Untitled (Cowboy): Behind Richard Prince's Photographs & Appropriation | 100 Photos | TIME
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лис 2016
- His luminous 1989 photographs of Marlboro ads, minus the text, made Richard Prince a deeply controversial-and eventually very wealthy-artist of appropriation.
Subscribe to TIME ►► po.st/SubscribeTIME
In this unprecedented exploration of 100 photographs that shaped the human experience, TIME goes behind each spectacular image to reveal how and why it changed the course of history.
Order the book now at the TIME Shop.
po.st/TIME100Photos
Visit the complete multimedia experience at 100photos.time.com/
Get closer to the world of entertainment and celebrity news as TIME gives you access and insight on the people who make what you watch, read and share.
• Playlist
Money helps you learn how to spend and invest your money. Find advice and guidance you can count on from how to negotiate, how to save and everything in between.
• Playlist
Find out more about the latest developments in science and technology as TIME’s access brings you to the ideas and people changing our world.
• Playlist
Let TIME show you everything you need to know about drones, autonomous cars, smart devices and the latest inventions which are shaping industries and our way of living
• Playlist
Stay up to date on breaking news from around the world through TIME’s trusted reporting, insight and access
• Playlist
CONNECT WITH TIME
Web: time.com/
Twitter: / time
Facebook: / time
Google+: plus.google.com/+TIME/videos
Instagram: time?hl=en
Magazine: time.com/magazine/
Newsletter: time.com/newsletter
ABOUT TIME
TIME brings unparalleled insight, access and authority to the news. A 24/7 news publication with nearly a century of experience, TIME’s coverage shapes how we understand our world. Subscribe for daily news, interviews, science, technology, politics, health, entertainment, and business updates, as well as exclusive videos from TIME’s Person of the Year, TIME 100 and more created by TIME’s acclaimed writers, producers and editors.
Untitled (Cowboy): Behind Richard Prince's Photographs & Appropriation | 100 Photos | TIME
/ timemagazine
One day I'm going to steal Richard Prince's car, and when the judge asks for my defense, I'm going to say, "I never thought of it as stealing... it's more like _claiming."_
The original photographers sold their right to their own work when they were hired by Marlboro. They don´t actually own their photographs. Marlboro placed them in advertisements which is in the public domain. Marlboro wanted the photos to go everywhere they could, as advertisements are intended. The analogy would be if Richard Prince sold his car to a company that lets you rent the cars for free, like in a timeshare, and you one day get in the car and start driving. You then claimed the car correctly. If you go and win a drag race with that car (like getting money at the art auction) Richard Prince can´t come and say the prize money was his.
@@BrianQuesta They're not public domain. The company who commissioned it owns it, but Richard Prince's lawyer could play the Fair Use card in court. However, Philip Morris has more than its share of bad publicity from smoking that it wouldn't be worth it for them to take Prince to court. The Marlboro photographers should have been contacted and given some sort of credit or thanks, what they made compared to what he's made in auction is kind of ridiculous, but collectors with too much money on their hands just want bragging rights at summer parties on how much they spent to acquire it, and plan on reselling it at way more than what they originally paid for it. Eventually the public does get to see this at an installation and we see the names of who bought the art at that time.
@@BrianQuesta advertising is not public domain, what are you talking about
@@exploring_the_void1588 i meant if its on a billboard in times square and you take a photo of times square, there is no copyright on the advertising picture featured in the new photograph, because its in the public.
This burns me up. It's not his photograph, its a copy of someone else's photograph.
"it was never about stealing, and it wasnt that i was a theif; it was more like claiming." err, isn't that the same bloody thing?
no, it is not! Watch it again, maybe you understand it than
Frederic Beigbeder ever heard of this thing called a “joke”
But you have to say it with a smirk
So, if I film a Hitchcock movie while it's playing, then exhibit it, am I suddenly an artist? Or just a bootlegger?
Making art doesn't come in a vacuum. If you filmed a hitchcock movie while it's playing, yeah it can be art, but if you can't explain why you did it and its reason to have artistic merit, it's still art but the art sucks. It's an argument that has been debated through and through for over 100 years already.
depends on the intention.
