Can We Please Have This Conversation, As Convoluted And Overdone As It May Be?

What exactly is art? Art is different things to different people. To an artist, it's a statement (social, political, spiritual, etc) or a way to express emotion. It can be many things to one who buys it: Evoking of emotion, an investment, something to "complete" a room. I think those that spent that kind of money on those prints are in the same category as those who bought Beanie Babies 20 years ago in that they have some belief they're investing.

Who gets to define it? Anyone that cares to.

How did we get to where we are today in how we perceive what is considered art? Someone will always want to create something "new". But they don't want to work at it. Throw cow dung on a primitive painting and call it "art". Lift selfies from a site and add stupid comments and call it "art". Photograph a generic horizon and call it "art". Thing is, the people who are doing these things were, at one time, artists. Now they are marketeers.

It's possible to be both. Artists are not the only business owners who are required to both create and market/sell their product. That's certainly not a new thing.

What is art? Freedom of expression.

I find it interesting in recent conversations how much people fear freedom. For some its scary. They need rules. They want to be told what the limits are. They want to define art, put it in a box, tell people what they can or can do, label you into a specific box.

Anyone can define what art is, but they can only do so for themselves.

I agree with the author of this thread. Let's not abuse Art in the name of Art. Everyone is an Artist at seems.
Where I came from Artist are very few. Maybe people are more uptight. Unless you studied and sold original. You cannot call yourself Artist there.

What Prince creates may well be considered as art by some (each to their own), it's the blatant theft aspect that I find disturbing, especially when it's upheld by a court.

A friend of mine offline last night asked me what I thought of Prince's recent work?
She asked what I would do if he took my work?

I told her what I said her the last time. I will simply tell the single solitary online newspaper
that asks, 'my work is better".

My friend's retort, "what if he says, his work is better"?

I said, "he loses either way, because it is my work."

She seemed satisfied with those answers. Then she asked me about my application
processes, guild, museums? She wanted to know if I was adding work that was more
my own? Later work?

The irony is not lost on me.

I dont think was Prince did was too creative, but it was legalese. He can do what he did

Remember those instagram users need to prove they had a commercial interest and that
Prince damaged their commercial interests.

I register my works with the copyright office. So I can sue for statutory damages, but I would
have to prove my commercial interests to get Prince or anyone else for commercial damages specifically.

Statutory damages regardless of commercial damages are capped at $150k per incident. I believe. Dont quote me.

So technically if Prince and the Gallery had used my work, well I would have been in the position to sue for more than
what they were charging their clients.

BTW I need the name of Prince's gallery. LOL

Dave

The bigger question is: What is ... What is art? ... ?

Why do we keep asking this question, when clearly the answer can differ from person to person and from context to context?

Art is NOT a thing. Art IS a frame of mind, ... a state of awareness, ... an action of consciousness. This "frame" or "state" or "action" can occur around ANY object or circumstance.

Prince, thus, created a CIRCUMSTANCE for images that did NOT exist before, ... displayed in a SETTING that did NOT exist before, ... in a COLLECTION that did NOT exist before. The images were BIGGER and more in the SPOTLIGHT than before, .. subject to an artistic INTERPRETATION that did NOT exist before.

Is what he did creative? Not in my judgment.

Did his actions require dedicated effort to achieve his configuration of images? Yes.

Is what he did art? Sure it is

Is it theft? No more so than taking a picture of somebody's curbside, recycled furniture, blowing it up, and hanging it in a collection on a wall somewhere.

People post their images voluntarily on the information curbside of the world. How, then, can they really claim absolute control of these images? To do so in thought is merely a thought. The reality that they observe regularly is what the internet IS, and yet many refuse to see this reality.

Not sure I care but can the artist who had their image ripped off by Prince then turn around and steal the image from Prince?

I just wrote Richard Prince's gallery, the Frieze Gallery.

I wrote the home office in London.

I want to do business with them. They make money.

Show me the money.

Dave

Sad irony Ron,

Prince will more than likely have registered his work. So Prince can sue easily.

Remember by enlarging and putting in his comments he changed well over 20% of the image.

Dave

As is so often the case in these types of discussions many miss the "point." This quote is from the comments section of the Washington Post article on Prince's new work:

"Anyone that buys a Richard Prince that is stolen from someone else is a fool. They should go to the original artist and get the picture for a lot less. The creators of these stolen works should get together and sue."

See there are several things wrong with this "shoot from the hip" reaction.

1. if Prince did not do this (the work) these images would have fallen into obscurity, not been elevated to the level of "art."
2. ALL the work (photos)posted on public sites are fair game, and the courts have ruled many times the "owners" read original posters have forfeited their rights to privacy by posting on a public site
3. the ONLY reason these works have value is that they are Richard Prince works, not Suzy Q or John Q, which would have no value whatsoever.

