost as absurd as an artist canning their own feces/crap and selling it as "serious art":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
To the degree that Americans tolerate a very small group of people making absurdly large amounts of money (e.g., CEO's, sports stars, pop stars, etc.) then people like Richard Prince can literally bank on those same people 'investing' in his work (because none of them would say that they are simply 'buying' them). Prince also gets to mock and ridicule the rich at the same time that he gets to pocket lots of money doing so... and that is actually quite funny on its own.
I really love the fact that you didn't just say it's crap, you looked at his work objectively (or as much as you can with art) and brought up the real problem.
I think the work is great. As you said, artists have been working with this idea of re-contextualization for a while now, and just like most other art practices, it evolves over time. Richard Prince exhibits the most modern rendition of that-many people scroll through Instagram every day, and it has the same level of familiarity as Duchamp’s urinal. A good artist knows how to strip away the familiarity of an object or subject so that only it’s conceptual value remains, and Prince did that in this series. If anything, the series represents a deep level of artistic awareness & is a logical next step in the “art of appropriation” as he calls it. You also mentioned its “obviousness”, but also pointed out that the obvious is a common theme among top artists. Most artists will shy away from doing the obvious & go for something more obscure, which is why the “obvious” in art is the braver & more difficult thing to do.
If you strip away the familiarity of an object, what remains is not the 'conceptual value' it is rather a 'therapeutical value', i.e. an experience of alienation - observing yourself through the eyes of a stranger. Knowing how the art-system works is one thing, but to actually make art, there also has to be a mission. I don't think Richard Prince wants to make a comment on the artworld (as Duchamp, and also the conceptual artists of the 60s did); he makes a comment on contemporary society, by simply mirroring its self-description.
This is exactly how I learned to speak when I went to art school. They made sure we knew how to defend the laziest most irritating conceptual garbage with a hose of meaningless artsy jargon then send us out in the world like Mormon missionaries. It's cult-think for the talentless art school students who just want so much to be real artists. There's no art here and there's no such thing as an artist without a single discernible talent.
This reminds me of a live "show" by an alternative hip-hop group called Death Grips. What happened is that the group was supposed to perform at Lollapalooza 2013 festival, the crowd was gathered in front of the stage waiting for the show to begin, and the performers just didn't show up. The fans got mad, climbed up onto the stage and destroyed a bunch of the group's equipment. Later on, after the dust settled, the group claimed that that _was_ the show, that them not showing up was intentional, and that the crowd's reaction was exactly what they wanted to provoke.
Like you said, it's not like this hasn't been done several times before.
Joonas Puuppo John Cage did the same thing with his solo piano piece "4:33" - theres no notes its just silence with a guy sitting at the piano.
I've got no problem with conceptual work - it can be interesting. But like you said - so much of this is done over and over and its not interesting anymore. Its too easy to orchestrate (pun intended). But it gets attention every time.
The Art of Photography It didn't occur to me to put "4:33" to the same category as the other two examples and I'm not quite sure why that is. For some reason, I've always found Cage's piece really interesting and it doesn't provoke negative emotions in me at all whereas I find the Richard Prince exhibition and the Death Grips show kind of offensive.
Joonas Puuppo That's what I find interesting. In spite of all the information at our fingertips and knowledge of past "exhibitions" we really fall for it every time and cannot learn. We react to the collective no differently than ants all the time holding ourselves to elevated estimations of individuality and evolution of consciousness. The joke is on us.
Fuck yeah death grips
@@theartofphotography lmao...that's not what 4:33 is
Just on, "it has been done": Yes it has been done. An idea needs to get developed and put into a contemporary context to fit with the zeitgeist. Duchamp was just the initiator of an idea and Richard Prince is one of the contemporary artists developing his idea. Why get upset because he didn't reinvent the wheel? What does your portraits make more valuable than the portraits of other (perhaps even older) photographers?
Thanks for taking the time to talk about it Ted. Now that I understand that we gave this more time and attention than we should have, I understand the context and the back story about appropriation art much better now :)
Brian Anderson well I probably wouldn't have done this show if you and I hadn't discussed ;-)
The Art of Photography I'm glad you did it. I really respect your knowledge and experience with art and photography. If I were to compare your segment here on it to all the other blogs and reporting on it you blow them away my friend ;)
It might be an old idea, but it's an old idea in a completely new context. The internet is a strange place, particularly for someone who grew up without it (ie older than 30). What I haven't seen addressed is the notion that this work was made by someone who is (presumably) relatively out of touch (based on age, status etc) with with current internet (and not internet, although everything is connected to the internet anyway, so maybe the difference is subtle at best) subcultures, viewing them from an alternate perspective. It might be 'shock art' to some extent, just trying to cause controversy (and let's face it, a successful artist is going to sell pieces for large amounts of money regardless), but it's also about Prince's personal relationship and understanding about the year 2014/15, and in particular the 21st century woman, as well as his relationship with women in the past (if you actually read his 'comments' under each picture). As someone who is young, observational and has basically grown with the internet, I find it fascinating to see how other people see what I see. I think this work, and the debate it has sparked has demonstrated that the internet is still quite alien, and that's why I find this work really interesting, relevant and worthwhile.
I know I'm two years lat on this video. But:
a) What makes you absolutely sure that this act was made top shock people?
b) Picasso's line drawings were very fresh at that time and quite playful, so calling them 'lazy' is a lazy and misled piece of analysis.
