Richard Prince Selling Other People’s Instagram Shots for $100k

[Ed B]

This guy is just a douche and so are the galleries that promote him.

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/richard-prince-selling-other-peoples-instagram-shots-without-permission-for-100k/

[Chairman Bill]

I'm going to steal some of his stolen photos, make some minor changes (sign my name on them) and sell them for eleventy thousand pounds each. Who could possibly complain?

[Jeremy Roussak]

I'm going to steal some of his stolen photos, make some minor changes (sign my name on them) and sell them for eleventy thousand pounds each. Who could possibly complain?

The morons who'd pay you? The morons who've paid him? Certainly not you, Bill: go for it!

Jeremy

[luxborealis]

Once again the old adage "more money than sense" proves itself true.

How unfortunate it is there are people who just don't know what to do with $100k and waste it on what should clearly be illegal "art". Of course, those same people may be buying other illegal things with their wads of dough.

What a shame they can't put their money to better use - a $100k bursery to help less fortunate kids explore the wonderful world of education would be a nice start!

[Ed B]

It seems Prince has removed his "exhibit" from the Gagosian gallery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvjwdB4Yses

The comments on the Gagosian gallery's Facebook page have been anything but supportive. Click the "posts to page" link to see comments. https://www.facebook.com/GagosianGallery

[Ed B]

This has got to be worth something, right?

[spidermike]

My guess is that it will merely add to his sales with his next round of 'theft-art' - "Come on, folks...roll up...roll up...buy quickly before it is removed!!

[rmyers]

Prince didn't use a photograph.  He used an image / screenshot of an Instagram posting that had an image of the subject in it complete with comments, one of them his own.  This likely does fall under fair use.  It could also be construed as social commentary.

[spidermike]

I agree with your view of why it falls under the remit of 'fair use' and he has done this time and again. But irrespective of the legalities of it all, there are times when your gut instinct says 'it is just wrong'. For me, this is one of those times.

It does little more than bolster the public view of 'artists' as fantasists/charlatans (take you pick at any particular time) and their view of self-proclaimed afficinados as pretentious fools with more money than sense.

[rmyers]

The subject of that image goes by doedeere on Instagram.  I went to her Instagram sight, and it is basically an advertisement for her makeup and fashion business.  Most of the comments on the 5 or so images I clicked on appear to be her "followers".  I suspect, and the few images I clicked on seem to suggest, that most of the commenters on her page are young girls that are fans of her look and her fashion and are following her to see the next hair color or makeup or other fashion statement presented.  I could even see the Prince piece boosting her visibility and / or increasing her sales. 

The social commentary of Prince's piece is not lost on me.  Now whether he intended it to be that way is another matter.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Prince is applying a trans-formative treatment similar to what Andy Warhol did with "Campbell Soup" can by expressing the idea of the ubiquitous nature of photography brought on by modern digital imaging technology and online social networking which includes the process of screen capture as both performance art and as part of the process of creation as well as raising concerns of artist's rights respected online that drives home the idea of the current and ever changing social nature of photography displayed online. I mean there's people making gorgeous looking images posted online not just on Instagram, someone makes a comment about it and then basically steals it by making a screengrab and calls it their own. Folks are now bullying people for complaining about it online.

That's the best explanation I can come up with in how he gets away with it and how I understood a CNN art critic interview explain it where he said it was an ingenious idea on how it reflects the current state of affairs of copyright infringement of content posted online. Sort of like a thumbing the nose at people who don't respect the artist's rights.

You'll note in Prince's pieces that he first makes a comment on every image he screengrabs that includes his comment so he is participating in the act as a type of performance art.

[David Anderson]

What sort of person pays 90K for an Istagram screen shot ?

Seriously..

[Ronny Nilsen]

Probably the best response so far:

“SuicideGirls” Deliver Cleverest Response to Richard Prince’s Instagram Appropriation

 

Ronny

[Robert Roaldi]

Might have been an interesting social experiment if Prince had offered to split proceeds of his sales with the original artists.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Ted Forbes' take on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWhY99cjJ64&list=TLiFSp1qiDC8k

[amolitor]

If Prince appropriated your photo, the most damagng thing you could do to him would be to promptly issue him a license to use your work.

[Diego Pigozzo]

If Prince appropriated your photo, the most damagng thing you could do to him would be to promptly issue him a license to use your work.

His work probably falls into the fair use doctrine, so no license is needed.

[amolitor]

Maybe, maybe not. By issuing a license you render the issue moot and you destroy the art.

[Diego Pigozzo]

Maybe, maybe not. By issuing a license you render the issue moot and you destroy the art.

Oh, now I see your point.

[Otto Phocus]

What sort of person pays 90K for an Istagram screen shot ?

Seriously..

That is my question.  Someone, evidently several someones, are actually giving him money for this stuff?

I am confused.

But, if people have the money and they choose to give Richard money for this stuff, that's their right.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.  I am just  no beholding anything here.