Richard Prince: New York Times

    After reading this article I understand the type of work that Richard  Prince is trying to create, but I don't exactly agree with it. In class we discussed how using someone else's image can send a different message by the artists gender or title, but I still feel unconvinced that it should be appreciated as much as the original artist. The article stated that one of Richard Prince's photographs sold for over one million dollars setting a record. It does take talent to blow up an image without pixelation, but to have that kind of compensation for something that isn't his idea. The creativity behind the images is what is truly valuable and I feel like he is jeopardizing that. Prince says" I just want some recognition and understanding." This may be true, but you don't see him donating some of the money he sells his photographs for to the original artist.