No one complains of the 15 different types of water bottle brands. No one even thinks about it. No one complains about the 8bil people on the planet yet we're all just copied entities. Repetition is a respected form of photography but we draw the line at taking a photo of a photo, but don't complain about taking a photo of Time Square that literally has 100s of photos of photos. In fact we celebrate those photographers, but theirs a fine line when you get too close. I think Ai is the next step in this form of appropriation.
Hi Ted,
You make some interesting points in the video, and I appreciate the thorough analysis of Appropriation Art and of Prince's career leading up to this piece. However I do disagree with some of your reasoning as to what makes this piece mediocre. While you say that he didn't even try, I would argue that he did. The fact that, like you said, the piece was designed to be hated and create so much controversy is evidence alone of his effort.
But even if this piece was really made with no effort, is effort or technical skill really a good measure for assigning value to a work of art? Is that not the same critique used against Jackson Pollock, or John Cage? (The list goes on). Is it not the same critique made against many works of contemporary art? Today's gallery visitor might walk up to such a piece. Offended at its place in the museum, they scoff "my 4 year old could have made that". But if making these works was so easy, then why didn't anyone else do it already? We are told it is the *idea* that counts, the originality of the idea.
And I think that is what makes this piece great. He is challenging the very idea of the original idea so highly prized in conceptual art.
And not only does he challenge the *conceptual idea* by bringing it to such an extreme that we might call it lazy, he does so in a distinctly contemporary way, highlighting a major issue that most viewers can relate to.
According to Pew Research, 81% of Americans own a smartphone as of 2019. And with approximately 112,000 Americans using Instagram (about 1/3 of the US's population), a lot of people feel somewhat implicated. I think that's what makes it so controversial, and such a good work of art. If he can take those people's images and profit off of them, then who's to say that people can't steal MY images and profit off of them? Well, the fact is corporations are doing that already, and you agreed to it when you agreed to their Terms and Conditions. Anything you post publicly, including what I am doing right now, can be downloaded, stored in databases for analysis. Any time you open one of these apps, billionaires are profiting off of your attention; every swipe is harvested and sold, usually without your knowledge. Well, actually... you did sign that 100 page agreement when you signed up for Instagram... But you didn't worry about it, because no one reads that crap, right? If we did read it, we would have known that our posts can be used by anyone.
While you could argue that this piece makes no effort, or that it is bad because it steals from and profits off of innocent people, I think that is negated by what it reveals about our online culture. Our intellectual property is dictated by these agreements no one reads that are written by corporations like Facebook who have no other motive but maximum profit at the sake of your property and dignity. And these companies, mostly run by white men, can censor whoever they want and enact their own agendas in the name of profit, like Instagram censoring people's nipples, censoring political groups, censoring anything deemed by them to be inappropriate. And despite your contributions, you don't own any of their profits, you don't have any say in their rules, and you no longer own your images. People should be directing their discontent towards the companies whose Privacy Policies allowed this to happen, not the person who revealed their flaws.
And in this way I think this piece was hugely successful. Looking back, the public eye has paid much more attention to the way tech companies are using and profiting off of our data, which is evident in recent legislation such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, an attempt to give consumers more control over privacy and the sale of their data.
While viewers may lament the artist's lack of effort and excess of profit, I think that what a lot of people really hate is the fact that they didn't think of it first because of how stupidly simple it is. I don't think it's "done to death," I think the concepts it provokes are as relevant as ever. It's pretty brilliant, and quite hilarious that these same billionaires who profit off of us using their apps are spending so much on these.
I agree with you that we're all playing into the concept of the piece by blowing it up. I'm not a huge Richard Prince fan, and this piece isn't really my cup of tea, but I think it's valuable nonetheless. It's nice to hear your opinion on this. Thanks for the great video as always
Thanks for taking the time to write this comment. I agree. I thought his Instagram art is brilliant. It has magnified the issues regarding images on social media, literally and figuratively. It also makes us ponder fame, now that it is available for anyone with a social media account. It is a continuation of ideas Warhol has played around with many decades ago.
I agree it's mediocre. What really interests me is who are the people who would pay that much for such mediocrity? Really, who area they? I want their emails because I have plenty of mediocre photos I could sell to them! ;-)
mavfan1 It's not an aesthetical or cultural endorsment, it's pure busyness. Here's the trick: if you invest 90k today, riding the wave of controversy and attention, within 2 or 3 years you can sell the piece on auction recouping the investment and making a good profit on it because it's a sure deal, since Prince is such a huge name in the art market. Big names get auctioned very often, and it's auction houses, big collectors and and marginally galleries that set the trends nowdays, not museums. Millionaires, secretly cooperating with auction houses, stir the "taste" of the market to their liking, according the collection they have. It's like being able to pump up the value of the shares you posess. If you're interested in this topic i suggest you to look at the Robert Huges "The Mona Lisa Course" documentary, very well made and informative.
I totally agree. It’s pushing buttons art. He figured out how to push buttons create controversy get famous and make a lot of money. I don’t see artistic talent, I see marketing talent.
Reminds me also of one of the greatest, intelligent and aware American comedians, George Carlin. In his prime, that being at his most popular and known and followed, he came on stage and got about ten minutes of laughter by saying, Nothing. He held the tension with silent expression and kept the audience waiting, I don't recall whether he was jeered or cheered by critics.
What bothers you is how the world works, but his work does the job perfectly well.
i'm indifferent to it, and I do think our obsession with copyright is passe. but yeah just ignore it, it's an entirely larger can of worms if we try to reject it on the bounds of copyright or consent. and I don't think we should necessarily say it's crap or overdone either, it's dangerous in that how is traditionalist art not overdone either? and unfortunately you can't legislate on aesthetics alone.
