Art Talk! - Richard Prince- Part 1

[OvalGray]

I oughtn't argue that Prince isn't a thief. But ethics and art are different. If he's immoral, he's still interesting. The simplicity of a term like "thief" implies dullness, as if Prince just wasn't talented enough to take his own photos of cowboys and hopes nobody'll know that the images aren't originals. That's simply not true; his work is about the ideas of intellectual copyright we've been discussing here. He's chosen to be a "bad guy" in order to bring these topics to light.

[CatZula]

@OvalGray Next, ethics and art are two different things?  An immoral act is OK if committed in the name of art? Maybe you want to live in that world, not me. I'm not saying all immoral art should be destroyed, but Prince is a thief...

[CatZula]

@OvalGray Finally, as far as his photographic skills, you are misinformed. Prince has repeatedly admitted that he had no formal training in photography and saw appropriation as a strategy to "practice photography without a license". The intellectual copyright right issues are a much more recent invention to try to justify the early work. If he really didn't hope some people would mistake the work for his own, why not also credit the original photographers?

[OvalGray]

My point is that recontextualisation is a reality and that it's at the heart of Prince's art. I don't think anybody that knows anything about Prince assumes that his appropriated cowboy pictures have anything to do with an affinity he feels with the old west. Even if his art only amounts to theft, it's because his art is ABOUT theft, not because he wants people to think it was him who took the original photos of cowboys. Prince has never had any qualms about admitting he uses others' material.

[CatZula]

@OvalGray First, recontextualization: the argument, to my mind, only works (and I still don't think it works) while his work is in a gallery surrounded by pieces of his work and supplemented by some gallerists essay. Once you take an individual piece out of the gallery context, I see no difference between his photo and the original. Also, I think it's pretty clear that he IS riffing on the Old West theme. He repeatedly invokes cowboys in his work.

[OvalGray]

The theft of a photographer’s photo would involve a robbery of the photographer’s printed photo from that photographer or buyer or place where the photo’s shown. Violating intellectual copyright is another matter. But as Prince readily admits that his works are photos of others’ photos, ascribing to them different meanings than the photos they’re photos of had, he’s not violated any intellectual copyright because the intellectual value of the originals and of his works are different.

[CatZula]

@OvalGray 3.) I look at Prince's photo and see no meaning different from the obvious meaning inherent in the original photo. Are you asserting that I must, without any will of my own, accept Prince's explanation? If I refuse, does that extinguish his "work"? AND, what if I can only see the photo--how would I know what his meaning is as opposed to the original? Wouldn't he have to write that down? And once written, isn't his only real contribution to "the piece" the written explanation?

[OvalGray]

As an individual often embalmed in the too-uncompromising ethos of ethics, it was my immediate reaction to abhor him. Theft, it then seemed to me, was the be-all-and-end-all of his art.

After thinking things through for awhile, I began to see a distinction. A photo of a photo might look like the photo it’s of, but it isn’t its source any more than a photo of a tree's a tree. In a real way, physically at least, his photos of others’ photos are as much his own as any photographer’s.

[CatZula]

@OvalGray Three Points:

1.) A tree is not fabricated by a person. So that's hardly an apt analogy.

2.) The whole reason people make multiple copies of photos is to be able to claim each copy as their own to control and sell them (and Prince does this). The original photographer owns, say...5 photographs. Prince makes a copy (sadly none of these are signed). Prince steals one of the photographer's copy. Which copy do you give back to the photographer?

[Anthony77769]

COngrats Mr.Prince thanks for stealing from Sam Abell

[junfanjkjd]

What a bore this guy is, no wonder his paintings are so boring and empty. Caravaggio would probably rip his throat out with one of his knives if he saw that this is what art has become! God help us all.

[RayL1983]

He's profoundly boring.

[Ambulanceo]

I don't get why everyone hates this guy, what he does is not much different than, say, sampling in music. It's just taking a piece of art and re-envisioning it. No different than looking at something in nature and drawing it out.

Oh wait I forgot, drawing trees you see outside your window is fucking plagiarism. Better have those trees copyrighted or you're a lowlife thief!