Attributed to Robert: Prince, thus, created a CIRCUMSTANCE for images that did NOT exist before, ... displayed in a SETTING that did NOT exist before, ... in a COLLECTION that did NOT exist before. The images were BIGGER and more in the SPOTLIGHT than before, .. subject to an artistic INTERPRETATION that did NOT exist before. "

So, as long as someone gets a gallery to showcase whatever it is that person decides is art, then it is, from that point on, "art"? So basically art is more about marketing than creativity or process. I think I want to hang up all of my collected snot rags from the current allergy season, write a number in ink on the corner of each tissue, and call each one an original piece. If I can get a gallery to show it, then it is, in fact, art.

At least that's what I am getting. How uninspiring if that is in fact what the consensus is.

Gregory, are you sure Snots art, or is Snot not art?

Ronald, if I can sell the idea to a gallery, then it's art. Apparently.

Gregory writes: I think I want to hang up all of my collected snot rags from the current allergy season, write a number in ink on the corner of each tissue, and call each one an original piece.

Funny you should say that Gregory. I know an Israeli painter, he did a series of 30-40 oil paintings of abandoned Palestinian villages. His technique was to do a quick impression, then blot the works with newspaper to give each painting a smokey kind of abstraction. Quite beautiful. To keep his studio clean he hung each newspaper on a clothes line to dry. In short, his agent got a major collector to look at the paintings. The man bought them all, with the stipulation that the newspaper blotters went with the sale. you see they were from the newspaper, which he owned and published. The artist told me he bought a house for his wife, a writer to use as a studio with his proceeds.

We as individuals often think a thing is silly, I do agree, but as artists we should always be striving to stretch our own definition of what is art.

Consensus? ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... on what constitutes acceptable art? ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !

I look forward to the breaking news story about hyper-inflated prices for Gregory A.'s snot rag collection. It will give us another interesting topic to discuss here.

We will be disparaging snot rags in our profitless arguments about what constitutes acceptable art, while Gregory A. smiles all the way to the bank.

Haha, that was actually quite funny Robert. (Now to stop taking Caliritin and let the profit machine begin!)

Perhaps another artist should steal Prince's work, add a few lines of text or what have you, then sell that for a Princely sum. Somehow I doubt they'd get away with it though. Whether the image was lying by the 'curbside' or not, whether it was being used commercially or not, if it was originally created by someone else and ownership is clear there should be a royalty paid, period. Ortherwise it's tantamount to theft in my book.

"Perhaps another artist should steal Prince's work"

~One of the original owners of a photo Prince used is selling her photo (the same photo) for $90.00 ;) (Prince's sells it for 90K)


~Every article I've read so far states he takes "screenshots" of the instagram photos...but...

if so...how could he get such large clean prints?

I'm thinking he must save the image...and the images he takes are of a large file size...no?

Lawrence, I think we discovered what his real artistic genius is... Making huge prints out of saved screen images.

I'm sorry but I just can't believe people would pay $90,000 for a print of someone else's instagram post. Where does all this wasteful $ come from to spend it on that kind of *#*. If someone wanted a print of a particular instagram post then they could have gotten it printed out for less than $100 themselves.

In my opinion what he did was not art, it was taking advantage of other people (exploitation) for the sole purpose of making money. That being said, he and others obviously can categorize it as "art" for their own personal gain...I will not call it that.

Soooo, now that I have ranted...as others have said, art is different things to different people and anyone can define it how they want, just as I did ;)

....I will probably feel bad about ranting later and want to delete this post but sometimes ranting feels good!

"I am truly confused how we got to a point in a our society where stealing instagram photos of mostly young women is considered art."

In this case, you have made "stealing" a part of your Prince art experience. You see crime instead of art, and have judged accordingly. "Stealing" carries moral and ethical stigmas. That is the source of your confusion and discomfort. If someone you trusted said "It's art, not crime; you have misapplied the term 'stealing' and misjudged this artist" would you see his work differently?


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Is any harder to imagine someone buying some other _______ (imagine the image you think is crap here) for $39.95? Does the price matter? Maybe the buyer is so rich $90K is just like $39.95 to you or me.

tru dat, Gregory ;)

David, thank you that was great article.

I wonder if Prince had contacted the original artists and obtained permission to use their images how it would be received/perceived by the art world. It seems likely to not have gone very far without the element of controversy. The minimal modifications that Prince did in and of themselves were not worthy of much attention were it not for the fact that they were stolen - or to use the artsy-legal weasel word, "appropriated". It kind of reminds me of reality TV and all the sleazy things marginally talented people do to get attention.