Just a bootlegger
"he'll be remembered as an artist who really -"
stopping ya right there, this dude is definitely not an artist at best and should probably be arrested at worst??
There is no honor among thieves.
just make sure you catch a real thief first!
You people are so so so stupid. Baby Jesus sheds a tear for all the other stuff you don’t understand. Appropriation happens in every art form. Even language comes from poetry (art). It’s how you use it which matters. Or not. He’s an American great and will be remembered far longer than all the photographers whose work he appropriated. Who at any point could have changed their practice attempted to enter the world of fine art and enjoyed the 1 in a million success Prince has earned.
@@antigen4Richard theif lol
This is pure plagiarism. The original artist was completely forgotten and this person ended up with millions of $ for a photograph of another photograph!
plagiarism, bull shit. The buyer already know it is not the original photo. I feel the actual cowboy should sue the artist for shooting the photograph of stealing the performance art image from the performer.
Important to note that while I'm not sure of the exact circumstances in this sale, but typically in the art world, the artist is not the one making the majority of the profit on an auction sale. An artist sells their work to a collector, the collector holds onto the work acting much in the same way a stock would, and later sells it at a huge profit, none of that profit goes back to the artist, it is a game of investments played among the super-rich.
12:28 this sentence will never not anger me
LMFAOO i said same thing! The people that speak most have the least to say
stay mad cisgender-heterosexual
This is the most postmodern thing I’ve ever heard of.
Lmao
Are the pictures transformative? No. If I take a painting from an artist and I cut it to cut off their signature, does it become my painting? Did I create it? No. Taking a photo and just cropping the add potion of it off doesn’t make it yours. If you did that in school, you’d be punished for plagiarism. Because guess what? This is blatant plagiarism. The gall of this man is outstanding
If you did that in school, you’d be punished for plagiarism... pretty much, yes.
@@Buttercup697yea, exactly what he said ...duh
Corruption is now epidemic. I have now respect for this image stealer, he's no artist. It's the art world that has made it possible, they must be bored of life
learn English, do you have respect or not
Prince isn't making a different statement in his photographs than in the advertisements. He does not subvert or respond to anything by reframing it; there is nothing new added.
but the art is still shitty. And frankly it's not creative. Duchamp, he was creative. Prince is just a copycat on many levels and that's boring.
I get the message in what a shitty mass marketing world we live, fair enough as an artistic message, Richard Princes deserves the fame and the money for having the balls to do it, most of the commenters here are dull sheep
This is the key I think. If he were somehow criticizing the usage of these images in cigarette ads that'd be something, but he's not. He claims to be capturing the same thing the original captured. He doesn't take anything away that creates new meaning, he's just doing a 20% zoom.
removing tobacco ad is adding to the photo
@@TheDude4077hmm
There's a difference between *inspiration* and just plain *copying*
Yeah there is but he never said that he was indpirated by their pictures he said that he copied it
"The only time when a lazy man succeeds is when he tries to do nothing" - Evan Esar
as an artist this offends me to my soul ! of course you sometimes copy existing work and styles but only to further your craft and ability or skill and you never ever say that you yourself created the orginal image. But that is with drawing and painting, as a photographer you can’t just photograph a photograph. you could replicate it but you always have to give credit. what this man did was lazy and uncrative and plain thievery
I love how the critics are gushing over Prince's genius. Typical comments from people who have never created anything original their lives! He just did what the early samplers did in their music, the original creators wised up and started suing them
As an artist, I find it inspiring! Prince is taking what were initially intended to trick consumers into buying a product, and removing all the context, leaving the viewer with a beautiful image. Abell and Clasen were selling a stereotypical, false narrative. Prince was selling the truth.
I think I understand both sides of the Prince argument: It’s mindless cropping for sole benefit of the ‘re-appropriator’ and on the other hand, it’s about changing the focus and scoping in to something deeper than what the picture originally meant to focus into. My mind tells me that more should be done in addition to cropping to make an image seem ‘completely’ different from their originals. I’ve done photography and videography for the greater part of 3 years now and would be upset if someone changed the filter on a photo I post online and sell it for more than what I make in a year.
There are no two side of this. Its plagiarism, polite word for theft.
Just calling lol funny 🤣🤣
@@mainzerphotojust claiming it alright lol
If photographing a photograph is an original photograph and considered a new body of work then people who make bootleg screener versions of films in the cinema are the greatest directors of all time; the scope and size of their body of work is incredible.
The Warhol with the soup can and the Cowboy Essay arguments are weak. The essay served as inspiration ffor something that created entirely new NEW works and Warhol edited the graphics he worked with so they gave a completely different impression. Price's photos are not some super-manipulated distorted remixed re-inteprited works, they are the exact same images reproduced slightly poorly. Even in music you have Vaporwave which sometimes only slows 80's ad music down, but even that presents an entirely different experience to the listener and invokes a different mood and aesthetic. And oh yeah it's not sold for thousands of dollars.
11:25 oh bullshit
No. not in the least. Those are copies and they derive their interest from the original (the copied film). if you think the cowboys are the subject of his photos then you completely miss the point.
Antigen plz shut up its exactly like that price is a talentless thief
@@antigen4 and their is only limited prints, unlike bootleg mass production.
@@antigen4 The appropriation may be the creative process of the art... but the art is still shitty. And frankly it's not creative. Duchamp, he was creative. Prince is just a copycat on many levels and that's boring.
@@j.c.4192 so it's limited in its un-creativeness and boringness.
The increasing unpopularity of the cigarette and rightly so over the years with law suits against Phillip Morris didn’t help the image of the cowboy or help the legacy of the original photographers. One could argue that Richard Prince’s stripping away the original advertising message and reframing of these cowboy images helped to elevate the photographs into another realm - an opportunity lost by the owners of the originals.
Total thief
he took fucking advertising, that killed thousands by its effects, he is one of the coolest artists, he shits on your comment
dum dum
Frederic Beigbeder YES
Frederic Beigbeder that’s not the point. He stole someone photo and got famous off it. It has nothing to do with the company
I hate this so much because he's making a genuine artistic method sound like bullshit by associating it with his blatant theft. Using other's work as a part of your own is a completely valid way to make a new artistic statement, The Warhol Soup Can they talk about in the video is a good example of it. But Prince is not doing that! Warhol keeps the Campbell logo in his work, highlights that his is not fully original, and comments on the role of advertising in our culture. But Prince is not saying anything new with his photo, it's not a commentary on cigarette advertisements or consumer culture, he's just passing them off as genuine photos of cowboys that he took. THAT'S NOT WHAT APPROPRIATION IS. You have to be saying something new with your piece, and acknowledging of the fact that your's is an interpretation of an existing piece of media. And what sucks is a lot of people who's first exposure to appropriation is Prince's crap will walk away thinking "Well I guess all appropriation in art is just theft and bullshit" when it's not, this is just not an example of appropriation, it's an example of theft that Prince just played the appropriation card with after the fact when he got caught.
Abell doesn't own the rights to his image though, he did this work for hire for Marlboro, and everyone viewing these images is going to associate them with Marlboro. It's also completely untrue that this is not what appropriation is, there is no requirement to say something new in appropriation work. He is however completely acknowledging the fact that he is interpreting an existing piece of media. Never does Richard Prince try to tell us he went out to the desert and shot photographs of some cowboys. Your assertion that he "played the appropriation card after the fact" is also completely untrue. The entire art field around him at this time was making similar appropriation work. Sherrie Levine did the same type of work. Prince was creating this work with a clear intention of appropriation. What you are thinking of is parody and allusion.
@@jessstapf426still a thief
Is all about money ....anyone take a photo and say its "appropriation" and sell it for millions 😅
should go about it the way the hip hop industry does, pay the loyalties for the image
same way reaction channels get more views than original video
😂😂😂 young , people , who love entertainment
Listen to all the modern art word salad to justify this theft....
$$$
Richard Prince was NOT the first person to rephotograph other people's photos and present them as as art. Sherrie Levine's 'After Walker Evans' series predates the cowboys by some years (to my knowledge [correct me if i'm wrong]). The way Prince is credited in this video seems like a classic case of historical bias towards a mythology of male genius. ALSO the guys admiring the formal elements of Prince's re-photos are missing the point. The value of these works is purely in the way they recontextualise advertisements as fine art works, not in their composition or colour, duh. It's no wonder so many people hate contemporary art when the only advocates they hear for it are actually shills who can't even acknowledge that there is genuine ethical challenge posed by art like this that needs more nuanced unpacking rather than pure glorification.
Duchamp was the first to appropriate. the rest are just copycats... and that makes boring art.
Well in my book, not only Richard Prince stole the work but also Marlboro ... maybe if the photographer have had the right to publish his work outside the ad campaign it would be different ... as soon a all right are taken from the photograph it is already stolen. First Marlboro stole it then Richard prince stole it from Marlboro ... how bizarre, how bizarre ...
Richard Prince is the old guy equivalent to a bad reaction channel
My first introduction to Richard Prince
No remorse. "I took the photograph", no you didn't. Special place in hell for men like him.
Why is there a place in hell for Prince and not for Marlboro which made the photographers release the rights to their own photographs?
He literally held up his camera and shot the photograph. That would be the definition of taking a photograph, so yeah, I would say he did take the photograph. He's not claiming to have taken the original photograph, rather the photograph of a reproduction of the original image.
@@BrianQuestaobviously there are no copyrights on these images 😂
@@carissafisher7514must be free to use, and commerical use lol
was there a guy named Carlson from LI NY who did a Marlboro advertisement
native Americans in the comment section reading these comments like..."oh, so now theres a problem"
calm down calm down everyone remember Duchamp
I don't . So that a idiotic statement
you can actually see the body language of prince and all those talking in favor of him. that s not art for me this is stealing photos... love the original ones though crazy images. i am doing collages myself and this is just stealing a part of a photo with copyrights. i wonder how much the original photographers did actually earn for this.
Prince is NOT an artist. I understand if he did it for the art and that it (Prince’s “photographs/art) can be viewed as an separate art piece than the original photograph. But, he can *not* claim that he took the photo graph and not give credit to the original artists! He can not and does not deserve to be rich over this!!!!! Separate thought: imagine if someone took a photo of Andy warhol’s tomato soup can work (without cropping the photo, and not doing what Prince did just literally taking a photo of it as it is in a museum) and the same person put the pic in a different museum. Can the person say they took the photo? Yes. Can they say it’s their OWN work? No, not exactly. Credit NEEDS to be due!!!!! It’s okay if you take inspiration but you have to GIVE CREDIT AT THE END!!!!!!! Plus, wouldn’t you just think that seeing the photo in the museum is a waste of time and just go to the actual artwork instead? Or, would you deeply observe the photo and instead say that it is it’s own art?
That's crazy . How did he not get sued ???
you can't turning work in a college that isn't yours... they say you cheated, so at best his a cheat that got paid off of other photographers hard work out there in the wild. while he sat on his ass, in a building and took photos of their work... I can't believe people defend this guy, really missed up
And he never gives credit to whom it's due. He admits he literally took that photograph. Very accurate admission, whether he meant it or not.
Contemporary art.. is not art. It's mimicry or copying. This guy literally says all he did was crop the photos. That's not changing the focus. Its limiting the shot. It's not art.
Appropriation art is only a part of contemporary art, it’s not the law
blame the buyers.
they are definitely part of the problem.
time, I think you forgot about the pale blue dot image.
I’m confused? Who made the pictures
Philip Morris
i think the worst is the peoples who buy that at this price! How could you give 1 million for the work of a guy who did nothing except take a picture of a commercial? This is amazing....
Smart man lol he got lucky
I understand the whole idea of appropriation and expanding the continuity or even reinterpreting work providing the spectator with a different visual narrative etc etc and i myself as a collage artist and a photographer has used this technique BUT what i must say challenging and at the same time peculiar is Richard princes is quote claiming that he took the photograph therefore its his. So this is my question, if the photograph never existed his work would never exist so its a symbiotic relationship and it would be humble and nonetheless fair to give credit where its due not necessarily devaluating his art but i think the attitude and claiming that its his work its complete unnecessary ,irrelevant and has no basis. Art by nature is an expression of freedom thus austerity is relinquished but at the same time we must not neglect its purity and via our arrogance metamorphosize it into something unattractive and grotesque .
Prince is a plagiarist and should be made to pay the original photographers all proceeds from his theft .
@@mainzerphotowhy he wasn't sued
After a point it stops making sens for normal people... This is so weird that it broke my mind for a bit, I highly disagree with the practice doen by Prince, but, I would also like bring your attention towards a fact that we are programmed to think this way. It's a flaw in the society not in the person
“In terms of the money, I don’t think anybody would have made or rephotographed a cowboy in 1980 if they were thinking about making money I just don’t think it would have occurred to them.”
You mean, exactly like what Marlboro was doing in 1980? What a fucking clown. He should be in jail.
Richard prince is the best.
....salesman.
He could have easily staged similar actors and created his “own” similar composition & photo to express the same concept rather than plagiarizing
I'm almost convinced.
So Prince says its ok to steal the photographs because they were advertising content. Edward Steichen, Paul Outerbridge, Jr., Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, August Sander, Lewis Hine, Herbert Matter, Richard Avedon, Guy Bourdin and Annie Leibovitz and many others all did advertising work. Would anyone justify the theft of their work?
I don't get the story...!
These post modern experts saying how great he is for his ironic posting of these. The utter arrogance.
Sam Abell, one of the original Marlboro photographers, said it best when he said that there is a law that is higher than the courts of law in respect to artistic appropriation … And that is something that we teach children.. “do unto to others, as you would have them do unto you.” And he notes that Prince can apparently live very happily in violation of that concept.
Why am I watching this video ! This is America in One way.
Doesn't help that Prince looks the part of a spaghetti western bad guy
Are they kidding me? Prince is not an artist. All this bullshit they are saying about his art! « I literally took the photograph! » Oh my God! What world we are living?
I go to a museum and take a photo of a painting not in public domain and sell the prints of the photograph. Bam, I am the artist. Are you kidding me?
yappington
As a photographer and videographer myself I am..... well that does it, I'm just going to take other peoples work and make millions off of it. Because we now live in a society with no sense of no-shame and ethics.
artist of appropriation, more like plagiarism
If you telling me that you are making satirical replica Painted.
That would have make sense but Wtf how is this allowed?
They didn't care at the time I guess
If i take a book, change the title switch around a few words then published it as mine its still plajurism
If Richard Prince hadn't made money off of these photos, NOBODY would've cared. That is what is so annoying about these people that were "hired guns" in the first place. They showed up and photographed what Philip Morris had set up for them in the first place. All composition, no creativity from those photographers. Give me a break.
“Artist”? Lol, where is the added value at least? He is just a basic photo cropper that takes the logo out, any lazy high schooler can do that for a class project.
“His great talent?” What a crock of shit!
I think the feelings that Richard Prince has caused all of us to feel is art. In my eyes Richard Prince is an artist, for better or for worse.
the original photographer stole it from nature. give the horse $1 mil
Give it to me
FEKKARU MATTAA is the only true artist that I know.
Seems like with all that money, Richard Prince would be able to get his teeth and face fixed. Maybe I should just take pictures of art and sell them as my own?
good documentary, bad person.
Suggestive claiming
Political candidate
Appropriated
#haiku #advertising #photography #film #digital #wgasolidarity #equity #creativelaw
Nothing U can C
That iz'nt, shown.
I'm
I think there is a description for this type of artist. Oh ya a con artist.
genius
He's not an artist. Never has and never will be.