I really like this series by Richard Prince! The collection delves into intricate questions regarding intellectual property, authenticity, authorship, appropriation, and the dynamic between text/image in our digital era. This body of work boldly challenges conventional perceptions of authorship and artistic ownership. Prince diverges from the conventional creative process, neither originating the images himself nor possessing distribution rights. Instead, he just comments on them after carefully picking each one, sparking the question: by commenting, do I become a part of the work? (take the example of some memes where the comment is more important than the picture)
Furthermore, Prince employs a meticulous curation process, recontextualizing the images within the confines of a gallery space. It's worth noting his visual craft in harmonizing their colors, ensuring a consistent tonal palette. This effort significantly contributes to the overall visual impact ad graphical work.
The series also exposes a dual appropriation, involving both the artist and the art world. This narrative casts a revealing light on the life cycle of images as they are generated, disseminated, and consumed across social media platforms. This exploration delves into the profound implications of the culture of appropriation within the realm of art.
Predictably, Prince's work has not escaped criticism, with some individuals even considering legal action. Nevertheless, his work undeniably raises an important cultural question that often goes unnoticed: Are we in the midst of a paradigm shift that necessitates the redefinition of authorship in the digital age? (also take example of everything that is happening online, images roam free, anyone can take anything, and that is the question that mainly arises here in this artwork). Furthermore, it's important to explore the new values that arose with the internet and their connection to appropriation within the online sphere. This adds another layer to the discourse surrounding Prince's series and the broader conversation about digital culture and art.
Amidst all the huffing and puffing about this exhibition, it's good to hear a reasoned critique: thank you Ted.
the fact is that you do not own any thing you put out, especialy online. i can find your facebook and save ever photo of you family, print them out and put them on a gallery wall. the internet is public.
This is a fascinating topic. I'm in my first year of an art photography degree course, so really, still very naive on the subject (by the way, I find your videos far more informative and helpful than any contact I get from my tutor).
I've always taken the view that if art is able to provoke a reaction, be it positive or negative, then it is good art. By that definition, Prince's 'work' which I'd agree strikes me as cheap, lazy and crappy, is also very clever and good, because it makes me mad for being so crap.
So I find myself not so mad... but that kind of becomes a cyclic thing, because if I'm not so mad, maybe it's not so good... and round and round we go.
BenwaysWorld I hope you think differently now lol. There’s nothing good about this and you don’t have to wrestle with that. The only reason why people were moved is because they were offended. He stole from people. It’s disgusting. He did it for attention.
There are so many ways to “provoke a reaction.” If I scream in your ear when you’re asleep, that will provoke a reaction. That doesn’t make it good art.
galleries and museums deciding to show such "art" is another side of the problem
My suggestion on that controversy may not have gone unnoticed because one photographer did follow part of it. Here's what I initially said:
"It would be interesting if the original authors of the photographs stands together and re-modify slightly Richard Prince's modified photos and sell them back to Worldwide magazine - the benefits being sent to some charity organizations.
I am sure some Art Magazines would volunteer to draw attention to this nonsense.
Who knows, the newly modified versions could sell for more or diminish the number of prints that Richard Prince sells afterwards."
But you are right, nobody did talk about the quality of the assumed "artwork" here.
We may brag about "copyrights" but without Richard Prince's interventions, these images would have stayed relatively "unknown" from any "art context". It is the controversy around those that create the "market".
I have found a nice article in Wikipedia about "Appropriation Art" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29
I would like to refer your followers to the "Appropriation Art and copyright" section. There you will learned interesting facts. While there have been many lawsuits against these "Appropriation Art" artists, it is interesting how Andy Warhol's famous "Campbell Soup's Cans" were judged compared to other works of that genre.
I learned quite a few things there…
Thanks Ted for offering us, your followers, a great diversity of subject matters and shedding the light on them.
Ive just read that one of the original instagram posters is selling their image for $90 and the profits go to charity, I think all of those involved should do the same. Cheers, jon
The subject of selfies and contemporary online narcissism is great. Using "real" images is a very logical idea. Asking for permission would have changed the whole concept (think of "stolen moments" in street photography). The execution looks just as ugly as Instagram does online. Prince injects himself into the comments mirroring the narcissism and altering reality. Altogether far from mediocre. Far from boring.
I totally agree Ted that the fact that the work is so "easy" and mediocre is the problem. Beyond the controversial aspects of the work, as an artist I just want to see better more thought provoking work. It's discouraging to hear how such blatantly "easy" work is making some one a shit ton of money. Another example as to why most people are turned off by the "business" of art. To me it's like a musician who cranks out easy, cheesy songs, but because they are sexy and controversial they get more fans.
Every one is an artist who believes they are an artist 📸
I'm starting to feel, that it's not really about "stealing", if it was made by some John Doe, who would show them in some s-hole gallery in the middle of nowhere and wouldn't sell them, then no one would care. But it was someone famous, exhibition became success, and - what's worse - he sells prints for big money.
Also, did he ever claim somewhere, that those are his photos? All Instagram usernames are intact in those prints, am I right? And some Instagramers - like SuicideGirls - are handling this situation perfectly and actively using it for they advantage. Have you read their statement? Here's a part of it: "As to the copyright issue? If I had a nickel for every time someone used our images without our permission in a commercial endeavour I’d be able to spend $90,000 on art. I was once really annoyed by Forever 21 selling shirts with our slightly altered images on them, but an Artist?
