Meet The World's Most Hated Photographer.

[@TatianaHopper]

*World of Photography* is a new series of videos I want to bring to the channel, featuring stories like this one today, believe me when I say that there's some strange corners of the photography world that make great videos with important questions that all of us photographers would appreciate thinking about. Let me know your thoughts below and if you'd like to see more videos like this. Latest videos on the channel include: *The Advice Stanley Kubrick left to all photographers!* kzbin.info/www/bejne/pmLPeZRqjallqdEsi=Z_-sBAruA1wYPo-C *Robert Blomfield: The UK's Vivian Maier* kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXu0n2uHf9eIn7M Major thank you to all channel members!

[@thea.m.p.co.467]

Makes literal photocopies and wonders why he gets sued for copyright infringement.

[@TatianaHopper]

😅

[@dangilmore9724]

Larry Wassong, who was responsible for the creative direction of the Marlboro Man, is a good friend of mine. The original model that was to be the Marlboro Man didn't show up for the first shoot, so Larry stepped in to be the model. Larry in a consumate horseman, so it went off without a hitch.

[@TatianaHopper]

No way! Little did they probably know the gigantic success those campaigns would have, even from an advertising history perspective, the Marlboro Man represents such a breakthrough. Thanks for watching!

[@tundrusphoto4312]

A fascinating video and subject. As to why Prince's "work" was considered to be "art", it is because a gallery could put in on the walls the sell it. Anything that sells in the art world is art. Commerce to a large extent, defines what art is or should be. The acid test is whether it will be bought and the price paid.

[@TatianaHopper]

I got a similar answer from a friend of mine who worked in a gallery for years.

[@KeithBrighouse-r3k]

I wouldn't call Prince a photographer but a pop art/dadaist artist. The interest isn't so much in the image, it could be any image in theory but in the philosophy behind it. You could says it's bad art, you could say it's all cod philosophy but it is an artistic statement more than a photographic statement. Artists have been appropriating material forever. What gets in the way of the idea here is money, the indignation Prince is making more money than the original creator of the image. Well so did Warhol, Lichtenstein and quite a few others.

[@gregorylagrange]

It's not just the money, it's the cult like, there's only approval when one of their own does it, that's validly bothersome. It's like gluing a white T-shirt to a white canvas. It's "all you did was glue a t-shirt to a canvas..." when done by any other than somebody they see as one of their own. When one of their own does it, "it's an artistic statement..."

[@KeithBrighouse-r3k]

@@gregorylagrange I am sure the t-shirt thing has been done. Whether you like it or not, whether you approve or not, it is an artistic statement. The money is all down to the different market and marketing. That's capitalism, largely marketing junk, junk being the commodity that makes capitalists their biggest profits.

[@gregorylagrange]

@@KeithBrighouse-r3k Yet I bet even the art world would pick and choose when they want to use copyright infringement.

[@KeithBrighouse-r3k]

@@gregorylagrange In some situations I don't think you can reproduce for publication photographs of owned art works. But then, the artist is probably not the owner of the art work. I'm not making a moral defence, where money is involved, morals seem to go out of the window. I'm just stating a fact about it being an artistic statement. Whether it is a good, bad or indifferent statement, opinions will differ. Personally I think it is a valid statement, not one to set my imagination alight and as for art world prices, I do find them ludicrous. But since governments don't tax the sales properly and treat "art" as cultural, iart sales will be used to launder money or gamble on art being an appreciating asset.

[@EdwardIglesias]

This is a difficult question. For me, a 57 year old American male who grew up with Marlborough ads in print and on TV, the ubiquitous nature of this advertising was overwhelming. Even if you never smoked these images were everywhere. They are definitely signifiers of a time no longer there and deadly lies we all believed from the definition of masculinity to the safeness of cigarettes. As such I have no problem with the appropriation of these images since from the start, they were intentional lies. More generally it seems hard to justify a clear line between appropriation and outright copying. All art is influenced by other art. Modern art (or at least the art market) has nothing to do with beauty or technique but merely creativity of description.

[@TatianaHopper]

I think those are some great points, as I said in the end, perhaps I’m missing a context that I don’t have due to being born way after the making of those ads and rephotographs, seems hard for me to justify paying millions for something like this. But my main consideration is precisely what you wrote seems hard to justify and identify a clear line between appropriation and plagiarism. Thank you for watching Edward!

[@victorcarmelo8606]

@@TatianaHopperno this is just blatant theft as they were copywritten by the photographers and their client.

[@confrontingphotography4815]

First - as a historical matter rephotograph is not the same as appropriation, for example avant- guard filmmakers of the 1970s often rephotographed their own work as a way of degrading the image or combining images (think of how Barbara Hammer and others used JK optical printers). The re-photography done by RP and AW is only one example of a larger practice. Second, when considering RP, it’s not the cowboy images we should be focusing on, it’s the hundreds of images he stole from IG users and also the nudes he stole from American biker magazines, the latter are extremely problematic in that the women may not have consented to having their images published in the first place and then, years later RP took the images (with little or no changes) and sold them for big money. So there are issues of consent, exploitation and also the way he stole from presumably working class people in order to enrich himself, when he was already a rich guy. Regarding the cowboy images, regardless of who the copyright holder is, he still should have cleared the copyright in the same way that is done in publishing or hip hop. The ad agencies could have sued him but decided not to.