Dave Gordon
http://dgportfolio.net

"It kind of reminds me of reality TV and all the sleazy things marginally talented people do to get attention. "

Indeed David, some people will do absolutely anything to get attention, and I can't help but feel exactly the same has been carefully orchestrated here. Fame (or infamy) at any cost, no matter who you have to tread on to get it. I guess if you have the morales of an earthworm and the skin of a rhinoceros you're not going to pay much mind, just laugh all the way to the bank. Be nice to think that karma will kick in eventually though for the likes of Prince and his ilk.

I wonder how the public (or the art world) felt about artists such as Matisse, Klee, Kandinsky, many others having their paintings reproduced smaller in stone lithos at 1,000 copies then sold to dealers around the world? many of these works ended up in small museums, while the real paintings were sold to buyers.

Art and the art world move forward in strange and often stuttering ways. What was acceptable in one century becomes passe in a new one. Apply some of these criticisms to digital art and perhaps one will "see" with different eyes. I see many excellent digital works showing a mastery of the software and imagination BUT it is not (nearly) unusual to see someone just color or distort an existing photo (yes I know we are talking copyrights here) and pass it off as "art". I am not dissing nor calling out any artist but I do often "see" the source material underneath the final digital art. This was not possible not too many years ago. Today we call it art and rightfully so.

I am no champion of Prince, but his work seems to not be in his finished product but the controversy it stirs. Only time will tell if this moves art forward, or if the natives show up with pitchforks and fire.

I have no real interest in Prince. The concept of taking someone else's image just bores me. Hope he has fun doing it since I would not. He is not that different than Duchamp taking ordinary objects and placing them in the artistic arena and asking the question, is this art? If not why? If it is what makes it art? Prince takes others images and places them into the arena and ask questions about the nature of art and creativity. Is this a legitimate approach for an artist to take? I would say, yes no doubt. Just find the entire thing to be a bit dull and boring in this day of age.

Interesting point Ron. What new type of art would you find exciting?

I enjoy a wide variety of art both new and old. I am a visual person, if the image he is presenting to me looks like I have seen it many times before I lose interest. Must say what is missing from the experience is scale. A reproduction from prince compared to the original does very little for me especially on the computer screen. Here is the thing, take an image that someone else made, blow it up, present it as yours. Great! shock, lawsuits, it's mine not yours and so on and so forth. Point made, keep on doing it and it gets old like a one trick pony. Becomes a yawn fest after a bit. FYI, the work your son has done concerning the garden interest me quite a bit, just to toss out an example.

Notice he lives by himself way out in the middle of nowhere in a town with one restaurant only open three days a week. The cost of perusing such work? Or just cheap real estate?

There's a certain type of photographer (not all of them, so don't go there) who is forever trying to convince people that they are an artist. They really want in. But they understand virtually nothing about art, artists, collectors, art history, art marketing, auctions, pushing boundaries, concept, context or artistic vision.

Listen to them talk (or write). Their language is peppered with words like "can't, illegal, thief, permission, contract, stealing, uninspiring, ownership, royalty, get away with it, moral fiber of society, lunatics, ethics, not worthy, sleazy, marginally talented and sue the pants off of them."

These photographers have merely appropriated the word "artist." Until they understand what art and artists actually are, they aren't getting in the club.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Clapping.

Nicely put.

I dont need to be the hair club president, so maybe Dan will let me sing cumbah yah spelling?
at the campfire meetings for wayward artists?

Dan if you get any more concise in your statements of fact, the whole thing will disappear under its own weight into a black hole.

Dave

Ronald,

Just gone back to your comments on Prince's work and repetition.

Prince's only genius was in taking a tactic that would meet deadlines. What did he make 20 images?

Those images are all the same layout. Picture and comment on the bottom. If he had to come up
with new concepts for each piece, the whole process would have slowed him down and he would have failed
to deliver. And his workmanship would have been stretched with some images being better than others. As an artist
I dont think he can deliver quality.

I do not like his art, but that is not the most important thing. I dont care about his and the gallery's stunt, but more
power to them. But I find it interesting that no one has really called him on his repetitiveness. I am speaking of the critics.

If I put up 20 images on FAA that are basically the same the world might end. So yes Prince's real genius was understanding
he needed to be very repetitive and hide that fact behind his stunt.


Dave

Interesting comment Dan Turner, especially as your rather swathing comment is limited to just photographers. That in itself is telling I think. But, as I'm a photographer and this likely includes me (given my earlier comment) perhaps I can respond from my perspective.

Firstly, you're quite wrong. I don't wish to be a part of some 'club'. Indeed I've spent most of my life trying to avoid them. I do spend my time studying the work of those I consider to be master photographers, true artists of their craft. That's not to say I consider myself necessarily an artist because it's really not for me to judge. That privilege would lie with the public and those who may choose to support my efforts by putting their hands in their pockets.

