Homework 4: Appropriation

In the world of art, whether visual, musical, or literary, it can be difficult to draw the line between being inspired by another piece of art and downright plagiarizing it. However, when one actually uses that original work in their own piece, things become somewhat simpler. Under U.S. copyright law, "fair use" allows copyrighted material such as art or literature to be quoted or used for the purposes of critique, news, education, and research. Plagiarism, in contrast, is defined as the wrongful appropriation, stealing, and publication of artistic material without providing due credit or pay to the original creator.

Under this logic, it becomes rather evident that Richard Prince is not a daring, provocative artist at all, but a thief who took advantage of the abstract concept of art and the resulting flexibility of the laws surrounding it to wrong another, more artistic mind. To take another's labor, change it just enough to claim ownership, and then sell it is piggybacking at best and outright robbery at worst. While one could claim that Prince's works are different enough, supposedly due to carrying a "hectic and provocative" aesthetic in comparison to the serenity shown in Patrick Cariou's original work, one could also claim that Prince's "art" is nonsensical, crude, and just plain ugly. Art's subjective like that. The bottom line is that Prince purposefully took another's works and used them for profit without providing credit or recompense to Cariou, and used the resulting controversy to create publicity for himself and as a springboard for further acts of plagiarism on Instagram. Clever? Yes. Disrespectful and lazy? Also yes.

It's true that by posting a picture on social media, that picture becomes public, accessible to everyone with an internet connection. That’s one of the risks that come with the ability to connect with others across the globe. One could also argue that those who post provocative or exposing images of themselves do so essentially for attention; by being featured in an art gallery, they’re getting all the attention they could ever wish for. But unless Prince is paying them royalties for using their pictures, then it’s theft, plain and simple.

Artistic appropriation can be a source of fear for any who rely on their creativity to make a living, whether they are new to the field or accomplished artists. People such as Prince being allowed to freely use another’s work for profit undermine the principles of artistic integrity and discourage the introduction of new ideas and content for fear of losing them to another. Laws protecting creative property should be tightened in order to prevent such acts from taking place in order to ensure that all can safely express themselves in whatever medium they choose.

So yes, Richard Prince does indeed suck. In fact, I'd like to say things about him far worse than that, but seeing as this is my school blog, that probably wouldn't be a very good idea.