[@TatianaHopper]

I believe I explained rephotographs could be an exercise of photographing something more than once when I said it could also be an exercise of then and now. Of course in the 70s it got entangled with appropriation which changed its meaning and form of application ad well. But you have some great points in your answer, I didn’t want to touch on the bikers magazines firstly because I read that is some ongoing litigation regarding that so I left it aside also because such subjects on KZbin can get the video age restricted. Anyways, I actually was saving the instagram images he exhibited at the Gagosian for another instalment as he hasn’t been the only artist pulling that sort of stunt…. Which is at best crazy. But you’re totally right those are way worse facts about his career. Did you read about the photographer who rephotographed Walker Evan’s work?

[@ciklope0]

@@TatianaHopper Walker Evans --- Sherrie Levine

[@TatianaHopper]

That would be another great video. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it honestly.

[@KnightlyHouse]

@@TatianaHopper I like Levine's work. i see her as an actual artist with something to say about feminism and authorship. I don't see anything in RPs plagiarsed images

[@confrontingphotography4815]

@@TatianaHopper I tried to comment a few days ago but it didn't post. Yeah, I am familiar with Sherrie Levine, She has more credibility as an artist than RP in part because of the support she got from the influential critic Douglas Crimp. I re-read his essay Appropriating Appropriation (from the 1980s) after watching your video, I regret to say that it doesn't hold up so well. Believe it or not Levine also appropriated Edward Weston. And dig this there is a one of RP's Cowboy images up at auction right now at Philips the low estimate for the work is 120,000 English Pounds. The description includes this language "For more than three decades, Prince's universally celebrated practice has pursued the subversive strategy of appropriating commonplace imagery and themes . . ." Language that may be intentionally Ironic but I cringe at the idea that what he does is "Subversive" in any productive sense of the word. If anything he version of appropriation is reactionary / deeply cynical. Sigh . . .

[@christophernewland5927]

Here's my take, as a photographer of over 40 years (in many different guises): re-photographing or appropriation are not Prince's art (whether we're considering the Marlboro campaign or the Instagram stuff). Prince's art is the provocation which results. He's done a lot of different work in lots of different mediums and the one thing that people still talk about (ref: your insightful video) are his acts of appropriation. I'd say that he has created work of lasting value. For that reason alone I can validate his actions, even though I was strongly encouraged to "hate" him while I was a student in photography school. I recently saw one of his works on the wall in the Art Institute of Chicago, and I have to say: it looked great.

[@TatianaHopper]

Great comment it gave me some perspective, thanks for watching!

[@jztouch]

What he accomplished in my opinion is bringing attention to these beautiful photos, which otherwise would have likely been lost to time between the covers of discarded magazines. A more interesting artist that used appropriation during that time is Sarah Charlesworth. I recently read an interview with her and she describes why she used the images she did. She talked about collecting certain iconic imagery to examine how they affected our culture and thought processes. That’s more interesting than what Prince did in my opinion and I want to check out more of her work.

[@sophieannekeogh]

Bravo 👏 👏 your videos never ceases to amaze me and are always so well put together!

[@TatianaHopper]

Thank you so much Sophie and thank you for being a member of the channel!

[@donconrard533]

That's what I like about being a street photographer. Nobody can copy my work. Not even me.

[@stevemcmahon6803]

Prince would just take photographs of your photographs

[@filmic1]

That was insightful. Thank-you. I've had my photography snitched, printed in an advertisement/invitation to get me to take out a membership in their, 'whatever it was.' 'Int'l something or other of Photography' I think this happened twice.

[@mid90s75]

I mean the fact that he's been sued so many times says a lot lol good video and I'd like more like these please!

[@TatianaHopper]

It definitely shows a lot of people have a problem with what Prince has produced over the years. Thanks for watching!

[@mid90s75]

@@TatianaHopper touché.

[@kapurar]

Another great and thought provoking video. Thanks!

[@TatianaHopper]

Thank you so much!

[@offgrid-bound]

Never heard of that guy, and I don’t care for advertising in any shape or form. What I’ll say is that duplication is the greatest form of flattery, and throughout history there have been more copycats than original creators, including some that we today consider as artists. Heck, the whole KZbin is a cesspool of copycats. Seen any camera gear reviews lately? Your channel is one of few exceptions, refreshing in looking at photography as a form of expression rather than tech & gear, and although I think that certain amount of ‘appropriation’ is actually necessary to maintain and propagate culture, I found this video very interesting and thought provoking.

[@TatianaHopper]

That was the point, to make something thought provoking! Thanks so much for watching as for KZbin copycats all I’ll say is that money taints integrity. We live in a world where everything is justified, well it’s not. I wouldn’t say that in regards to photography channels on KZbin because ironically I don’t really watch photography channels but generally speaking when someone is accused of something KZbin is flooded by these social commentary videos that denigrate the person in question and in the end it’s all about money. I watched a documentary on the Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard case and they make an excellent point that KZbin is a cesspool of commentary and slander only moved by money, if there wasn’t the prospect of personal financial gain people wouldn’t do that. And I believe Prince probably wouldn’t have it either.

[@washingtonradio]

Prince strikes me as pretentious jerk. It's one thing to take someone else's work/ideas and create something based on them. But to just be a photocopier with no creativity is why modern copyright laws exist. Any self-aware artist recognizes they are drawing inspiration from a variety of sources including some they can't really name and are melding them into something unique.

