Selling Stolen Art for $90K

[SuperBastard]

So you may or may not have heard of Richard Prince, the guy who's been selling screenshots of other peoples' Instagram posts for up to 6-digit sums. He gets away with his blatant disregard for copyright laws by claiming that, in art, appropriation changes the nature of the original work. Whenever that BS fails to convince the judge he just changes a few pixels around.

He's practically plagiarizing Andy Warhol's book--not that he'd give a shit anyway, obviously. He's taking full advantage of the degradation of art into an industry, abusing the growing speculative trade of artwork and preying on investors who don't even try to understand what it is that they're buying, but do so anyway because of an unspoken agreement amongst themselves that it has monetary worth. He bought his place in this system because he was already rich and connected when he decided to become an "artist." Chucklefucks like him are the ones steering high art into the ground.

Well, Missy Suicide of suicidegirls decided to fight him by massively undercutting him on identical prints. But here's the thing: he actually praised her for her response.

Why? Because that's exactly what he wants. If more people start doing that, Richard Prince will have suddenly created an art movement and his (already absurd and undeserved) "value" as an artist will shoot way up.

What do you guys think? Did Missy Suicide find a way to beat him at his own game, or is she just playing into his hands? What would you do if some shitbird like Richard Prince ripped off your work and made a fortune on it because he was already popular?

[Bit]

Doing pretty much anything to him (other than perhaps arresting him) is going to give him the attention he craves.

He already knows that he's a piece of shit, and he doesn't care so long as he's getting attention and money.

[Ragnarokia]

Stealing art and selling it deserves punishment. It is theft and that is illegal. It doesn't matter what "specific laws" exist which there may be "loopholes" in. Law changes and thus it should accommodate this and arrest him.

Stealing artwork is already a bad thing to do, but when you start selling stuff that isn't yours it goes from just being disrespectful and immoral and wrong, to true theft taking the sales from those who it belongs to.

[someaveragechap]

I think he's a bundle of sticks that should be slapped with a fish by every resident of New York, Paris and London.

Who the hell is buying from him is what I want to know.

[Viper]

At 5/29/15 05:59 PM, someaveragechap wrote: I think he's a bundle of sticks that should be slapped with a fish by every resident of New York, Paris and London.

Who the hell is buying from him is what I want to know.

The same dumbasses who think canvases that are just one solid color are art.

[Zerodecoole]

Wait, so it's totally legal to sell photos of photographs?

brb photographing movie stills and historic pictures

[toxicdog]

Are his prints actually being sold, or is that just a claim?

[Zhon]

At 5/29/15 06:17 PM, Viper wrote:

At 5/29/15 05:59 PM, someaveragechap wrote: I think he's a bundle of sticks that should be slapped with a fish by every resident of New York, Paris and London.

Who the hell is buying from him is what I want to know.

The same dumbasses who think canvases that are just one solid color are art.

To be fair, Barnett Newman and the Color Field Painters had an actual theory - their art is more conceptual and spiritual than anything (not in the sense of religion - in the sense of a higher functioning aesthetic). These so-called color squares dismantled the institution of art itself and its former accepted values. While they are not solely responsible, they are one step in a long journey of shattering tradition and avant-garde alike that allowed art to become what it is today. The visual world as you know it is the result of this culmination. I could drone on for hours about this, but you get the general idea.

To that end, I think what this fraudulent hack is doing COULD be tastefully positioned to make a statement about art. However (and note this is without me actually reading into it, since I'm too lazy/busy/etc) it seems to me that he is more intent on exploiting the saturated nature of the art world, finding his new-age gimmick, and making a quick buck off of what desperate and impulsive rich folk mistakenly assume will be a mark in art history.

*edit* Hi supbas

[Viper]

At 5/29/15 08:41 PM, Zhon wrote: To be fair, Barnett Newman and the Color Field Painters had an actual theory - their art is more conceptual and spiritual than anything (not in the sense of religion - in the sense of a higher functioning aesthetic). These so-called color squares dismantled the institution of art itself and its former accepted values. While they are not solely responsible, they are one step in a long journey of shattering tradition and avant-garde alike that allowed art to become what it is today. The visual world as you know it is the result of this culmination. I could drone on for hours about this, but you get the general idea.

Okay okay fair enough. I guess I can kinda see your point. It's the whole "it's art because it destroys the notion of what everything conceived as art" sorta thing. Same with the whole thing with John Cage's 4:33.
Though I'll just leave the fact that this\/ sold for just under $44,000,000

[Zhon]

At 5/29/15 08:54 PM, Viper wrote:

At 5/29/15 08:41 PM, Zhon wrote: To be fair, Barnett Newman and the Color Field Painters had an actual theory - their art is more conceptual and spiritual than anything (not in the sense of religion - in the sense of a higher functioning aesthetic). These so-called color squares dismantled the institution of art itself and its former accepted values. While they are not solely responsible, they are one step in a long journey of shattering tradition and avant-garde alike that allowed art to become what it is today. The visual world as you know it is the result of this culmination. I could drone on for hours about this, but you get the general idea.

Okay okay fair enough. I guess I can kinda see your point. It's the whole "it's art because it destroys the notion of what everything conceived as art" sorta thing. Same with the whole thing with John Cage's 4:33.
Though I'll just leave the fact that this\/ sold for just under $44,000,000

Again - while I'm not disagreeing with your implied point that its realized sale price was outrageous, its value lies in more than its aesthetic beauty. It's a piece of history, a cultural artifact if you will. Which is exactly what any idiot buying screenshotted selfies is looking to pick up. Unfortunately for them, this guy is no Lichenstein, and this is no art movement.

[ThePulp]

Fucking brilliant.

[wildfire4461]

At 5/29/15 04:09 PM, Bit wrote: Doing pretty much anything to him (other than perhaps arresting him) is going to give him the attention he craves.

He already knows that he's a piece of shit, and he doesn't care so long as he's getting attention and money.

Put a bullet in his head. Problem solved.

[Viper]

At 5/30/15 09:35 AM, wildfire4461 wrote:

At 5/29/15 04:09 PM, Bit wrote: Doing pretty much anything to him (other than perhaps arresting him) is going to give him the attention he craves.

He already knows that he's a piece of shit, and he doesn't care so long as he's getting attention and money.

Put a bullet in his head. Problem solved.

Yes but by doing so "his" "artwork" will go through the roof and he'll end up getting a lot more attention because of it.
Thats how this sorta shit works.
And in the end he'll end up winning.

[SuperBastard]

At 5/30/15 07:11 PM, Hoodie wrote:

At 5/29/15 03:55 PM, SuperBastard wrote:

Well, Missy Suicide of suicidegirls

Stopped reading.

That's a shame.