Photographic Plagiarism

clay · Jun 23, 2008

I can't disagree with that observation at all. I think that is just a basic fact of life in all the arts. We all become prisoners of our times, and it takes some rare geniuses to kick us (collectively) out of our well-worn-grooves. I don't put Prince and Levine in that group, though.

Have you ever noticed how easy it is to pin down the time period a song was recorded when you hear it on the radio? Even if you don't know the song, or maybe have never even heard it, it is generally easy to pin it down to a specific time period. Same is true in classical music. A piece written during the baroque period, sounds, well, baroque. And is very different from a late Romantic composition.

I think a lot of photographers do imitate some of the masters on occasion. I look at it as an activity sort of like learning scales, riffs and 'old standards' in music. The mistake comes in believing that it is original or noteworthy. Nothing wrong per se in creating a AA lookalike photo, but expecting the world to start pounding a path to your door is just naive.

Sparky said:
It seems to me you've got a far more insidious kind of copying going on in the photographic community - people doing AA ripoffs or whatever - and then claiming that as their own... that seems to me to be a far LESS honest practice that is FAR more widespread. At least these guys are making no bones about it... ya know?

Early Riser · Jun 23, 2008

Sparky said:
I mean - doesn't the very FACT that they've made these de facto COPIES of WELL KNOWN originals TELL YOU that they're not trying to 'get away' with something...? It seems to me you've got a far more insidious kind of copying going on in the photographic community - people doing AA ripoffs or whatever - and then claiming that as their own... that seems to me to be a far LESS honest practice that is FAR more widespread. At least these guys are making no bones about it... ya know?

The only way they CAN get away with ripping off someone else's work without getting sued is by saying that it's someone else's work. I don't see Prince giving Abell a share of the millions he's made off of Abell's images just by copying it and bullshitting everyone into buying that as being "original". As for people ripping off AA, there's a huge difference between shooting a landscape in the tradition of AA or even the same location as AA versus scanning an AA print, crediting AA but still claiming it as your work and pocketing the check.

Sparky said:
Early Riser -
I've offered you an explanation of (very approximately) what they were trying to do and how they've taken pains to distinguish these from the originals - and yet you choose to ignore these points and continue with the 'copying' rhetoric... so I guess this isn't technically a dialogue.

Again - it's NOT the work they were trying to copy - but USING the work as an artifact from a larger context - I'm sorry you're so unwilling to consider that point.

It's okay not to like something. But it's not okay not to like something without making an attempt to understand it first. That's just bullying. I don't see that as any different from wrongly accusing someone of having spat on you , say... as a pretext for punching them in the nose. Or attacking a country because you provided falsified evidence for them having WMDs (LOL).

Please try to understand intent before you judge. Nothing good can ever come from that.

Sparky, I went to art school, taught at art schools and have made my living in the arts for over 30 years. I have heard the word intent before. However what they claim as intent can just as easily be bullshit to justify plagiarism. I put more weight on their actions rather than their claims and their actions are to not to come up with fresh original images but to take someone else's work make little or no change to it, state that it's someone else's work yet sign it as their own, and then sell it. All the rest is just talk.

df cardwell · Jun 25, 2008

Nothing wrong per se in creating a AA lookalike photo,

Not so, Clay

A few years ago in Taos, I set up to make a homage to Strand and Adams at Ranchos. The light began to dance and I went under the cloth for a second, and was almost run down by a tourist bus as it tore through the parking lot.

A close encounter with karma, no doubt.

.

Sparky · Jun 25, 2008

Early Riser said:
The only way they CAN get away with ripping off someone else's work without getting sued is by saying that it's someone else's work. I don't see Prince giving Abell a share of the millions he's made off of Abell's images just by copying it and bullshitting everyone into buying that as being "original". As for people ripping off AA, there's a huge difference between shooting a landscape in the tradition of AA or even the same location as AA versus scanning an AA print, crediting AA but still claiming it as your work and pocketing the check.

Sparky, I went to art school, taught at art schools and have made my living in the arts for over 30 years. I have heard the word intent before. However what they claim as intent can just as easily be bullshit to justify plagiarism. I put more weight on their actions rather than their claims and their actions are to not to come up with fresh original images but to take someone else's work make little or no change to it, state that it's someone else's work yet sign it as their own, and then sell it. All the rest is just talk.

You're QUITE welcome to have your own opinions. I'm just a little surprised at your attitudes towards representation given that you have the experience you say... but hey- we're all different, and bringing different perspectives to different issues, right?? Thank GOD for that...!

DanielOB · Jun 27, 2008

Prince is not photographer, he is good businessman.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

Michael W · Jun 27, 2008

DanielOB said:
Prince is not photographer, he is good businessman.

He's not a businessman. He's an artist whose work has become highly collectible. You may not like it but that's no reason to misrepresent him.

Early Riser · Jun 27, 2008

goldie said:
He's not a businessman. He's an artist whose work has become highly collectible. You may not like it but that's no reason to misrepresent him.

An artist creates new work. A plagiarist makes copies of it.

SuzanneR · Jun 27, 2008

I'm not a big fan of this work, but it does open an interesting can of worms, which I suppose is the point. I found a few blog posts that might be of interest.

http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/06/27/photographers-should-embrace-richard-prince/

http://www.jmcolberg.com/weblog/2008/06/thoughts_on_richard_prince.html#more

Clearly he's being critical of cigarette advertising, which is such an easy target for criticism, that the work just feels like a copy to me without giving much more to think about or to question about big tobacco. Fairly well trod ground, it seems to me.

Basically, cigarette smokers are getting ripped off by tobacco companies with their highly addictive products, and Prince is, well... just ripping off other photographers with a weak idea.

panastasia · Jun 27, 2008

DanielOB said:
Prince is not photographer, he is good businessman.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

Daniel,
Wasn't it you that thought the RB wasn't a professional camera, though they make good photos?

Your opinions are amusing, I enjoy them, no kidding!

Paul

Jose A Martinez · Jun 27, 2008

goldie said:
He's not a businessman. He's an artist whose work has become highly collectible. You may not like it but that's no reason to misrepresent him.

Well, he is an artist and a great businessman, or an artis who have a great agent. Business and art aren't antagonists.

Sparky · Jun 27, 2008

DanielOB said:
Prince is not photographer, he is good businessman.
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

Well -there's a strong element of that, too... sad thing is - you're not going to get ANYWHERE in the art world unless you're really socailly gifted, extremely well connected or just charismatic as hell. The quality of the work is, sadly, nearly meaningless.

Photographic Plagiarism

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency