“Art is what you can get away with.” ~ Andy Warhol

Richard Prince, an artist of dubious methods, has recently sold reproductions of Instagram photos for as much as $100K.

If that sum sounds obscene, just wait until you hear the rest.

This “artwork” (quotations mine) consists of 48×65-inch canvas prints of screenshots of other people’s Instagram photos. Let me repeat that: These one-hundred-thousand-dollar works of art are giant printouts of other people’s photos.

By removing the original captions and inserting his own comments at the end, Prince has, debatably, made the images his own.

Step three? Profit.

Originally displayed in the private “VIP” section of New York’s Gagosian Gallery in the fall of 2014, Richard Prince’s Instagram exhibit, titled “New Portraits,” recently reappeared at the New York “Frieze Week.”

Prince’s unusual approach to “art” is hardly new (depending on how you see things, he’s been “appropriating,” “rephotographing” or downright stealing since the 1970s) and hardly unique (the history of art is brimming with theft and appropriation without credit). But the sheer laziness of this incident has provoked particular outrage.

In a 2011 interview, Prince shared some of his own views on copyright:

“Copyright has never interested me. For most of my life I owned half a stereo so there was no point in suing me, but that’s changed now and it’s interesting. I’m actually in the situation where I am being sued at the moment (by a French photographer I might add) for taking his original images and turning them into paintings […] I knew what I was stealing 30 years ago but it didn’t matter because no one cared, no one was paying any attention.”

I will interject here to mention that while a District judge initially ruled against Prince and the Gagosian Gallery, where the work in question was displayed, a 2013 appeals court overturned the ruling, deeming the majority of Prince’s pieces, “fair use.” (In my opinion, and I’m far from alone, that’s bullsh*t.)

He continued,

“…I took too many of these [images] from this guy and I didn’t really even think to ask. I don’t think that way, it didn’t occur to me to ask him and even if I did and he said no, I still would have taken them. I figured I’d do them and maybe if he objected I’d deal with that later.”

Copyright may not interest Prince, but it sure interests some of the people he’s stolen from—thus the lawsuit.

What’s more, many onlookers can’t help but bridle at the hypocrisy of it all, and his smugness.

As a writer who is paid next to nothing for her work, I painstakingly ensure that each image I include does not infringe on any copyright restrictions. As the manager of several Facebook pages, I am well aware that careless use of images can result in nasty copyright suits.

Those rules apply to Instagram, too. Except, apparently not when you fall into that elite, self-congratulating category of “artists” who do as they please—not even for the sake of art, but simply… because.

Of course, the actual owners of these images will not see any of the profits, nor did Prince extend even the superficial courtesy of asking permission before taking.

As his work has garnered so much attention, and such hefty price tags, Prince has been the focus of a harsh backlash, with art critics, twitter and Instagram users alike calling him “a thief,” “douchebag” and “pathetic,” and chastising him for giving “Modern Art” a bad name.

I’m inclined to agree with them, but I will refrain from contributing my own insults.

Naturally, the Gagosian Gallery, which has displayed Prince’s work on several occasions, views matters differently, writing in the artist’s bio,

“Mining images from mass media, advertising and entertainment since the late seventies, Prince has redefined the concepts of authorship, ownership, and aura […] Applying his understanding of the complex transactions of representation to the making of art, he evolved a unique signature filled with echoes of other signatures yet that is unquestionably his own.”

I am very far from convinced.

Sure, art should push boundaries, challenge conventions and step outside the narrow boxes society inhabits in order to reveal their limitations. I absolutely believe good art can and should makes us think, makes us argue, and even make us angry.

Surely, though, there is a point at which we can say, “hold on, this guy is just a lazy a**hole making way too much money off of other people’s photos, and in the end his art isn’t even interesting.” At some point, we have to call things for what they are, and recognize when “art” is simply exploitation.

I really hope that will be the case here.

What do you think?

 

For more images of the exhibit, see:

Petapixel

Artnet

Relephant Read:

Artist Threatened With Facebook Suspension Over Nude Art. {Nudity}

Author: Toby Israel

Editor: Renee Picard

Photo: Cool Hunting Today