Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
Is it art or copying?
Status: Art controversy
Cranky Media Guy sent me an interesting link to an article published last December in the New York Times about the artist Richard Prince. He's described as a pioneer of "appropriation art." What this means is that Prince takes photographs of other photographer's photographs, and then displays them as his own. For instance, he had an exhibit at the Guggenheim about cowboys, which basically consisted of photographs of Marlboro ads. The guy who actually took the images for the Marlboro ads, the photographer Jim Krantz, visited the exhibit and was like, "Hang on, those are my photographs!"In the thumbnail, you can see Krantz's original photograph on top, and Prince's rephotograph of it on the bottom.
Prince doesn't try to hide what he does. And art critics love his work. According to the NY Times: "one of the Marlboro pictures set an auction record for a photograph in 2005, selling for $1.2 million." That's good money for a photograph of someone else's photograph.
It raises the question, is this really art, or is it just mindless copying? To which the answer, as always, is that art is whatever art critics say is art (and whatever the courts allow artists to get away with).
Generally I take a very liberal attitude about copyright. I think it's necessary that people are allowed to copy works of art in order to be able to comment upon them, criticize them, or develop them into something new and different. But what Prince is doing looks more to me like glorified scrapbooking than creating original art.
It also reminds me of the scam that art museums try to use to establish perpetual copyright to the works in their collection. They take photographs of all the paintings they own that have passed into public domain. Then they claim that, while the original might be in the public domain, their picture of it is copyrighted -- and then they demand exorbitant fees from anyone who wants to reproduce it.
Posted By: Alex | Date: Tue Feb 05, 2008 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 26
Category: Advertising, Art
Category: Advertising, Art
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
This is straight out of the "Just Shoot Me" episode called "Funny Girl"
Maya Gallo: I like this landscape. It has a nice Ansel Adams quality to it.
Elliot DiMauro: That's because it's a picture of an Ansel Adams. That's his thing, he takes pictures of pictures.
Maya Gallo: Maybe he's making a statement.
Elliot DiMauro: Yeah, he's saying, "I'm out of medication."
Hmm ... I wonder if the same argument would work with the RIAA?
Posted by Corwin, The Master Physicist in OC, CA on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Maya Gallo: I like this landscape. It has a nice Ansel Adams quality to it.
Elliot DiMauro: That's because it's a picture of an Ansel Adams. That's his thing, he takes pictures of pictures.
Maya Gallo: Maybe he's making a statement.
Elliot DiMauro: Yeah, he's saying, "I'm out of medication."
Hmm ... I wonder if the same argument would work with the RIAA?
Brilliant idea, Corwin! I'm not copying these songs, I'm rendering my own artistic interpretation of them... which happens to be identical to the original. If one flies in courts, the other should have to in all fairness.
Really what I don't like about the whole thing is that critics like it and say it's a different and unique work of art. I'd have no problem if they said those old Marlboro posters are art, but taking pictures of another picture isn't the same as Andy Warhol hand-painting his own Brillo boxes (and even that was pushing it.) But what Andy did was trying to celebrate overlooked beauty in our contemporary lives, this guy is just stealing someone else's work.
Posted by Crazy Ivan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Really what I don't like about the whole thing is that critics like it and say it's a different and unique work of art. I'd have no problem if they said those old Marlboro posters are art, but taking pictures of another picture isn't the same as Andy Warhol hand-painting his own Brillo boxes (and even that was pushing it.) But what Andy did was trying to celebrate overlooked beauty in our contemporary lives, this guy is just stealing someone else's work.
Crazy Ivan, I agree with you. This guy is adding nothing to the previous work. If he modified it in some way, emphasizing some aspect of the previous work or otherwise adding his own value to it, then an argument could be made that it is art. This is stealing.
Posted by Christopher Cole in Tucson, AZ on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33 AM
This guy is just stealing and cheating. 
Posted by Madmouse in Edinburgh on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Someone should sell pictures of his pictures of other people's pictures. That'll teach him. My Grandmother had two large mirrors that opposed each other. The infinite regression of mirrored images gave me a sense of diminished importance and humility that serves me to this day. True story
Posted by Hairy Houdini on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:07 PM
Back in the early 90s hard rock group Faith No More did a "parody" of Lionel Richie's song Easy. It was practically a note by note recreation of the song, the band claimed that was the only proper way to ridicule it. However, I'm assuming FNM paid royalties on it which Richie was quite happy to get. It hit the charts in both the US and the UK.
Posted by Ima Fish on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:08 PM
I should have made xerox copies of the last Harry Potter novel and sold them for half price of the hardback.
Appropriation Authorship!
Posted by John on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:19 PM
Appropriation Authorship!
As a scrapbooker, Alex...I would have to say this would be considered more like UNglorified scrapbooking...Or just plain scraplifting.
Posted by Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Yeah, I'd have to call this blatant stealing as well. Somebody else is going through all the work of wandering around through the woods in the cold, finding just the right angle through the trees, and so on. He's just taking a picture of the other person's work. It's not even his own artistic expression or view on things, it's somebody else's. There's nothing of Richard Prince in it. He might as well just walk into a museum, take a painting off the wall, and say that it's his artwork now. It's exactly the same as photocopying a book page by page then selling it as your own work.
Posted by Accipiter in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:30 PM
It's a variation on Marcel Duchamp's gag where he bought a mass-produced urinal from a plumbing-supply store, signed it "R. Mutt," and then entered it in an art exhibition, saying that (although he had no part in making or designing the urinal) he had changed it into his own work of art by signing it and hanging it in a gallery. He did this roughly 100 years ago (I don't remember the exact date). Some years later, he abandoned making "art" on the grounds that playing chess was more interesting.
Interestingly, one of my paiting teachers used to argue that photography is not properly considered art, because it's just reproducing images that already exist. Therefore it's more of a manufacturing technology than an art. He didn't hate photography; he just didn't think it was art.
Posted by Big Gary in Wimberly, Texas on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:33 PM
Interestingly, one of my paiting teachers used to argue that photography is not properly considered art, because it's just reproducing images that already exist. Therefore it's more of a manufacturing technology than an art. He didn't hate photography; he just didn't think it was art.
Well, since Lichtenstein already got away with it (http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html), I can't see any reason why mr. Prince shouldn't either.
But really folks, the problem is not with the fact that people copy other peoples work, but with the fact that they don't give credit to the person they copied it from ala "Prince after Krantz".
Posted by MikPal on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:33 PM
But really folks, the problem is not with the fact that people copy other peoples work, but with the fact that they don't give credit to the person they copied it from ala "Prince after Krantz".
I've had an idea which kind of parodies what this guy is doing for some time now. Maybe it's time to stop thinking about it and actually put my plan into motion. Hmmmmm.
"This guy is adding nothing to the previous work. If he modified it in some way, emphasizing some aspect of the previous work or otherwise adding his own value to it, then an argument could be made that it is art."
Yup, I agree. Warhol and Lichtenstein were making a comment about overlooked things like Brillo boxes and comic books being worthy of attention. This guy is just stealing someone else's work and "making bank" (as the kids say) off it.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59 AM
"This guy is adding nothing to the previous work. If he modified it in some way, emphasizing some aspect of the previous work or otherwise adding his own value to it, then an argument could be made that it is art."
Yup, I agree. Warhol and Lichtenstein were making a comment about overlooked things like Brillo boxes and comic books being worthy of attention. This guy is just stealing someone else's work and "making bank" (as the kids say) off it.
This isn't the ideas I was referring to above, but hey, Alex, can I sign my name to the two copies of your most recent book which you sent me and claim it as my own work? Just asking.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:01 AM
The way I see it, this crosses the line once he sells the images. 'Appropriating' them in the context of the exhibition is one thing - since due credit is given it's fair use, I would argue - but once it crosses into sales it's a wholly different matter. Yes, the artist is selling his 'appropriation' concept, but he's also selling the original photographer's image.
Posted by outeast on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:45 AM
It's theft period when it's taken, exhibited and sold under his own name.
Posted by hulitoons in Abingdon, Maryland on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:21 AM
"Honest, Your Honor! It's not counterfeit, it's art! I can't help it if the grocery store clerk is willing to accept it as the real thing..."
Posted by Christopher in Warm, sunny Florida on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:18 AM
I'm don't ilegally download files from the internet, I pay tribute to the original author of the work by copying them.
This only goes to say what I say about art critics is still true - they've got their heads jammed so far up their own backside they wouldn't recognise true art if it sat on them.
Posted by Nona on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:13 AM
This only goes to say what I say about art critics is still true - they've got their heads jammed so far up their own backside they wouldn't recognise true art if it sat on them.
absolutly stealing but i dont think its much different than andy warhols works. he just coloured in other peoples stuff and hes considered one of the greats
Posted by Sensibleken in dublin on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:40 AM
Not by me, he's not.
Posted by Kathleen in Indiana, USA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:23 AM
As I said here before, I think Warhol was a high-functioning autistic savant. Such people are known for being able to copy visual images with great facility and accuracy, but stereotypically, i.e. with little or no originality (see, for example, essays on savants in several books by Oliver Saks). They also often become fixated on one or a few offbeat subjects (e.g. trains or car parts) to the point of obsession. Warhol showed unusual interest in various mundane objects, such as soup cans, cookie jars, vacuum cleaners, and Polaroid cameras. It's also said that he wasn't a good conversationalist (although he "edited" a magazine called "Interview" for years) and hated being touched, both of which are consistent with moderate autism. That critics took his basic cluelessness for brilliance is a joke on them.
It may be that a Brillo box has a great design, but if so, more credit should go to the original designer than to Warhol for silkscreening that same design onto canvas a few hundred times.
If it were a new idea to present photographs of photographs as original art, Prince could be credited with raising interesting critical issues, but, as in the examples already cited here and many others, it's been done (and done and done) before.
Posted by Big Gary in Sugarland, Texas on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:31 AM
It may be that a Brillo box has a great design, but if so, more credit should go to the original designer than to Warhol for silkscreening that same design onto canvas a few hundred times.
If it were a new idea to present photographs of photographs as original art, Prince could be credited with raising interesting critical issues, but, as in the examples already cited here and many others, it's been done (and done and done) before.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >