Request rational and sober thinkers for this one.

[Mark Sawyer]

This might best be understood as the auction itself being a piece of performance art, with the winning bidder being as much the artist as the "re-photographer." The current divergence of directions in the art world precludes the importance of individual pieces without the self-fulfilling pedigrees of absurd prices.

It does have some of what artsy- (as opposed to art-) collectors desire: cynicism, large scale, and a loaded imagery that means one can write on and on about it, although, really, one can write on and on about the lint in one's navel. But the non-archival nature of the color photograph defines it as unfit for long term display and as a long term investment. (What will be the value of the badly-faded original in fifty years' time?)

In the end, the work is a cynical comment even on the system it sold within; there is enough wealth concentrated in the decadent hands of a very few that they have nothing better to spend it on than the artwork-of-the-moment, all likely subsidized by a tax-break at the expense of the tax-paying Wal-mart workers who can barely afford their own generic alternatives to Marlboros...

 

[df cardwell]

Isn't there some sort of copyright issue here? Wouldn't the original photographer who made the image for the cigarette company have some rights in this? Does your right to a photograph expire after a period of time?

Yep, it IS a copyright issue... but only under certain conditions. I have no idea how to put a value on the Prince copy when he made it. ( probably a few bucks if any ! ) If it had been a commercial work, his posterior would have been nailed hard to a handy wall, and no mistake.

The real sucker, obviously, is the buyer. He could have made his own copy, couldn't he ?

So the point isn't the 'image' but the 'concept'. Like paying a million dollars for a pair of bluejeans that say "Richard Prince" instead of Levis.

Not that I'm being critical. Somebody is HAPPY to have spent a zillion bucks of a photocopy of a magazine ad. Who am I to question his innocent pleasure ?




.

 

[rfshootist]

I have often stated that today (IMHO) the only thing that determines if something is art is if someone will pay money for it. But just because someone pays money for something does not mean that it is not total CRAP.
.

Art is just a word, used here in a context of trading ganbling and speculation.
And in this context the only relevant question is if this object will have a growing worth or not. If so, some think it is worth the risk ,they invest .
This kinda "Art" market is comparable to the stock market, where you can talk stocks up and down, it all depends on WHO is talking.

The word art is absolutely misleading, none of these guys cares what art is and if this object is art or not, important is only that some "players" have declared it to be art, and this way the blow up a bubble, if it bursts the last owner is the loser and all the money stays with the previous possessors.

This cigarette pic seems to be quite close to this point ! ;-)

bertram