Richard Prince Article-Morgan Kirol

Post by Morgan Kirol

Overall I found the Richard Prince article from the New York Times to be very interesting. When first covering this topic in class, I admit I was a little overwhelmed by some peoples’ reactions to the appreciation of work. I understood the idea of “this is a photo of a photo, is this art?” but I did not realize the extent to which the topic has offended and depreciated, in a sense, the value of the original art and the artists themselves. I feel as though those who do not understand the “new” work to be an appreciation fall into the uneducated and ignorant conundrum of believing this “new” work to be of more value or an original. Randy Kennedy reveals this in his article as one woman saw a poster of the original work of an artist and said “Richard Prince has one just like that “. What a shame. I find it very frustrating and disappointing when people form opinions or make statements based on a blatant lack of education on a particular topic. People who believe this “new” work to be more valuable unfortunately fall into artistic fads in which they are willing to pay more for work that is “new” or by a “popular” artist at the time. I understand the concept of supply and demand and the pinching urge to get the latest thing. I just feel as though art is different. Art should never depreciate in value because the artist isn’t “popular” at the time. There should really be no reason that the work of Richard Prince is more valuable than the work of Jim Krantz, especially when people are ignorant enough to believe Prince’s work to be the original in some cases. What I found interesting in reading was the Krantz was not originally bothered by Prince’s appreciation of his work. Maybe that comes with being humble or the notion of making art for art’s sake, but with Prince’s exhibition now being up at the Guggenheim, I found it heart wrenching to  read that “he said he simply wanted the viewers to know that ‘there are actually people behind these images, and I’m one of them’”. Does Krantz not deserve a little recognition if not from the artist appropriating his work? These ads, especially those for Marlboro, define a part of our history. Advertising shaped our country into what it is today, and the way in which Krantz chose capture these advertisements speaks to an entire section of history.