Richard Prince is an artist and he found the images we and our girls publish on instagram as representative of something worth commenting on, part of the zeitgeist, I guess? Thanks Richard!".
There are also funny things about that situation, nightcoregirl (one of Instagramers, whose photo he used) commented, that her mother stopped thinking about her photos as slutty, since they are "verified" by an artist. :D
As far as this last exhibition goes, I wouldn't call him an Artist, more sociological experimentator, cause that's what it is, not an art, just experiment. He tweets negative articles about himself, he supports Suicide Girls and their idea of selling his prints of their photos, he also sends his prints to people who's photos he used, if they ask him.
It's all strange and hard to cope with, starting with exhibition and ending with all the backlash. Maybe instead of talking about him ans his exhibition, we should at last start to calmly talk about general concept of art, photography and copyrights, because nothing really changed since 19c. in that manner, although world changed vastly.
BartolomeJacinto Instagram usernames are intact. Each piece has a comment from richardprince4 on the bottom line.
DuChamp took a toilet and presented as art
Prince took instagram photos and presented them as DuChamp's toilet
Being famous or well known doesn't give you license to be mediocre. I am not so sure, that a angry slash negative reaction is what he is looking for. I think he just knows he can sell this crap for big bucks.
There's a new exhibition in London which speaks to the same 'appropriation art.'
It's not photography related, but Jason File received £5000 to make a piece of art. He spent £4999 on gallery space and promotion. The remaining £1 is on display.
From the press release; "File poses questions about the symbolic, commodity, and exchange values of both currency and works of art, and the complex and often fraught relationship between the two"
There's more here www.theryderprojects.com/jason-file-an-ornament-and-a-safeguard.html
With the gift of hindsight, I think the work is pretty good
I watch your photography videos all the time. I just found this one and it hit home. My daughter's image was taken off Instagram, 'transformed' by putting a patch on it and was part of your referenced exhibit. She was made aware of it by an employee of the gallery. It sold for £98,500 or about $150,000.00, of which she got not a penny. She said that the photographers who sued, based on copyright, all lost. I've often wondered how a model would do. I told her that i thought the least the model should get would be a signed Polaroid-sized mini-print. Again, enjoy your videos.
the people coming to look at themselves IS the art, you making this video IS part of his art -- he put you in his art hahha
now you're in mine
This is the most succinct and accurate summary of the situation I've seen so far.
Had he called it "The Emperors New Clothes" then I would get the point of the work - it's a story by Hans Christian Andersen from 1837, and the point of it is very relevant even today.
I always had mixed feelings about certain pieces of contemporary art, but felt that if iconic artists such as Duchamp had a chance why shouldn't they? But you are so right. The importance of Duchamp's work was rooted on how shocking and unprecedented it was. Because finally, the art in Duchamp was its concept and not the piece itself, and such pieces nowadays just wear out the idea, which was originally the whole essence of the art. I completely agree! Please make more videos on contemporary art!
so you'd like to see more videos that agree with what you already thought?
Nice video. As for Prince... Meh... Apparently he changed some comments underneath the photos which means it's not a copyright infringement, but I didn't really investigate that. There's nothing really special about the images I've seen, there's nothing really special about recycling work of other people (or stealing it, if somebody prefers that term) so it seems the value of prints is based solely on the artist's name and maybe a bit of a PR stunt.
David Meyer Maybe I would have liked his work if the comments would have been a bigger part of it. I think sometimes Art is about being a mirror and making us thinking about our current social trends and behavior, but unfortunately this didn't really work in this case. He could have made something interesting out of instagram photos, comments and their likes that makes us think about it, but he didn't.
***** That's true, I don't really see how this sort of project would be thought provoking, comment on the society etc. It is just focused on the artist and the controversy. And it's not like it has a lot of shock value either.
David Meyer I read elsewhere that some of the "subjects" were notorious for copyright infringement themselves. If that were the case, then these could be stealing the copyright of people who steal copyright, which could be an artistic comment on society
However, as Mr.Forbes says in the video, it is not really done well, it is not really original, and it is not really good.
To carry the baseball analogy, (and to give Richard Prince probably more credit than is due) it is a swing and a miss....
Alan Klughammer Agreed
I don't know him or his work. I understand that this has been done and understand that because of who he is its so expensive. I dont get modern art and probably never will but when i see pieces in person i can appreciate it.
I think appropriation art is a class of its own. Is it tasteless, is it intelligent, all of that’s subjective and really doesn’t matter. Richard Prince exhibit has done exactly what it intended “are designed to prompt discussions about context, ownership, and originality.” Personally, I think whenever you get the exact reaction you wanted (the hype and the debate over copyright in this case) its a win for the artist.
Someone will come and claim "but it's art guys, art makes you discuss stuff and this made you discuss stuff so it's 2deep4u art you twerps".
I also have a problem with the other side of the equation, that being the people that buy this art. Is art only valuable in monetary value these days? I really don't see how anyone would spend that ind of money on any of these for any other reason that its possible value increase.
And side note, Dadaism and Marcel Duchamp's work came at a time when art was this rigid and almost redundant in content statement, and challenged that. Richard Prince's "art" only challenges a set of not understood and ambiguous copyright laws and maybe even the concept of theft.
Anyway, thanks for the episode, good summary of the situation.
Calling this work mediocre is a compliment in my book. To me it’s just lazy, uninspired and devoid of passion. It’s irritating that other artists with much better ideas that put their heart and soul into their work are unsung and struggle to pay their bills while this hack makes money hand over fist.