[@Nightmvoeskn5zg]

This was a great watch, I liked that you remained neutral and discussed both perspectives, thanks!

[@TatianaHopper]

Thank you! I just wanted to present sides and then let people decide for themselves.

[@rogerhyland8283]

It’s not just Prince acting alone, it’s the art world, more specifically the gatekeepers/priesthood of the art world, the curators. Forgive my generalisations as I never really studied the whole post modernism thing, thinking it was bullshit from day 1. My take is that the philosophy came from France and intertwined with various non-objective art movements of the 50’s and 60’s, so basically anything goes. So curators borrow the philosophical psychobabble, which they might be quite adept at articulating and extrapolating to promote the work of a protege that will advance their careers-(I hate to say it because I actually think Warhol was great, but maybe the relation of Henry Geldzahler and Andy Warhol was a precursor to this sort of artist/curator almost symbiosis.) What they lack is a sense of actual meaning. Like making a sentence where the spelling is perfect but the grammar is absent. You might be able to unscramble it but it would be a guess at best. Anyway, it’s that sort of intellectual inadequacy that makes all this possible. It reminds me of a line from Annie Hall where Alvy Singer says, “what’s with all these awards? Adolf Hitler, Best Fascist Dictator”. Cultural relativism becomes intellectual and moral relativism. So I think Prince is playing the system, which is probably the same business model used by the cigarette companies and many other corporations. Want to buy a shredded Banksy anyone…maybe I can sell it as an NFT?

[@geoffmphotography9444]

I had, after it haunting me at the time , forgotten about America's appalling 'Horse with no name' from way back when. Now it's back in my head again! I really don't like that song and will find it hard to forgive. That said, most enjoyable and interesting video as usual.

[@mrshadow2514]

I`m a photographer and I would HATE if someone directly copies my work and make shit load of money from it. I think it`s different in Marlborough case coz those photographers were hired to create that marketing images. So, if it was me, I would consider my work as done when I deliver this images to the company and got my money. After that point, it`s the company that has to deal with him if he is taking their photos and make money out of them. But it is totally different if he just takes a screenshot of my photos on my instagram and sells them on a fancy art gallery.

[@TheNitebinder]

Interesting subject chosen here. This video is very nostalgic to me. I remember those smoking man billboards cigarette companies often used in the 1960's and into the late 1970's. But back to subject at hand, Richard Prince certainly didn't care about stealing any photographer's prints. It's amazing Prince's print mangers call his 'images' visual art. It seems Richard Prince is protesting that cigarette commercials were suggesting that smoking makes one like manly cowboys, oil riggers, real 'he-men'. Perhaps he is also protesting successful photographers and artists who earn money for their work. To make up for his own shortcomings. Just a thought.

[@martingreenberg870]

Richard Prince didn’t seem to add anything to the images he copied. He did nothing original. I would say he was an art thief. Why would anybody buy his work? At least Warhol took photographs of the soup can. He didn’t photograph a photograph of the soup commercial. Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)

[@TatianaHopper]

I know what you mean, appreciate your thoughts, thank you so much for watching !

[@Jerry10939]

I might be influenced by another artist or photographer’s style. But I might copy something but I let people know the original. Like copying the MonaLisa. But I would never pass someone else’s work as my own. No need for that I have my own style. But taking a picture of the same place. No, I used to work in a one hour photo lab. I saw the same shots over and over. Same place different person.

[@ShadesOClarity]

I wouldn't like it. I got miffed over somebody not correcting a cutline and photo credit for one my shots that was used in a newspaper. I hear Bruce Gilden is pretty hated as well. Good video, T. I am glad "fair use" does exist or I would have trouble finding the originators of a copyrighted film that I may have used in a video on my channel.

[@honestpat7789]

It’s not like doing a music/song cover (unless you as the Rolling Stones and The Verve). Now if he recreated an image, I’d less concerned 🤷‍♂️

[@petemc5070]

Most people either think the Marlboro ad images (or the other product campaign ads he used) mean the same thing as the images derived from them, or else aren't particularly interested in that difference.

[@austinsphotos]

I would be frustrated if someone was trying to take my photos like that. Would also feel scummy and like I wasn't actually creating anything so what's the point in doing it.

[@TatianaHopper]

Same, I think I would also feel like a failure as an artist / photographer / writer whatever I was.

[@skolrelaterat4113]

This is a very interesting topic. Is photographing a photo slightly out of focus enough to make it a work of art of its own? Is there a difference between legal right and moral right? It appears that Prince escaped prosecution only because the photographers worked for a company and therefore do not have the financial rights to his photographs. To me the moral issue is totally different to the legal one and in the moral one the case is easy. He has done wrong. On the other hand there are areas where copying might meet commenting. What if I was to go to the same place as a famous photograph was taken and tried to mimc or recreate the scene, would that be copying or commenting? Might it even be an hommage? Would it matter if some of the content was altered? Let's say I tried to recreate Eugene Smith's famous photograph "The Walk to Paradise Garden" but instead of the two children there were to old people. Would that be stealing, copying, commenting or something else?

[@carlwarrenphoto]

Respect ! thank you Tatiana

[@TatianaHopper]

Thank you!

[@henryfield15]

Picasso said, "Great artist steel." I do photo collages of my work, but I always include a piece of great art. That's not mine, hopefully not still under copyright.

