I remember in class, when we were
talking about appropriated images, Dr. Dennis said something about how
accepting we all were of the process, and that in previous classes, students
often argued about the true authorship of images like these. Now, after reading
the article on Richard Prince, I think I might be one of those students in
disagreement. I simply do not understand how a person can take a photo of
another person’s photo and call it their own. I am reminded of Marcel Duchamp’s
Fountain, and the controversy
surrounding that. How can that possibly be art? people wondered. It’s a toilet
he took and put inside a gallery. I understand Duchamp’s line of thinking more
than I understand Richard Prince’s. In Duchamp’s case, he took something that
wasn’t previously considered art, and then called it so. He transformed an
object that wasn’t his into art. In Prince’s case, I believe he’s taking
somebody else’s art and calling it his art. It’s not as though advertising is
ignored by art history - it is an art form. As a photographer myself, it makes
me a little angry. Is it just because it’s an advertisement that this is
allowed, or could somebody photograph my photos and sell them for hundreds of
thousands of dollars too? And the kicker is that Prince refuses to credit the
actual photographers of these images, the ones that put the time and effort
into setting up a shot and perfecting the lighting and completing all of the
post-processing. In my humble opinion, the only artist Richard Prince is is a
con-artist.
3 comments:
First, I liked your con-artist dig at the end, but I do agree that it is sometimes really hard to recognize a piece as art when it is just a representation of someone else's work. I think it would be easier to forgive something like that if they in some way gave the artist credit, but in the case you're talking about no credit was given. I have had my work used or "stolen" from me because I was given no credit and I know how infuriating it is.
I agree! In class I don't think I grasped the entirety of how Prince was operating. I had not realized that he was, in some cases, appropriating without any recognition of the original artist. I think he is more of a performance artist than a photographer. It sort of does make me angry that he sells images of others work for tens of thousands of dollars. But would they sell for that much if he wasn't Richard Prince, and if he wasn't an infamous image appropriator? I'm confused on my own thoughts of how to think. I like that you compared this to Duchamp and the readymades, and I agree that Duchamp was initially easier to dissect and understand what he was trying to get at.
PS that last unnamed comment was Kaitrin Acuna, oops :-)
Post a Comment