Richard Prince Article

I'm sorry, but that is just absolutely ridiculous.
The line that stands out to me the most is "I never associated advertisements with having an author."
Seriously?
I'm just angry after reading that article. I can't believe that someone would just assume that you could copy someones work, literally "grain for grain" and it would be okay and you could sell it for millions of dollars. That is so not okay.
How did this even happen?
This is the problem that I have with a lot of art though. A problem that music has completely solved and that writing is avoiding at all costs.
The idea of the original idea. Music knows that stuff is going to get stolen. Writing calls it plagarism, and clearly, art is just floating around waiting for this crap to happen.
If someone took a picture of my art and it was in a museum I would be absolutely livid. There is NO way I would allow that to happen. And it's not to be said that advertising isn't still art, because it is.
If nothing else, it's intellectual property, and the only evidence that you would need to prove it, is that you actually DID do it first, which is obvious based on the responses of the artists and the nature of Prince's project in general.
The only way I could think to make this okay, is that if the artist of the original image was referenced in each piece, and the concept of the work was displaying advertisements as fine art and the difference in reaction between seeing it in a magazine and seeing it in a gallery. THAT is interesting. However, the way that Prince literally steals the image, is just wrong.