[@JamesBoyer-plus]

Intellectual property theft? Yes, most certainly. And, if it's photography being discussed and presented by @TatianaHopper then it's thought-provoking fine art. 😉 Thank you for another thoughtful video.

[@TatianaHopper]

Thank you so much James!

[@wcerejaph_]

A video about Jim Jarmusch, it would be nice to have your opinion!

[@caw25sha]

I really don't understand what he's trying to achieve but it would, IMHO, be a legitimate creative process to photograph the entire adverts in the context of social commentary: the ethics of cigarette advertising, the use of Wild West culture for commercial purposes and so on. There was a British artist whose name I can't remember (Robinson? Robertson?) who in the 1950s used clippings of adverts to create collages which satirised the booming consumer culture of the time. Obviously there's nothing of that in Prince's "work". I understand that the photographers of the originals don't own the copyright but why wasn't he sued by Marlboro? edit: his name was Richard Hamilton.

[@TatianaHopper]

Yes Richard Hamilton I’m very familiar with his collages, I think I studied them in school, but I’m with you in the fact that I don’t understand the intention actually I’ll perhaps rephrase to say that while I can see the intention in theory I don’t think it’s there from a practical level looking at the photos.

[@numbersix8919]

Thanks Hopper! It's so refreshing to see discussions of things where the answers might be forever in doubt. This phenomenon is truly more interesting in its contradictions, especially as it brought (1990) $14 million in the art market. I noticed you featured Andy at work too. Good counterpoint, because if Andy was a pioneer, we can see this Prince fellow was not. And however you managed to get all those Marlboro advertisements, that was an educational video in itself.

[@TatianaHopper]

Absolutely, I love these types of discussions. And I have to say that you are on point because that’s why I chose that reference of Andy Warhol working in his studio! As for the Marlboro footage links are in the description, the images I just found online at different websites.

[@numbersix8919]

@@TatianaHopper So cool. Brava!

[@TatianaHopper]

🤝🏻

[@washingtonradio]

I always some of the famous artists of the 60's in particular (Andy Warhol) were more hype than talent. But the majority actually tried to create something original and attempted to be thought provoking. I don't see that with Prince.

[@davidwilliams1060]

I get it. Being an artist isn’t about playing nice and having people nod and smile at your nice safe work. I take pictures of objects that have taken other people many, many hard hours to create. Too often, I get more credit and money than they do, and just for me pushing a button.

[@TatianaHopper]

That’s fair enough, cheers David!

[@simonbarnes7124]

You hit the nail on the head when you said that if you have to explain the art too much then really it isn't art. For this guy to sell the work off the backs of others and at eye watering prices shows the hypocricy of the art world as it stands. He is nothing more than a modern day forger/copyist and a bad one at that.

[@raw_pc]

World is vast and ever morphing. It's a shame people decide to focus on others art and practically replicate it instead of creating something new and honest.

[@beesilva1201]

I think that if some one is hiring a photographer, paying for models, locations, catering, assistants, bla bla bla, what i assume at that time was a huge production, and cost a lot of money, they should somehow own the pictures, yeah, I get it that " If the photographer wasn't there there would not be any photos" but i also know the 99% of the photographers can't pay for a big production. if its you and your model on some street, absolutely, its all yours "ours".....

[@cinnamon--girl]

Inauthentic art, created by someone lacking genuine artistic integrity.

[@IsThatYouSimon]

Same question for youtube video using footages to illustrate topics :) it’s clearly not always free royalties footages

[@TatianaHopper]

Entirely different, fair use is in question, I’m creating an educational piece which is allowed within the context of fair use, whilst crediting the original sources both on screen and in the description. I suggest you read about fair use because suggesting it is the same tells me you don’t really know that’s not actually the same.

[@seba362]

At least, someone like Warhol took it and put it at another level. I don't think Prince add something. When I photograph graffitis or scratches posters on a wall, I try to add my vision by making an edit, by choosing a point of view with a framing... I don't understand his point..and I understand it in a way. Maybe he is trying to bring something that pop art did in the 60's but fail miserably by bringing nothing to the table.

[@user-iz2ph1lp9g]

this was great!

[@mattboggs6304]

This would be like cropping someone else's photo in Photoshop, maybe slapping a preset on it or pasting another part of someone else's photo onto it, then printing it out and money-laundering it at an art gallery for millions while calling it your own. He's more of a crook who figured out how to abuse a broken system to profit off of other peoples' work, than he is a photographer or artist. I still dislike Bruce Gilden more than this guy. In Prince's case, i think I hate the system that enables him to do what he does, more than the man himself.

[@caneestudio]

Well said "photography is a visual art and roo much talking of it means it's not there."

[@ralphvandergeest]

I'd be honored if you'd find a picture of me worthwhile to photograph. I really appreciate your work. I'd never however could rephotograph someone else's work and let it pass for mine. Certainly not when that other person's reputation would be diminished or his or her financial situation would be harmed. The only reason I could rephotograph somebody's photo is to learn but I would explicitly tell everyone whom I'd tell about the result who was inspirator and why I did it. Great video!

