Photographic Plagiarism

clay

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
1,335
Location
Asheville, N
Format
Multi Format
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.


 

Early Riser

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,681
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

df cardwell

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
3,357
Location
Dearborn,Mic
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
2,096
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format

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...!
 

Michael W

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,594
Location
Sydney
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

SuzanneR

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
5,977
Location
Massachusetts
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
624
Location
Dedham, Ma,
Format
Med. Format Pan
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
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
617
Location
Mexico City
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
2,096
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…