Richard Prince is my idol
Nah guys u dont get the message
Hes a hack
HIs work was brilliant. Just as other artists appropriate images from our culture to point out how our identities are constructed -- Prince deconstructs the advertising photo and makes us consider how all of us are fed media since the day we are born and comments on this social construct.
There is nothing deconstructed within the original art. The appropriation may be the creative process of the art... but the art is still shitty. And frankly it's not creative. Duchamp, he was creative. Prince is just a copycat on many levels and that's boring.
Richard prince used one of my instagram photos. I wasn't mad I was honored, I knew what he was doing.
Rafaeli Galvez oh gosh.. u should be mad then.. he took ur pic and dont even mention u at the credit.. how u can fell honored since people wouldnt know ur exist.. he takes other pictures to make a fortune.. while here we are just watching on a tiny phone..
The professional photographers he ripped off don't feel the same as you do, probably because they are PROFESSIONALS!
I have never heard so much bullshit in all my life.
uh...ok. So...I've never heard of prince before today. If I wanted to know who did a photo, I'd research the origin of the photo and still never find Prince. This is a fleeting moment in history that will be forgotten. lol, sorry. I know the orginal artists should get paid, for sure, but they'll all be forgotten and Prince will be forgotten first.
enjoying white dudes arguing about who's stealing from who:)
Crazy people lol they always do shit like that
They're focusing on the subject matter too much. That isn't what's important. It's about the idea of continuation. An image is replicated, changed, then replicated and changed again. Thus is takes on a life of its own that wouldn't have happened if it had never been re-appropriated. You see this idea constantly on image board style websites. The fun of it and the artistry is in playing around with the original context of the photo. Then someone else comes along and add their own take on that new context and so on.
Plus the original photographers of the cowboy adds should be thanking him, their photos are being seen far more than they ever would have as a throw away ad in a 1980s magazine.
'An image is replicated, changed, then replicated and changed again'
cropping images is enough change to call this your own work of art?
'You see this idea constantly on image board style websites. The fun of it and the artistry is in playing around with the original context of the photo. Then someone else comes along and add their own take on that new context and so on.'
this stuff is not exhibited in galleries or sold and again it all depends on the amount of change you put into it.
The photographers should be thanking him? Yea sure while they sit back seeing another person get rich and receive all the praise for your work. Yea thats something to be thankful for
No, they should not be thanking him. He got milions and credits for these plagiarized photohgraphs and fck you for defending this. FCK YOU.
people who are calling richard prince a thief don't realize that the original photographers weren't even fucking credited in the pic that prince detourned from. if anything, malboro are the og thieves.
also copyright is lame tbh. i get being mad about someone stealing you rat, but richard prince, by reframing a picture in a magazine that seems to have no original creator (even tho it has a creator), isn't stealing, he's detourning. read up on your situationist theory, lads
He a theif . Plain and sick
What a clown. The curator is just as bad. The ridiculous art speak that tries to legitimize this BS. So, can I just retype a famous poem and say that it’s mine? It spoke to me, so I typed it out myself… Can’t I claim it?
This guy is awful.
if you view prince's work as 'theft' then i'm sorry to say ... you simply don't get it. Prince never reproduced 'photographs' but rather 'schlock advertising imagery' - the POINT was to play with the tension between mass culture images of the 'sublime' and the advertising medium. HENCE the halftone (no - you wouldn't notice that, would you?)
O plz stop thats theft point blank
You modern art enthusiast are a bunch of hogwash pile of shit. Fck you.
Prince never reproduced 'photographs' but rather 'schlock advertising imagery'... bullshit, he stole photographs from fine art photographers from instagram and hung them up on the walls of the Gogasian...
This i one of these "everybody could have done it!" situations. But guess what: not everybody did. Richard Prince did. And the original photographers and the companies that paid them to take the photographs had long forgotten about all of them, and they were happy with what they were paid and paid for back then, but now they want MORE!
con artist
He took away the grossness and evil purposes of the campaigns, and turned them into life. From something that promoted and glorified death, he took the death part out, and now you can see just the life.
Honestly I liked the Richard Prince better