[@bulboes]

The art lies in the decontextualisation, in the liberation of the image (in the image) from its advertising context. At least that's how I saw it when I became aware of his first works (I was working in advertising at the time) and I was overwhelmed - including by the way he used the grid of the posters or the print, in order, as I wrongly assumed, to consciously refer to the printed originals. His later work, the brutal plagiarisms and simple copies, suggest to me that his Malboro work was something of a happy accident, a by-product of his described work for a clipping service - but it's not a new story: sometimes art is just bigger than its creator (pun intended).

[@canturgan]

I was hoping it was going to be Rankin, self styled photography genius.

[@TatianaHopper]

I’ll be honest with you I’ve heard of him and seen a couple of images but I’m not familiar enough to even know why he would be hated. I’ll google it 🤝🏻

[@nelsonclub7722]

Hated and overrated

[@adrianmontesinos1741]

Ok now i like a Marlboro

[@TatianaHopper]

ahah

[@SlavaVeres]

1:30 I apprecaite how you MATCHED THE FONT!!! I see what you did here :)

[@TatianaHopper]

🤝🏻

[@jonathanreid30]

I believe that if you create a photograph that looks similar to someone else's work, then that is just copying anither persons idea or style. However, if you literally photograph someone else's prints/images, then that is pure plagiarism. Mimicry is acceptable, but the latter is not... Surely, it's better to develop our own style rather than copying others work anyway?

[@TatianaHopper]

I personally would prefer to develop my own work 🤝🏻

[@theronwolf3296]

One of my first thoughts is that satire is not normally considered infringement. Doe satire need to be funny? Students of art spend a lot of their leaning years copying the masters. Is that wrong? If someone is sufficiently inspired as to do a tribute work (not claiming it to be by the original artist), what is that? What if the presentation was along the lines of 'this is how I would shoot those subjects' essentially variations on a theme. How many images of the Washington Monument or El Capitan are virtually identical? That can be a pretty deep rabbit hole. So many pictures have been copied over and over (like the Sony ad years ago with the 'wind effect' loudspeakers) I don't think there is a clear answer except in the case where the artist (mostly paintings and sculpture in this case) misrepresents it as an original.

[@chrisjenkins9978]

It’s not photography, photo-copyright-infringement.

[@hramakrishnaiah413]

While our images are often influenced by thousands of others we've seen over time, shaping our ideas and inspiring the creation of unique works, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, making near-replicas of others' work does little to enhance an artist's value. I do not endorse what Richard Prince has done.

[@tedphillips2951]

His photos are bogus & he is a fraud!

[@rembeadgc]

I believe one can reinterpret a photograph like one can reinterpret a song or story. But I think integrity should lead one to acknowledge original authorship. That allows the patron to judge just how much interpretive work has actually gone into the interpretation. Otherwise the presentation is misleading and deceptive.

[@rogerhyland8283]

Great video by the way

[@dlyon9673]

I feel that at a minimum, the appropriation artist should give credit/attribution to the creator of the appropriated art, since the original creator is a collaborator, however involuntary. Relatedly, the original creator should have a right to share in the financial proceeds of the appropriator. Finally, there is the issue of use by the appropriator of the image in an offensive manner -- the question of whether the original creator should have a right to control how their image is used.

[@TatianaHopper]

I agree with your thoughts there, I understand the argument that nothing is original (mostly presented by curators to defend the idea of appropriation art) but I feel when so much of the original artwork remains in the 'new piece' then its a case to decide wether it was done in fair use, if the artist of the original artwork is happy to share proceeds etc... from what I read in some of the lawsuits that involved Prince, his lawyers argued that it he worked within fair use, which in itself is subjective to each person's understanding of what fair use is. Personally I don't think there would have been many 'appropriator artists' if they had to share credits, proceeds and rights with the original creators, from what I have seen in other cases I studied very little is about substance but more about attention, monetary success or fame. Couldn't find what Prince's intentions were but it seems confusing and contradicting the views he has offered on the Marlboro images over the years.

[@dlyon9673]

@@TatianaHopper I think the fair use standard does a decent job of addressing the relevant issues, considering copyright in light of its purposes -- which surprisingly is technically not directly about protecting the creator's rights, but rather at creating an environment that will encourage the flourishing of creative works, and therefore looking at questions of how transformative the appropriation was, the extent to which the original work was appropriated, the purposes of the appropriation, such as for educational purposes, and whether the appropriator is seeks financial gain from the appropriation. And there are no strict rules, but a court will try and evaluate all of the factors and come to a fair result. The problem, of course, is that litigation is very expensive and burdensome, and thus not a real option for most artists. I agree with your suggestion that appropriation artists should consider how they would feel if it was their work was being appropriated and how they would like to be treated, and, of course, artists, just like humans generally, should treat each other with consideration and respect. The original creator should also consider the possibility that appropriation might end up bringing more attention to the original creator's work. Bottom line, though, is that I think artists who appropriate others' work should at least acknowledge such appropriation and give the original artist credit for their work.

[@jamuoticjesus4532]

i don't find any of the pretentious gatekeepery "x isn't art" or "art isn't art unless ..." arguments very convincing. i went to a show of his at lacma forever ago and heard him speak. i really enjoyed the gallery but found out rather quickly how widespread the dislike of him is/was. it seems clear by his history in the courts that what he does is not always strictly legal but in the case of the malbroro man works; he has taken some advertisements, ripped them out of a magazine, photographed or photocopied them, taped them up, resized them and presented them in a new context where they are no longer an ad for a brand of cigarettes in life magazine. the sheer amount of derision he receives for doing these sort of things shows how impactful and relevant his art is right now. i'm glad that his work has caused so many of us to reconsider what constitutes artistic work. i just wish more people were a little more open minded when they decide what art can be.

