Richard Prince Response

I enjoyed the New York Times article about the artwork of Richard Prince, who appropriated other photographers images and used them as his own because of the issue of copyright and credit that is brought up. Prince’s use of commercial photographer, Jim Krantz, Marlboro add upset Krantz when he stumbled upon it at one of Prince’s shows and saw that he was not given any credit. I find it interesting but confusing how artists are much more freely able to use other artists work without the proper credit being given nowadays, where in writing plagiarism is a huge issue. I don’t see any difference between stealing an image and stealing someone’s words but since artists like Duchamp, attained success for appropriating images, it has been done more frequently. Although, in the case of Duchamp’s appropriated image of the Mona Lisa, titled L.H.O.O.Q.,the painting is so much an icon that the fact that the original artist is Leonardo Da Vinci is already common knowledge. 

Even when changes are made to the piece I definitely feel that some credit should be given to the original artist. Jim Krantz had a relatively positive attitude about the whole situation but simply wanted to be treated fairly. He spoke about how “imitation is flattery” and he’d “accept the compliment.” but he wanted some form of recognition. As much extra work as it can sometimes be to get permission to use someone’s work or to cite a source, I feel out of respect for the original author or creator it needs to be done. Like Krantz put it, noticing your own artwork is “like looking into a mirror.”. There are strict penalties for plagiarizing an author’s words, so the same respect should be given to an artist who works just as hard, and gives his/her time and passion to a work of art.