Ever heard of false sales. I bet he's sold most of the works to people who were in on the joke he is playing. Prince is definitely taking it all for a laugh, because in a sense we all do have a stiff upper lip but we're missing the fact he's actually bullying the image and goals of the artist.
So when I say people in on the joke, I wouldn't be surprised if one sale went to a friend. I also wouldn't be surprised if to him it was "funny" that someone out of the circle bought it totally from speculative hype.
Despite what media makes us believe, unless you are in the top threshold of popular media, it isn't a speculative market, you need to be talented and you need to respect others. It amazes me that despite the odds he made it through to where he is without those things, then again - it's reciprocal - he has them in another way.
It isn't fair to say that this kind of work has been done to death. If it had we wouldn't be talking about it... for better or for worse the idea still has life.
Oscar Maguire I'd respectfully disagree. Duchamp did Fountain in 1917. Its historically relevant and over the years made a ton of money. After Duchamp, artists realized that creating controversy is good for PR and selling work. The business side of the idea still has life - and will for a while. The intellectual quality of the idea is almost 100 years old, its easy to go to and I argue has no life. You're certainly entitled to your opinion - I respect that. Richard Prince has some dedicated fans. He is a legit name in the art world, I think he's capable of better work. This series is not it. The idea of getting people to ask "is this art" will always get a reaction, especially when the work is offensive to some degree to someone. Seeing it over and over is not interesting.
The takeaway, Prince is selling his rephotographs for a $100,000 a piece.....full stop.
To me...calling him anything close to an artist/creativily minded is like saying Kim Kardashian is an author and writer. Just my view. Love the show!
At least andy warhol didn't go into a shop, steal a tin of soup and then sell it for 90K.
This is something that is really off putting for me in the genre of modern art, artists making easy money by just aiming to be as controversial as possible; works of art that aim to only work on a passing level to instil base emotions from the audience.
They then go on to be like this example and gain attention only to increase the amount of works like these being created. It seems to be a lucrative cycle which appeals to a very certain audience within the art community, one with money it seems!
***** Agreed - its too bad. No one will call anyone out on bad work for some reason.
Postmodern*,and the artists dont dictate the prices,this is a Gagosian/rich bored assholes problem.
There is a another 2 points...
Today many people appropriate images, music and video in search of likes or fans for their social media, perhaps this work also makes sense about copyright infringement in a way..
About the work, I can comment on only one thing, we are here discussing and reflecting on ... only this reason already makes the work have a value as a work of art
Sorry about my english its not so good ;)
I'm not too fussed about whether it's good or bad. All I care about is the legality of it. From my non lawyer brain this seem utterly illegal and blatant copywrite. Can someone explain to me how it's not illegal? What would be the defense in court?
hey, i wanna ask how do we screenshoot the post to be displayed like Richard did? I mean, do we just use the ordinary screen capture apps? I use iphone 4. and the screen would not display the whole thing like that, with the caption thingy. i really appreciate if you reply to this. thanks, Ted
Great show, Ted. Well, what is art...? You know, being a musician, playing mostly 18 and 19th c. music, if a composer of today asks me if I would be interested in his/her work, I usually ask, a bit ironically but serious at the same time, if he/she could show me first something that is written in a classical style, one that implements a lot of 'grammar', for instance a 4-voice fugue in the style of J.S.Bach. That might seem a strange question, but if someone is not 'mastering' the skills, if the new work is written in the modern style (meaning: no style, no rules), I only dive into that if the composer shows that this way of style (or non-style) development is made deliberately, and not out of lack of technical skills or education. You know, the abstracts of Piet Mondriaan, you like them or not, can easily be judged, since he has done real classic paintings as well. His primary colour-abstracts were based upon a huge path of self-search, with great technical fundamentals out of which he only had to choose from. I guess that is much more difficult to judge with photography. You cannot ask somebody to make a picture of Half Dome in Adams' style...
That’s snobbery and classism.
I really like Prince's Marlboro Man photos. I'm not sure Sam Abell did though!
But in the end, his lawyers, even if any of the people in this exhibition have good lawyers, they will get an out of court settlement, for probably $10,000. IF THAT!
I'm not sure about Instagram's ownership of photos, i think i read that all photos belong to Instagram once you upload them. So, i'm not sure.
rorrt :( take someone else’s photos: sell them.
If we accept that Art in itself is a concept which exists purely because it was at some point invented by humans, then Conceptual art could therefore be described as a concept of a concept. Is seeking the very limits of this conceptuality and making fun of it (is that what he is doing?) then also art or is it anti-art (which will at one point be considered art again... )? A small number of influential art bobo's decides what is art and apparently someone decided that, yes sir, it is art! Hooray!
As with regards to the price that people are willing to pay for these things, as long as the market principles are used as the basis for determining the value of a work of art, you will always find people who will pay for anything you throw at them.
Do I think this is art? I'm not an art bobo unfortunately nor have I studied art at university, so I am probably not qualified to answer this question!
It challenges the ostentation motif behind these users. It recalls Roland Barthes' objectification process with post-capitalist dilemas and exposes the nature of copyrights. It got you inevitably talking about it and it will have its place in history as depicts a phenomena you are part of.
How do you define easy?