[@BenEdwards984]

Interesting episode which I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand it’s blatant copying and I can understand why Prince gets the flack he does. On the other hand he rightly or wrongly exploited what could be regarded as a missed opportunity, elevating mere adverts into lucrative art. Do I agree with it? No. Does it provoke and challenge interpretation? Yes, I think it does. Perhaps, then, it’s the latter where this controversial artistic expression lies.

[@arneheeringa96]

It's like sampling. You forgot Peter Coulson. He was copied by Richard Prince too.

[@simonbnyc]

Initially I was thinking that this was simply artistic appropriation like Warhol's soup cans, Lichtenstein's comic strips and the sampling of existing music used in hip hop recordings. The difference is that in those cases the appropriation was part of an entirely new piece of work reimagined in a different style. Given that, Prince's images are theft and don't add anything new to the original message.

[@TatianaHopper]

I see what you mean and I think the other cases you mentioned led to new art waves and currents such as pop art and crossing the visual realm into the audio one as for Prince’s work I don’t think they had a similar impact but I might be wrong. Good points!

[@mid90s75]

I think you made an excellent argument here. Coming from a big fan of ready made / dada / pop art.

[@confrontingphotography4815]

Yes, and also keep in mind that in hip hop the rights for the original content need to be cleared regardless of any arguments about making a new work of art etc. If RP compensated the copyright holders, that would be one step towards making him more ethically palatable, but there is also the issue of exploitation and the way he steals from the poor to give to the rich. He isn’t an artist or a photographer as far as I can tell.

[@TatianaHopper]

Yes, I see your point and I think also giving the original artist some recognition or promoting their work too could help, but fundamentally the issue remains.

[@victorcarmelo8606]

Interesting and thought provoking video. If my memory serves me right Amateur Photographer, the worlds older photography weekly magazine had a story whereby a photographer was taken to court in UK for taking a ”similar” image used in advertising and sued for infringement and I think he lost the case. He didn’t re copy an existing image just shot a similar photo. Perhaps American law is different but here copywriter infringements are taken very seriously, even similar trade name too. Thanks for sharing..

[@flightographist]

We are at our very core, imposters playing a role. There is no unique or novel new idea, expression, behavior or sensation. Others have been here before you and done exactly what you think you developed and given birth to. Prince may have been cognizant of this in the beginning but I doubt it, I think he was just manifesting wealth and status, not art. He has added context and meaning to the images though, think about it.

[@patricketp8356]

In the 70´s they sayd, smoking is healthy. And the song.... I have already heard this chord progression, but I don´t know where

[@TatianaHopper]

If you’re talking about the intro song it’s “A Horse With No Name” by America.

[@patricketp8356]

@@TatianaHopper Ah sorry, I mean the outro song, that you have linked in the description.

[@TatianaHopper]

🤝🏻

[@donovan_watson]

In my personal opinion, R. Prince is just a thief. This isn't a case of drawing inspiration from other artists, which most of us do. This isn't recreating another artists work and then adding your own personality to it. This is more than just Prince stealing an image. What was stolen was time and effort. The time and effort these photographers spent learning their craft. Time and effort planning and executing these shoots. Prince didn't "rephotograph" or "appropriate" ads in a magazine. Those words make it sound justifiable. Stole and theft are words I personally would use to describe Prince's intentions. Trying to gain notoriety and/or money with as little effort as possible.

[@mrcsrkcrz]

It is art because we’re talking about if his an artist and why. He makes us think and therefore think. He’s just not an artist of a traditional photographers path.

[@mrcsrkcrz]

We don’t have to respect all artists

[@StephenDodds-o6e]

Theft is never clever. nor is it art. Claiming ignorance is no excuse, it's just an admission of ignorance. If I stab somebody, then claim I did not know it was illegal, I still go to jail.

[@TatianaHopper]

Good point.

[@hanumanguy]

Interesting video Tatiana. The Marlboro Man campaign was iconic during a certain era and as you recognized any satire of it or artistic play or commentary on it would be more meaningful to anyone that lived in the era, as I did. I may have found it thought provoking at the time. And as you pointed out, copyright belonged to the brand, any harm or injury in legal terms would be suffered by the brand not the photographer who has been compensated and has no rights to further compensation . It's a campaign anyway with the concept been created by a creative team. I don't think the photographer is been hard done by here. It's subjective whether his Malboro work is art or of value. I prefer the adbuster people that made a satirical poster called Malboro Man in the same style, but instead of a cowboy it had an image of man in hospital dying of lunch cancer. In other works Prince seems to be clearly appropriating other artists' work and the courts seem to agree - karma is a bitch 🙂

[@TatianaHopper]

Great comment, I really liked your perspective, I think I know the poster you’re talking about because I’ve seen it somewhere online. That’s why I said it’s a legal gray line because they don’t own the copyright it’s like a journalist paid to write an article for a magazine, they’re commissioned. Phillip Morris would be the only one at the time that could have sued Prince.

[@chestertonjasper6487]

Only in America.