[howcynicalofme]

@Ambulanceo so, stealing someone else's credit card and using it is legal? if people are taught and encouraged to appropriate works of the past, then, what will there be in the future? no invention, but just copied objects appropriated and re-appropriated again and again? for me, the artists like this is getting all the hype, because it is difficult to find artists like velasquez these days. the collectors have to make money but they can't find any talents so they build bullshit on richard.

[Ambulanceo]

@howcynicalofme

I can see why people criticize him for some of his works with the old-time advertisements, because that is "arguably" theft (I must view art differently than others because I don't see it owned and copyrighted the same way like most do). However, he is most certainly an talented artist and he has influenced newer artists. His nurse paintings aren't so much impressive in the actual art in that he took them from pulp romance novels and made a series of related paintings from it

[CatZula]

@Ambulanceo When musical artists sample, they pay the original artists....Prince does nothing of the sort. Building on other people's work is fine, but Prince just wholesale steals other artists' work or else changes the works very little. If you don't mind having things stolen from you, so be it...why don't you post your name , birthday, and social security number...

[Ambulanceo]

@CatZula

As an artist myself (musician more accurately), I'd be thrilled to see someone enjoy my work so much that they make a replicate using their own two hands. I wouldn't expect any money.

Also, my name, birthday, and social security number are quite a lot different from the various pieces of work I may or may not create in my life time. Tell me how the Nurse Paintings are "stolen" when the only borrowed aspects of the paintings are the silhouettes

[CatZula]

@Ambulanceo Umm...I'm not sure you understand Prince's process. The nurse painting were made by: 1.) Buying lots of old nurse pulp books 2.) scanning the covers into a computer 3.) printing those scanned covers onto large canvases using inkjet printers 4.) slathering some paint on top of the printed images to obscure some of the letters and other background images on the covers... Prince has almost no skills as painter--the figures, faces, etc... are all appropriated in-full.

[ar4216]

@CatZula

Who are your five favorite contemporary artists?

[CatZula]

@ar4216 I'd rather not say here. I'm sure Prince (or his cronies) looks at these youtube vids and it would just give him five targets to appropriate from...

[ar4216]

@CatZula

HaHa! That's funny. I was just curious. I'm gonna guess Julie Mehretu might be one- simply because of all of the work that goes into her pieces. That seems to be a big criteria for you- if a ton of hours aren't spent working on a piece it's not art, or at least not good art.

[CatZula]

@ar4216 Hmmm...No comment on Julie. I don't think an artist needs to spend an enormous amount of time on a piece...but the sort of wholesale copying Prince tends to practice doesn't do it for me...and frankly, most of the concepts Prince manipulates aren't remotely novel or interesting.

[jkuzia123]

@CatZula its not stealing, it is appropriation. prince was very important in pushing post-modern ideas concerning representation and photography in general. your arguments are simply uneducated, I can suggest some reading if you care to brush up.

[CatZula]

@jkuzia123 You have to be the third or fourth person who's told me that my comments are uneducated. It's mind-blowing that such hefty comments are leveled on youtube when it's an anonymous forum.  To be blunt, I wonder what your educational background is in copyright , or art for that matter, or if you have the faintest clue that theft is a legal argument, not a philosophical argument. Copyists have been around for centuries, and some have even taken credit for work that wasn't theirs.

[CatZula]

@jkuzia123 With the growing transparency in ownership of intellectual property, all Prince has done is attempt to hide the theft more cleverly by claiming to broaden "art". But art was big enough without Prince. Anybody can make a copy--and many artists have done so before. Our society just considers it theft, as we try to incentive innovation by granting intellectual property rights. Prince steals work, turns around and copyrights it, himself, and appropriates the property. It's theft.

[howcynicalofme]

@Ambulanceo oh and other thing, have you ever seen consumer products from china/ korea? they immitate consumer products in korea/china from other countries like USA to sell these kind of products to their people to make money off of them. Do you see the resemblance? if you can't invent, you copy and build bullshit around it to sell it for descent money. anyways, i was just expressing my opinion.