I think the work itself is an interesting recontextualization of social media. We are so used to seeing selfies taken on iPhones, we barely given them a second thought. Does the environment of the work itself influence our attitude about that work? Suddenly, when it's in a gallery, you are inclined to view it more charitably, to ponder it, when in your Facebook feed you would just scroll past it without a second glance. Does it mean anything because it's in a gallery? It brings up interesting questions about the meaning of meaning, and I think the social media aspect of it gives it a different spin than Duchamp's work. I think it's a bit reductive to call Prince's project merely a "regurgitation".
Plus, on as aesthetic level, the images looks nice blown up like that (so far as I can tell from this video, that is), as contrasted to how crummy or run-of-the-mill they can look on a tablet or laptop screen. Which, again, brings up an interesting point about how we have such common access to amazing devices that even careless images taken to show off how good you are looking on a particular day can look like art when put on a canvas. I think it's getting at something about the role of the artist in the making of art. If technology makes it so that we are almost accidentally creating beautiful and worthwhile images, images which can be interpreted as "art" without the creator having intended it, it makes the role of the intentional artist seem almost absurd by comparison. I suspect that's not something any professional photographer wants to think about.
The only problem I have with it is that he's using the work of others. Even if he's not legally in the wrong, it's still unethical. If Prince had gotten permission first, I wouldn't take issue with the exhibition at all.
Love the comment on the copyright issue Ted...probally a copyright issue against himself. I personally do not Prince's Instagram pieces mainly because it is just lacking in creativity. I could give it a little bit of interest if each of the "screenshots" were done individually by Prince made to look like they were "stolen" creating the uproar that is/was going on now/then. Later revealing that they were in fact not stolen. If that makes any sense.
+Nick Faught That's actually a great idea!
Thanks haha
Thanks haha
Certainly 'appropriation art' is not so much about the object but the discourse around the object. Often times this genre has nothing to do with beauty (as some crappy, half-assed, armchair philosophers claim that all art must be beautiful e.g. Chuck Jines of Grit Street Photography) Its not about what's hanging on the wall but the conversation taking place among the viewers. I think the important aspect to these recent pieces by Prince is the comments; they are part of the image. The relationship between text and image has been explored before and no one has done it better IMO than Joseph Kosuth's "One And Three Chairs". I think just maybe Prince is barking up that same tree? I would have to think about it some more but Prince certainly did not include the comments as just a clever way to get around copyright. Im pretty sure the controversy around copyright and instagram or social media more generally is part of what Prince wants to explore but looking at some of the comments he left makes me wonder of he is also commenting on the public display of sexuality. I sense that he is mocking these girls. Is Prince demanding that we all become more business savvy and not give out our 'assets' for free as did these young girls? Of course, Im not in Prince's head so I can only guess. While I enjoy and appreciate the intellectual qualities of this kind of art, I would NEVER pay money for it.
These Prince works are the perfect reflection of social values in America. Prince in a contemporary genius of the arts. Art moves with social changes, and good art is a pure unbiased reflection. These works reflect the extreme capitalist's ambition. To make money, even if you need to exploit yourself or others. This work has many layers of interpretation.Can YOU see between the lines?
Yes. But it's not a reflection if it's being the actual thing. I can't revere the exploitation of others. Just can't.
I agree it's crap. If anyone else did it, people would say it's crap. It's another case of the emperor's new clothes.
Atothe B It's a hell of a lot easier to out-and-out dismiss something you don't like than it is to attempt to explain the appeal of something that challenges or mystifies you. If you are completely uninterested in growing as a human being, I suppose that is all right.
I just heard about this "steelman technique", essentially the opposite of strawmanning, in which one explains the matter one disagrees with in the best possible light before proceeding with one's own argument. Regardless of what I think about Richard Price, I think this would enrich the TH-cam comment sections a lot.
Richard Prince did it why? "BECAUSE I CAN." It is kind of an in your face theft, -an eragance. Like he's saying to the entire world "Look what I can get away with!!!" "Aren't I great?!!!" To be so bold and violating of people like this,... -I think he has to be extremely Narcissistic, or clinical in some way.
I couldn't agree more with you Ted. Provocative mediocracy.
The works, as they are, to me resemble a typical high-school art project, and nothing more. As far as copyrights are concerned, I agree that it's just not right. Stealing pictures from others, and even personal comments... What I think is the worst is the privacy violation. Yes, I know, if he can see the images on internet, anyone can, but that's completely different from actually enlarging images, meant for friends, putting them on display, en even worse, selling them. As you said, you need a LOT of money if you actually wanted to win a lawsuit against him. That makes it even worse.
On the other hand, credit where it's due, he did achieve his goal. It offends, it's discussed a LOT worldwide (even negative advertising is advertising...) and he gets literally tons of money.
(And here I'm thinking MY work is crap. At least I don't steal from others.)
the toilet guy didn't have instagram. snobs live on
It be might be bad but you're talking about it. That is the law Andy Warhol lived by.
Pity it's not as well protected as the music industry. At least the original artist would get some of the proceeds.
Your argument is completely missing the point. These works are not designed to provoke a scandal, they are designed to reveal the psyche of contemporary society, through analysis and reflection. The 'ready made' indeed has become an artistic genre of its own, and if a contemporary artist relates to that genre, it is absurd to complain that it has been done before. It may have been done, but it has been done for all kinds of different reasons, and with all kinds of different outcomes.
I just wanna know how he could get around the copy right law?
He modified them by adding his own comments, ‘fair use’
If the main addition to the images is the richardprince4 comment on each instagram post (whether he left the comment or photoshopped it in), I think that is where the actual artistic value of this piece could have been determined. But they seem really bland and unimaginative too. I guess this is shitty by design.
He did leave the comments there, he even had a hack to make them show up first, on his account
Thank you so much for putting this into the proper art history context! I don't necessarily agree with all of your comments about "easy" or "lazy" art being bad art, but you definitely did the subject justice. After all, think about how "easy and lazy" photography is ... you just push a button. I also like to think about Mark Rothko's work within this context: When someone asked him how long it took him to make one of his paintings he'd only ever tell them his age.
And thanks for such an awesome channel, too! I've been a silent subscriber for a while. :)
Trenton Moore Thanks Trenton!
Trenton Moore Trenton, I have to disagree with you comment on Photography as being lazy or easy. you have to learn to operate the camera, compose the shots. Proper lighting in most cases. Finding locations for really good pictures. Have the technical and artistic skills to create a great or even good image. Most time takes time and effort. Although there are times when a great image call fall into your lap. But you must still pull of the shot correctly.
Bill Chandler Bill, easy and lazy are in quotes for a reason. I'm a full-time photographer and I know better than most how difficult capturing an image and dealing with the industry can be. Beneath my thinly veiled sarcasm was the implication that the art industry works in an economy of ideas, so to speak. Most contemporary artists are nothing but idea machines: they come up with an idea and then their workers fabricate it. In many instances, even, patrons may buy something that the artist him or herself has never even touched.
Trenton Moore My apologies. I have heard people refer to Photography as not being Art because all thet do is push a button. So I wasn't putting two and two together realizing you were being sarcastic. But I am glad you were! I agree with you on the state of the Art world as it relates to Contemporary artists. I have seen, as I am sure you have, somethings done as "Art" that frankly I see as a joke. But they sell it, and sometimes for big bucks. So it continues. Congrats on being a full time Photographer. Something I would love to do myself someday.
i guess if he painted the feeds on the canvas would be much more interesting than just printing the image, and i agree with you !
xD "it's bad" "its been done"
@4:58 Hey! It's the Nelson-Atkins Museum! I'm from Kansas City so I go there all the time :)
Are the photographs of the girls his personal shots, or are they other peoples works, that he has just framed in a social commentary reference?
If it is the former I'd give it points for the shot and some for the stylised concept, I like the visual design that went into the shots and the commentary probably has some cultural relevance. If its the latter, then that is some high school level mood board work and not a final outcome.
***** Its interesting you're willing to accept it on the condition that its original work… I tired to explain, but it is not. The images were lifted.
***** From what I understand (from not knowing much about this to begin with), the photographs are selected by Richard Prince but aren't his own work. To avoid blatant copyright infringement he adds comments to the bottom of a lot of them, things like a line of emojis or simply his signature.
***** The whole controversy is based around the fact that these are other people's instagram shots (with their account names on the pieces!).
The Art of Photography I think I'd be more willing to accept it under that condition, because then it would be at least creative piece of character design and direction, using instragram as a vignette for the individual created personalities through the visual style of social self documentation. The challenge being, to project a realistic character narrative, that has been manufactured for the purpose of the overarching commentary aspects. So each individual piece is a complete work in itself, as well as being culturally poignant as a set.
As the images were lifted, I can't see much of a difference between this work and if I were to turn my tumblr page into tangible gallery. Which I am now strongly considering.. haha
Richard Prince is a demonstration of what kind of tedious idiocy you're permitted to inflict upon the culture if you're from New York. You're way kinder to him than I could ever be. I think his ideas are so stupid and unengaging they don't even fly as conceptual art. None of it challenges me, none of it compels consideration of any kind. It just wastes the time of everyone who reacts to it.
I understand where you are coming from, but have you thought of comparing this work to those of Sherrie Levine or Joseph Kosuth? In Levines photography series, she literally takes photos of Evan Walkers existing photos and names the series "After Walker Evans". Though this work is so controversial it is now a very well known series. Joseph Kosuth actually asks the galleries to take a photo of an object for him and hang it in a certain way on the gallery wall and calls it his own, because he created the 'idea' behind the work. Both these artists did a small amount of work in terms of the hand of the artist, but what they are trying to push for is the importance of context and concept in their art. Just because a work seems like little 'effort' or 'time' went into it, this should not always detract from the quality or message behind the work.
I just love that melody at the end
finally Ted radicalized his discourse! good work, thank you
*Ted! I'm standing here clapping!* Well said!
Art for art's sake, and yet ... as an artist, I have a problem with mediocrity. Our personal goal as artists, should be to grow both as a person and thus as an artist. [and maybe he learned something from this ... time will tell.] Bravo! Wish I would have found this video years ago when you posted it.
I think everything is been done at least once. So to think its not original is not an arguement for consideration of its value. Eventhough I dont like it myself.
Agreed. As concept art, it's mediocre because the appropriation doesn't really lend a new view to the material. In the end they are just vaguely pornographic portraits with cryptic comments.
As a PR stunt it's genius. Prince seems more a businessman playing in the art scene than an artist intent on creating interesting work.
I couldn't agree more with you on why this body of work is mediocre at best! But I also feel like you could go more in-depth into specific reasons just why the work is uninspired and just-plain-average. The biggest one for me is the context that the original images were in (Instagram) has SO MUCH fascinating social context that would make for truly interesting pieces...if that context were observed and used. I feel like the fact that Prince thinks that Instagram is a place that he can just grab from (like a newspaper, for instance) says more about how out-of-touch he is with the current social climate. Truthfully, there are thousands of artists on Instagram using the platform in stunning conceptual ways that far outshine Richard Prince's work. But since they have shunned the gallery scene and don't have the kind of traditional recognition that an artist like Prince has, they are deemed unworthy. The works, often shot by *real* working photographers and artists, are, to him, just snapshots that his ego can then elevate into the gallery context. Truthfully, Instagram artists and photographers are doing just fine on their own and most of the social media generation didn't even know who he was until this show. Prince does nothing interesting to comment on the importance of images in social media. If he had, this work might be relevant.