[@andgainingspeed]

When art is so esoteric that it can only be appreciated by someone with an art degree, or so expensive it is likely to be owned only by the rich who may largely see them as investment vehicles, I don't believe it makes the art any less valid. Likewise, art that is accessible and appreciated by anyone on a visceral level doesn't mean it is less or more valid. It just different. This episode didn't go in the direction I thought it would. I thought maybe the guys shooting the ad campaigns would be hated as they contributed to the ill health and in some cases deaths of people. The "appropriations" reminded me of Roy Lichtenstein using comic panels and the some of the original artists complaints, as they too didn't really hold any copyrights, rather the publishers did. I would definitely be shocked to see either the art or the ads hanging in Tatiana's house. Doubly so if she actually just appreciated them as "hot guys" to ogle. 😅

[@TatianaHopper]

That last paragraph made me laugh, although I’m a big fan of westerns (mainly the landscape and John Ford movies) I would be shocked to see those last three lines being a reality ahah I think it’s interesting to see how time brings different perspectives on what has been done and created. In a way, I’m happy that we live in a world that is more aware of the dangers once promoted to the general consumer (tobacco) but then we also live in a world so far gone into the abstract on some respects that it tries to rewrite classic notions like what is art without respecting its most basic principles. I hope you enjoyed the video! Thanks for watching!

[@aperturecollect]

I think Marlboro who owned the photos should have sued him.

[@theren8311]

I disagree that a photograph should be self explanatory when done as art. Should a painting be self explanatory or up for the interpretation of the viewer?

[@streetwalkerphoto]

So will your next video be about “found photographs” artists?

[@TatianaHopper]

Actually the next video will be about a completely different subject obviously related to photography 🤝🏻

[@dtphoto1]

I am taking piles of old snapshots and photographing them

[@emotown1]

Don’t go sueing yourself!

[@johnpouw3352]

The guy is full of it, he basically took other peoples photos, cropped them, adjusted them slightly and called it his own. No matter how complicated/seductive the language he uses to try to explain it, he is a fraud, plain and simple. The fact that he probably makes a living from it makes him no better than a counterfeiter. As to whether the Marlboro photos are a grey line, legally probably yes, morally absolutely not. Unfortunately it sounds like morality is not something that Prince considers very important.

[@13opacus]

If someone were to do the same to his images what would be the result?

[@TatianaHopper]

Good question!

[@themanfromphoto]

Roy Lichtenstein did the same thing with comic book panels. Patrick Nagel used photos from magazines for his ubiquitous 80's images: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKS3n5eYrc5-gNE. This has been going on for decades.

[@TatianaHopper]

And I’m actually a big fan of Lichtenstein’s images. As I said to someone else here in the comments I think this current of photographs and art heavily depends on the idea of fair use. And because each person has a different view and acceptance of what is fair use it makes it difficult and highly subjective, some will accept it and some will deny it. I think some cases like Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein go beyond in terms of creating something new or establishing a new value, the same can’t be said for the Marlboro images, maybe with the instagram images Prince exhibited there is arguments being made in terms of personal rights and social commentary with social media platforms.

[@kratzmattenkatze8688]

'Patrick Nagel used photos from magazines for his ubiquitous 80's images…' Nagel has transformed the model photo into a painting/illustration with his own artistic style. If he were working like Prince, he should have simply put the magazine page on a copier...

[@TatianaHopper]

Great analogy.

[@sonofoneintheuniverse]

Most hated - that is great marketing...

[@sstarr1310]

He’s a jerk.

[@yakobmorley]

It reminds me of rage bait

[@startrekker188]

There is no grey line! Richard Prince did NOT create nor capture anything original of his own! He deliberately exploited the grey area knowing full well what he was doing! Those galleries that showd Mr. Prince's reworked color corrected infused images, are just as complicit of art theft as he is! All he does is live off of other people's images. He's basically a parasite, incapable of surviving on his own reductive work. And no amount of gallery art rhetoric is going to change that fact! Calling him a photographer is a damn near insult to the craft that is photography! Bottom line tho is he lives to be vilified bc it's better to be villified and remembered, than never mentioned at all!

[@TatianaHopper]

Sorry I probably didn’t phrase it properly; I meant grey line legally, because unfortunately these photographers don’t own the copyright so there’s nothing they can do. I wish there was like the other cases I pointed out. If anything the former Philip Morris couldn’t sued but didn’t maybe because it was convenient to have those images back in circulation since the world of the 90s onwards was one where people became aware of how dangerous tobacco products are. I can how passionate you are about this and I respect it. Thanks for watching!

[@fintonmainz7845]

Just press the button

[@RickCarroll-Canada]

He's a thief, not an artist. Very pathetic.

[@willie0947]

But once he knew he might be infringing, he didn’t stop.

[@TatianaHopper]

Good point!

[@BossHossStudios]

Songwriters do this every day. Lol

[@tomfu9909]

Holly smokes, I gained lust for a cigarette. And I am a life long nonsmoker.

[@emotown1]

And I for the man smoking it! (and I’m not even gay!)

[@Jerry10939]

Marlboro man has a certain look. Regardless of the photographer.

[@TatianaHopper]

I think everyone will always associate that kind of imagery to Marlboro since their campaigns were so huge and successful within a cultural perspective.

[@FrancoisDressler]

Money laundering looks fun.

[@TatianaHopper]

I have a video I've been working on explaining how the art world serves to do just that. It's actually crazy and I didn't realise it before.

