If a Rip - Off Rips Off a Rip - Off, is it a Rip - Off, or a valid Statement ?

Bricks are not works of art. Bricks are Bricks. You can build walls with them or chuck them through jeweller's windows, but you cannot stack them two deep and call it sculpture.
Keith Waterhouse, Daily Mirror, 19 Feb 1976.

Controversy in 1976...

The debate on the worthiness of the art of Mr Richard Prince continues, gathering media momentum, much like a snowball rolling down a hill.
The debate is polarising opinion, with many feeling that whilst he is indeed re-appropriating (without requesting permission ) the art of others, he is doing just enough transformative stuff to claim 'fair use'.

Andy Warhol controversy in 1962...

Some are pointing out the similarities with the Warhol soup cans , whilst others are bemoaning the misappropriation of Intellectual Properties (the original photographic images on Instagram.)
Meanwhile, images are being sold for around $ 90,000 and Mr Prince is no doubt weeping at his appalling lack of originality all the way to the bank.

It has been pointed out that on a purely technical basis, the reprinting of such images on a large scale would require some serious technical ability (think of the pixellation !).
Is it a post modern comment on the state of the Art world itself ?
If so, then technically Gagossian Galleries are to blame for first mounting the exhibition, having deemed it worthy of attention .
Then the issue falls to the first person who decided that $ 90,000 was a worthy price for an 'original'.

The issue is further clouded by the modern desire for visual affirmation - the online seflie thing that says hey, world, I'm here! 
I'm sure that many of those whose Instagram pics have been appropriated are not too upset - after all, the images were made public on social media, so another way to look at it is to question the strange invocation of privacy laws in such a global public location.

Pic by Doe Deere...controversial, too

My personal feelings are that it is further evidence of the commodification of Art, in which artificially inflated prices are achieved by media controversy - the very value of the art is directly proportional to the shock horror outrage , which is usually expressed in emotive tabloid terms- 'Children are dying of hunger, but some tosser just paid silly money for a Xerox of a Polaroid !'*


From the exhibitions of bricks in the Tate, to Tracey Emins unmade bed, the level of media hysteria seems to influence the perceived monetary value of the work.
I've put the word 'perceived' in italics because it really is about perception as opposed to nuts and bolts reality (ie cost of the materials used, time taken by the artist,etc.)

The artist Carl Andre whose piece 'Equivalent VIII' caused the British tabloids to explode with indignation way back in 1976 (see the opening quote), later denounced Conceptualism as 'humbug'.

STOP PRESS : in news just in , no less than the 'Suicide girls' are joining in, moving from victim status to 'Yes, please' - they are selling their own prints for $90,  as opposed to $90,000...so the whole thing seems to be descending into a post - modern free for all...can't beat 'em ?
Join 'em !

 I have spent more than enough time on the (non) - issue, but I hope you've enjoyed the pieces...

Equivalent VIII  pic from D. Telegraph

* Obviously both Xerox and Polaroid are brand names, so I should have said:
 '...a photocopy of an instant photograph'...