gotsnowgotslush
skates like Eck
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Posts
- 25,720
Meet Richard Prince, a man who’s here to steal and sell your Instagram photos
-Mark Shrayber
http://jezebel.com/this-artist-could-be-selling-your-instagram-pics-for-9-1706388257
In an age where putting every photo ever taken of yourself online is the norm, it’s not surprising that someone calling themselves an “artist” has finally found a way to capitalize on all those beautiful filtered shots you post online. Meet Richard Prince, a man who’s here to steal and sell your Instagram photos.
While Prince’s exhibition of new works-which were actually just other people’s instas—ran last year, users of the photo-sharing network are just finding out that he had stolen over thirty pictures, added his own caption to them, printed them out (he printed them out) and then sold them for $90,000.
In a gallery exhibition titled “New Portraits,” which ran at the Gagosian Gallery in NYC from September through October 2014, Prince displayed 38 portraits featuring photos taken from his Instagram feeds — other people’s images, and without permission.
http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/ric...-instagram-shots-without-permission-for-100k/
Richard Prince also settled a multi-year copyright infringement legal battle with photographer Patrick Cariou last year. Prince’s usage of Cariou’s photos was determined to be copyright infringement back in 2011, but an appeals court overturned the ruling in 2013, calling the appropriation “fair use."
Richard Prince Sucks
-Paddy Johnson
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-sucks-136358
"Like a true troll, [Richard] Prince always gives himself the last word."
"Here's what I've got by way of reflection: [Richard] Prince likes images of breasts. We can trace appropriation precedents back to Warhol, and Prince as an early adopter, but who cares? Copy-paste culture is so ubiquitous now that appropriation remains relevant only to those who have piles of money invested in appropriation artists. The work on canvas looks about as good as you'd expect for a tiny, 72 DPI image, which is to say they are fuzzy and better viewed on a phone. There's no apparent rationale for the sequencing of the installation."
"Short story short: There's no reason for the reproductions to exist, except to make Prince a little cash—the prints are apparently going for up to $100,000 a pop. This makes the show exceptionally vapid. Don't go see it. Don't ever buy the work."
-Mark Shrayber
http://jezebel.com/this-artist-could-be-selling-your-instagram-pics-for-9-1706388257
In an age where putting every photo ever taken of yourself online is the norm, it’s not surprising that someone calling themselves an “artist” has finally found a way to capitalize on all those beautiful filtered shots you post online. Meet Richard Prince, a man who’s here to steal and sell your Instagram photos.
While Prince’s exhibition of new works-which were actually just other people’s instas—ran last year, users of the photo-sharing network are just finding out that he had stolen over thirty pictures, added his own caption to them, printed them out (he printed them out) and then sold them for $90,000.
In a gallery exhibition titled “New Portraits,” which ran at the Gagosian Gallery in NYC from September through October 2014, Prince displayed 38 portraits featuring photos taken from his Instagram feeds — other people’s images, and without permission.
http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/ric...-instagram-shots-without-permission-for-100k/
Richard Prince also settled a multi-year copyright infringement legal battle with photographer Patrick Cariou last year. Prince’s usage of Cariou’s photos was determined to be copyright infringement back in 2011, but an appeals court overturned the ruling in 2013, calling the appropriation “fair use."
Richard Prince Sucks
-Paddy Johnson
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-prince-sucks-136358
"Like a true troll, [Richard] Prince always gives himself the last word."
"Here's what I've got by way of reflection: [Richard] Prince likes images of breasts. We can trace appropriation precedents back to Warhol, and Prince as an early adopter, but who cares? Copy-paste culture is so ubiquitous now that appropriation remains relevant only to those who have piles of money invested in appropriation artists. The work on canvas looks about as good as you'd expect for a tiny, 72 DPI image, which is to say they are fuzzy and better viewed on a phone. There's no apparent rationale for the sequencing of the installation."
"Short story short: There's no reason for the reproductions to exist, except to make Prince a little cash—the prints are apparently going for up to $100,000 a pop. This makes the show exceptionally vapid. Don't go see it. Don't ever buy the work."