[@Government_Username]

@@TatianaHopper can't wait to see this video

[@trentc7329]

I thought this was going to be about Terry Richardon. He's a dirtbag you should definitely talk about.

[@lensman5762]

I am sorry but he is not original not is he subtle about what he misappropriates. Not for me Tatiana.

[@TatianaHopper]

I'm not defending him in the video, I think it's a strange world the one we live in where these things are possible.

[@linusfotograf]

Is he even a photographer?

[@germancreatives88]

conman disguised as photographer

[@iammarcdaniel]

Prince is a crook, never liked the guy

[@bowenisland100]

His work is a tired critique of phony masculinity in a cheesy, cynical ad campaign. Boring and derivative art. It fits in a lineage of Warhol's soup cans, but again derivative from that perspective. Not very interesting: that it generates $ is just a sad commentary on the upper stratosphere of the art world. Good job presenting his work as usual!

[@TatianaHopper]

Good comment and perspective. Thanks for watching!

[@andrewsimpson5436]

What on earth did you say? I'd say it's a perfect example of trying to intellectualize art with meaningless gobledygook.

[@40mmSummarit]

I agree that Prince's justification/explanation of his art and motivation is total BS. However, art is in the eye of the beholder, and if people like it and want to buy it, hey, it's a free (Marlboro) country. If I understand it correctly, no copyright laws are being violated. To me, the line between what he does and what Andy Warhol did is kinda blurry.

[@edwardferry8247]

Richard Prince is predominantly a painter and broad contemporary artist, he is more known for his joke (literal jokes hand painted on canvas) and car hoods than his photography. The title of the video is odd. He is also 75 and nothing like the thumbnail. His body of work is substantial, he is a consummate artist in every sense of that word.

[@ericholmquist8966]

Took the hard work of others and made lazy money. The guy has no consciousness let alone never credits those who actually sweated over the real work.

[@big6700]

Adobe holds the right to use your photos as their own if you use their software. They can even sell it and make money off of it.

[@fernandosocorro4175]

I think Prince himself sums it all up at 5:47, when, after explaining how he would copy the images in way that removed context, so "there was no reference" to the original he copied, he says, "I would do that deliberately," and then smirks. That smirk of his says, at least to me, what kind of thief he is: a very self-aware one, proud of being a thief. As for your perfect conclusion that questions photography that needs so much verbiage to explain it, interestingly enough, I was thinking, right before you shared your thoughts, that just the right turn of a (vague and pretentious) phrase from the artist and/or an "expert" will sell anything as art. Drop the word "deconstruct" into the description of a photographer's work and you are golden. Prince's work is theft, not art. Obvious theft, with no artifice, so it is not art. Great video.

[@TatianaHopper]

Thank you so much Fernando the first time I saw that interview I knew I had to leave that smirk in as I thought maybe it’s a “I know I can get away with it”. I appreciate your thoughts and I think we had chatted on another occasion about art not needing great explanations and if it does it means that the intention is not there. At least I think so. But yes you’re right deconstruct, you’ve hit the nail on the head.

[@aes53]

I was going to put down a few thoughts to express my loathing of Richard Prince. Then I read your comment and realized you already had said it all.

[@fernandosocorro4175]

@@aes53 Thank you. It was either that, what I shared, or a whole lotta cussing, which I am really good at. I took the high road.

[@confrontingphotography4815]

So I think it is the case that images never stand on their own, they are always accompanied by text, this seems to be the case across many different contexts. Also, I think this is probably ok, the value of art is, at least in part, a function of the stories we tell about it. How many books have been written about the Mona Lisa? But when it comes to the idea of deconstruction, as a good poststructuralist, I have a very favorable view of deconstruction, but I do not see ANYTHING in Prince's work that is deconstructive in any meaningful sense of the word. The whole discourse around his denying authorship is rendered absurd by the fact that he takes such huge sums for this images, he asserts he authorship all the way to the bank. But part of this is due to the fact that he came to prominence in the 1980's when deconstruction arrived in America in a big way. There were many attempts to claim deconstructive functions and intentions to all sorts of endeavors that had nothing to do with this most difficult philosophical operation.

[@fernandosocorro4175]

@@confrontingphotography4815 I completely disagree with your first assertion about images not standing alone. I do think, however, that each viewer's personal standpoint gives images meaning; your mention of the many books written about the Mona Lisa is a perfect example. (My brain melted thinking about all the cited material in those books.) I will tell you that when I go to museums, for example, I rarely read the texts posted about what is on display. I let my personal. emotional reactions as well as my trained visual, analytical musings make sense (or not) of what is on display. My personal (and academic) narratives dictate whether I stand, moved to tears, in front of an Ansel Adams photo for 20 minutes (true story); also stand and stare, my soul soaring, in front of many of Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings (true story); or shrug and walk away from much of the "bad boy"work of Robert Arneson (again, true story). That said, I completely agree with what you said about deconstruction. Big fan of the concept, although again, it starts taking on many meanings and often gets muddied and misused for pretentious postering as a way inflate ego by obfuscation and to sell "art." As for assessing what Prince does, I do not find it a "difficult philosophical operation," though. He is a crook, and proud of it, and he is elevated to prominence by a corrupt system that bamboozles the wealthy who can afford to pay for tchotchkes swathed in nebulous concepts that don't mean diddly squat. That was fun.