[andrewweis]

I imagine this grim future Children of Men like scenario. A plague has wiped out all the artists of the world except for Richard Prince. He now courageously lives in a cold place where he has to walk out into the snow sometimes and eat Philly cheese steaks. He tries to fuck the small town diner girl by doing a photo shoot with her. She turns him down. He blows his brains out. The end.

[stevo8782]

for some reason i had a bad feeling about this guy before i clicked the video. he sounds like an idiot

[jimsottile]

What just happened?  I mean, I was paying attention but nothing happened. And not in the way silence provides an aesthetic void. Seriously, what?

[ar4216]

@jimsottile

For some reason I always figured he looked like John Waters. And was gay. He doesn't look like John Waters and I don't think he's gay.

[jimsottile]

@ar4216 Not sure of the relevance of your reply to me on this. I didn't comment on Prince's looks for orientation.

[ar4216]

@jimsottile

What? I don't understand.

[jimsottile]

@ar4216 Read your comment then read mine. You must be talking at someone else

[TZAVELENA]

he sounds bored...."or something"...

[ratsmokedevil]

so honest and genuine...i make sure to put a lot of that into my own work.

[MrRipperJack]

Hmmm...What's to actually stop others from making additional copies of Prince's work? Would he mind if those copies bore his signature? Why should he...even those copies would be an expression of art as well! Hey, everybody can be a millionaire!

From his wiki entry: "But through his thievery he is creating something new, something Richard Prince. At the end of the day he is still dismantling the original, whether it is greatly noticeable or not." What a jerk. Artist? Not! FAIL!

[wagerfilmART]

The most beautiful thing so far is the town, which must be outside of Albany.

[jaredrose2]

wow, some of you people are crazy. Richard Prince is the man. Period. A lot more than "just copying" stuff. He's legendary in my book. His work is amazing, end of story.

[bakeratlas]

Well sorry to be the one to tell you numb nuts but you are a fucking fruit loop, an idiot, a moron end of story.

[timevividtime]

He makes me want to be a nurse.

I saw one of his shows in a museum and it was great.

[runawaybucket]

yeah. he'S prety much an amazing artist. check out the rest of his stuff it's called the internet.

[MorgansDad]

Richard Prince fascinates me! Perhaps it's his exceptional courage, living in a remote NY town where it's icy, and sometimes seeing only the UPS or Fedex guys, and sometimes eating in a modest diner. Just imagine. With a bit more more courage, he'd move up in the art world and copy works with Apple or Microsoft copyright - not just Sam Abell's. Well, I am easily fascinated. Once, I was just about mesmerized by a watch from Hong Kong. It looked just like a real Rolex!

[bakeratlas]

You and me both brother against all the clowns.

[zqxzqxzqx]

This guy's a plaigiarist & I have NO respect for him. Freaking loser.

[abomb038]

please explain.

[modestomouso1234]

it's explained quite well in part 3 of the series (link is in desription). the guy blatantly says he 'isn't interested in being original', he's more interested in the 'continuation of work that came before him'. sounds pretty derivative to me.

[abomb038]

Fair enough. But maybe he's not giving himself enough credit. Don't you think there's some beauty in simply rearranging preexisting objects and ideas - giving them new life through a change in context? Like part 4, with the old car rusting in the back of the abandoned house-turned-gallery space...I just love that. Appropriation often provides a new perspective on an old, perhaps unquestioned item/idea. Thoughts?

[bakeratlas]

No No and eh wait no you are another one from the idiot club who perpetuates this utter garbage.

[ead1529]

Those adverts really annoy me.

[jaredrose2]

it's a Black Angels song.

[wuz352]

What's the song in the ad?

[solidxstates]

Art Talk is an amazing series. Kudos VICE :)

[Grinmann]

That's Goose from Top Gun, right?

[oleedee]

why not put it all on youtube and not link to your buggy advert riden shit hole of a home page.

[artwarstreetart]

Great!

[pues13]

richard prince is super uber

[RachelNYC8826]

According to the JuliB website, he also produces Louis Vuitton handbags.

[clawsbeatskin]

overrated much?

[TARMONITOR]

hklgluk