Richard Prince Reading

After reading the article If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What’s the Original? and discussing art work that deals in appropriation during class, I have to say that I am still not sold on the idea of using another person’s work as your own. I think there are instances in which this can work, such as the Google maps images that are “harvested” by Matthew Jenson for his project 49 States, and even to some extent Sherrie Levine’s Untitled appropriation images after Edward Weston or Walker Evans (I was particularly convinced by the idea that Sherrie’s re-casting of the images allows the models to retain some identity). However, I cannot understand Richard Prince’s appropriation art, and when reading this article I thought maybe my perspective would change, but if anything was only solidified in opposition. The fact that Prince’s work (really Jim Krantz’s work) sold for $1.2 million and is so highly sought seems ridiculous. Ultimately, Prince is not creating his own work, or doing anything that at first glance seems to make a statement. I did give some thought to the idea that it may be a generational gap issue, as to me the Marlboro ads are not familiar, and I would not have recognized much of the imagery if it was not pointed out to me. Ultimately, my general opinion of appropriation art is that it’s definitely hit or miss, and in this case Prince’s work, for me, seems like a miss.