The issue is that the Dada Movement ruined art forever. All this craziness was started by Duchamp’s “Fountain” piece. Art’s been ruined forever by this “readymade” mentality.
Another great example of stolen “readymade” art is Mr Brainwash - his art was all hype and hysteria in Los Angeles and it sold for millions. He didn’t even make his own art, it was just one big large hodgepodge of stolen ideas. I think that this is what happens with people like Warhol, the more hype around it the bigger the name and therefore the bigger price tag.
I get the idea that Prince wanted to stir shit up. He did that. What I don't understand is the price tag, and who are the stupid people paying it? they could make it themselves. It's not unique. In fact, if they pay me just $100 I'll show them how to screen grab on their phones. (actually let's make that fee $10,000. It's probably the same idiots who bought his instagram work)
I imagine his art dealers and promoters targeted these works to wealthy clients who had no real background or true appreciation of art collecting. They were mostly looking for status and hopeful financial appreciation. Oh well lol :)
I hear you saying the idea of appropriation has been done many times, particularly since the 80s. Are you also saying that the reaction evoked is an expected and intentional provocation by the artist - is, in fact, part of the artwork? I'd agree, and I agree this also has been done many times. Still I am in two minds. After all, while I have found it to be an uninteresting one trick pony, many have found it scandalous. This kind of art making will be beyond its use by date when people stop responding to it with such energy.
George Theodoridis Yes - that is what I'm saying. Too much PR has gone into this. Instagram screenshots at an art fair wouldn't be this popular without the press its gotten. It ads value to the work when its part of a stir. It gives it significance.
I agree with you Ted. in other words they loose integrity and present it as some new inspiration.
like the idea he plays with. I wouldn't look at it too long though.
lazy work meant to provoke = the opposite of art
I don't necessarily think that easiness is upsetting in terms of art and photography. What matters more is the image itself, rather than how much sweat went into it's production. Some images take more work, some less. The important part is the effect it produces. And these images that I see do little more than make me roll my eyes.
Interesting, I think I heard about this only in passing, so it was very helpful. Only I'm not entirely convinced of titling this "Richard Prince Smells Bad", I'd rather keep away from cheap shots. :)
mcol3 The title was a play on Petapixel's article titled "Richard Prince Is A Jerk". I don't know Richard so I can't vouch for that, but the work is fishy to me. Hence the title. I know, a little obscure.
mcol3 and I think Ted softballed the title. If I were to or might cover this, my title will totally be less forgiving lol. You just have to speak truth and call attention to a scumbag if it needs to happen.
Hi
Are you aware of Jennifer pochinski? She trawls Instagram for images to paint. There great paintings far more interesting then Mr Prince. And she sits quietly under the radar with out a great deal of recognition.
I m with you, after Dada surely conceptual art should be buried deep. What’s the point of badly crafted art where the idea is more important then the work.or should I say concept. Michael
9:53 didn't understand what has been said can someone says? what is a migior?
I wonder if he sent any money to the people he took the work from?
he is looking for headlines and you just gave him 11.04 minutes of yours and my time. He won and if people want to spend 90-100K on crap instead of helping some kids go to school or eat that's there business.
totally agree with you on this one Ted, not only is this sort of thing done over and over again, the images used are INCREDIBLY just boring! they may have their own audiences but they wouldn't be presented in a gallery other wise! and there is a continuing frustration and anger I have towards people who simply use their name to make themselves money, people fueled by greed in my opinion.
Thank you so much for this episode Ted. It's good to learn about Princes background as an artist. I guess it's been said before but you're a great great teacher!
Warhol said Art is a good business and good business is the best art ... Hirst, Prince and Banksy have been punking the system / industry with cynical jabs about the art market simply being a place to launder money and store wealth ... hype is the “successful” artist’s art !
While I don't agree with what he did,
Prince certainly has a very good idea of where the culture, is with respect to women and their near obsession with selfies.
how can this be legal??? If i upload a shot to my instagram does it become public domain??
Francisco Leston Its questionable. Comes down to the attorney you can afford.
What a sad truth.
Francisco Leston As far as I know it does NOT become public domain. Problem is that most people don't read the terms of service, and blindly agree to them. On facebook for example, for everything that you post to the public (so NOT what you post for friends only) you actually agree that everyone in the world can use those pictures, comments, status updates or whatever. As long as they mention you as the owner. I don't know what the tos are for instagram...
Yes. This falls into shock marketing for me - Madonna on the cross, Myley Cyrus on a wrecking ball - big marketing, meh art. It could have been more interesting if the comments were given more attention... but nah, why bother, girls "playing sexy" is all you need. But beyond that it saddens me because there is no complicity with the other artists. (Complicity is big in improv comedy - a collaborative art: if you throw someone under the bus so that you look better, you're known as a wanker.) But instead he just does what other Big Corporations do - he rolls on through and takes. In fact, he seems to have no regard for the other artists - at all. Ouch. Let's call this art High Selfish. In that case, maybe it is a statement of the times. And always make sure to count the silverware after he leaves.