I'm afraid I'm not easily conned by fly-by-nights, charlatans and the current hip thing. Given how vehemently you defend the work of Mr Prince I suspect however that you are, and you regard support of such work (despite what your eyes must be telling your brain) as a gateway into an elite circle that can indeed see the clothes where others can't. You believe that this will somehow elevate you into being an artist and a 'club' member by mere support, thus circumventing the trials and tribulations of other artists who work hard for their craft. Mr Prince has proved, as have others, that there is a quick and easy way to join the 'club' - create something controversial that gets people talking and sells to someone with more money than sense for a huge sum. Fine. Time will tell if this holds up, but I suspect it probably will on provenance alone, not on how good a piece of work it is artistically.

So I call a spade a spade. I judge art on face value, not fake value. No pickled sheep, unmade bed or purloined Instagram photo with a bit of text added is ever going to convince me that it is art, not by my definition.

And that's what counts you see - MY definition of art and what it means to me. The other side of the coin is you, with your thinly veiled insults for any photographer (and goodness knows why you should limit it to them, although I have my suspicions) who dares to call out the likes of Prince for what he is. If being a member of your 'artist's club' means accepting work which I consider to be a cheap con, then you're welcome to it. I'm quite happy thinking for myself, not what the art world is telling me I should think.

On that note I have nothing more to say on the matter. You enjoy being a member of your imaginary 'club', I'll happily stand outside strengthening the walls.

Are you saying that Warhol "stole" the Campbell soup image and used it to his own advantage illegally?

Monsieur Danl - if you're directing your query at me I don't believe I said any such thing.

@Dave Bowman - well stated. I also have no aspirations to belong to any such "club" that Prince or any of his defenders/sycophants imagine they belong to. That alone would be enough to keep me from wanting to join.

There's a "club"!? Does the "club" have a secret handshake and decoder ring?

Dave Bowman, good post.

I don't care for Prince's work for the reasons I already stated. However I think that Dan makes a good point, although I would widen the group outside of photography. So often the criticism of an artist who is pushing a concept boils down to what I would call the easy way out. They are scamming everyone type of thing, that does of course happen but overall I think it is rare. You don't need to love or even like work which is different than yours but at least take the time to learn what is being done or at least attempted before you just toss it aside. There have been many times where I have not liked a style of art, learned about it and at least figured out the reason I don't care for it! Greg, you don't know the secret handshake??!!!!

"...Greg, you don't know the secret handshake??!!!!"

:) When I read about "belonging to" or "being a part of" a "club", it reminds me of the old Flinstone's cartoons, where it was Fred I believe, always wanted to be the Grand Pubah (sp?). :)

I don't get deep into why I do or do not like something. Either I like it or I don't. It's up to each individual how deep they want to delve into the "meaning" and background of just about anything. Not directed at anyone in particular, and just a general statement, but as far as I know, we're still living in a pretty much free society, and no one needs to be dictated to by anyone on how much background, schooling, or whatever "they" deem necessary in order to be part of the "elite". Some people have their heads entrenched so far, they haven't seen the light of days in years probably.

I'm done.

Think you are right!

Monsieur Danl - if you're directing your query at me I don't believe I said any such thing.

So David Bowman,

Do you now accept Warhol's Soup Cans?

Is it within your moving definitions?

Dave....I do move my goal posts.....it is not cheating.....in my book.....

David Bridburg - to the best of my knowledge no one's ever tried to deliver them to me. Should they though I'd be happy to sign for them. It gets cold during winter in these parts.

"I'm afraid I'm not easily conned by fly-by-nights, charlatans and the current hip thing. Given how vehemently you defend the work of Mr Prince I suspect however that you are, and you regard support of such work (despite what your eyes must be telling your brain) as a gateway into an elite circle that can indeed see the clothes where others can't."

Dave, that is a well-written response. Thank you.

My observation, which is quite accurate, is that the majority of negativity is coming from photographers. That's very telling.

In the past, I have defended art I don't care for. But not to this extent. I like Richard's work. I 100% get it. If it wouldn't jeopardize my retirement account I would buy it. But I can't have this AND a Tesla, so the hard decisions have to be made.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

To tell the truth, I am not sure why this is even called an art site anymore as so many here are running away from the label artist, and or simply refuse to attempt to understand fine art and/or art history, if ever a site proved the adage you can lead a horse to water, this place is it.

David Bowman,

Welcome the artists club. Your full membership can be attained by sending me a check for ten dollars, American.

We will be saving a seat for you in heaven.

Send me twenty bucks and you can get the hell package.

Dave

Just an after thought, you have already chipped in the $30 for FAA.

I am not fully sure where that leaves you.

Dave