https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ashle … -389911477

Clever promoter and "Misappropriation Artist" Richard Prince helps himself to other people's copyright photos. He then makes images of them, sometimes defacing them, and sells the images for lunatic prices. He was recently in the news for infringement (and defacement) of Rastafarian images. A court's split-decision found he had infringed.

Now he is facing three separate lawsuits over "theft" and commercial misuse of Instagram images.

What do you think? Artist? Dirtbag thief? Or something other? Does he belong in a museum? Or prison?

Honestly, I just don't get how good ol' appropriation art can be justified as such when the "appropriation medium" is the intewebz and its associated apps (such as IG).

I mean, sure... when physical media/meatspace in general were the sources of appropriation, yes, great, how clever, how very conceptual and stuff. But when you're just adding a comment to a pic on IG, and then you create a physical media object of that, to hang it in a gallery with a price tag attached... I dunno... it seems like it's just sabotaging the whole idea of appropriation art. Maybe the whole point is to kill appropriation art, to reveal it as bankrupt and vacuous and obsolete, or something?

It seems like a stunt, but not in a fun clever conceptual-art way... it seems malicious somehow. It reeks of bad faith.

A "Crook" by any other name.....is still a thief......!!!!!!

Every time he gets sued, we have the same argument. And almost every time, he wins his case.

That really says something about The Law, and about art; if there weren't something to say about his (intentionally borderline illegal) act, he wouldn't be famous doing the same thing for 30+ years.

Let me ask you this:  how many people can spend 30+ years straddling the law well enough to still get arrested or sued, but to almost always win? Outside of pushing speed limits or rental agreements, I'd say nobody.

Though George Zimmerman is working on it.

Prince knows the law better than most lawyers by now. He's a perfect example of legal vs. ethical - like a Pharma Bro that doesn't actually cause anyone any harm.

And no, he's not 'taking money from anyone's pockets.' Almost everyone he ripped off was unheard of before his name was attached, or was a giant conglomerate; he ripped off Marlboro/Phillip Morris repeatedly.

I'd put him up there with Sherman, Gold in, and Wall:  I don't like the work, but it's really cool that he's doing it.

I just wish that everybody that complained about him responded by going to see the work - his or the original. Or if they felt like the original artist was due money, they bought something. After his last IG ripoff, you could buy original prints by the artists he ripped off for $50.

My only complaint about Prince is that people get up in arms about him, and then ... do nothing. They don't support the original artist, they don't suggest law changes, nothing. The only action I've ever seen is circulating a petition to 'close the loophole' that is the Fair Use Clause, and that will literally never happen.

I've never even seen a petition to modify the clause get traction. Just a lot of people shouting 'this sucks! Fix it!' Online.