A good reason to never use Instagram

**boriscleto** · 05-23-2015, 10:10 AM

Artist Richard Lewis is selling other peoples' Instagram photos for $100,000 each in New York - Business Insider

tvdtvdtvd · 05-23-2015, 10:59 AM

I'll admit, I'm a big fan of 'appropriation', 'sampling', 'reinterpretation', 're-use', ...... DaDa. The term 'remix culture' is the latest
branding of the concept but the concept is far from new. Indeed, the only thing I find truly annoying about remix culture is
the insinuation that it is a new, spontaneous, revolutionary idea when in fact it's just an extension of one of the dominant
themes in 20th century art.

I can't say I've heard of Richard Prince before this article. Can't say I see anything especially brilliant in the one sample
that's highlighted in the article. I can definitely say that, " Jerry Saltz gushed in Vulture that "it's what [Prince] does in the
comments field that is truly brilliant, and which adds layers on top of the disconcerting images. Here he is delving as deep
as he ever has into privacy, copyright, and appropriation, twisting images so that they actually seem to undergo some sort
of sick psychic-artistic transubstantiation where they no longer belong to the original makers." " sounds like artsy-fartsy
mumbo speak.

Most significantly, it's incredibly easy to play tit for tat. Simply re-appropriate any Richard Prince work to your liking.
Easy peasy art on the fly.

LensBeginner · 05-23-2015, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

*snip*

Most significantly, it's incredibly easy to play tit for tat. Simply re-appropriate any Richard Prince work to your liking.
Easy peasy art on the fly.

That'll only give him more visibility.
A serious con-artist, IMHO.

tvdtvdtvd · 05-23-2015, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by LensBeginner

That'll only give him more visibility.
A serious con-artist, IMHO.

True. And yet, L.H.O.O.Q did more to propel Duchamp's career than Da Vinci's. There's no mistaking the
source material, but L.H.O.O.Q. is unmistakably a Duchamp artwork.

tvdtvdtvd · 05-23-2015, 12:37 PM

A five minute creative act. Maybe I'll put it on a mug.

SpecialK · 05-23-2015, 01:08 PM - **1 Like**

Blatant theft.

By that reasoning I could stick "ta da" on the end of Beatle songs and sell them as my own.

tvdtvdtvd · 05-23-2015, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

Blatant theft.

By that reasoning I could stick "ta da" on the end of Beatle songs and them as my own.

Then you probably won't appreciate this:

Plunderphonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet another stop-over along the timeline, which is also being claimed 'fresh' by remix culture.

Steve.Ledger · 05-23-2015, 03:11 PM

The biggest problem here is not the git nicking the images it's the idiots buying them for stupid money.

magkelly · 05-23-2015, 03:44 PM

If he was actually doing anything interesting with them, like collage work or something like that I wouldn't be quite so down on the guy. Derivative art is a pretty legitimate art form these days but there are rules you're supposed to follow and this guy doesn't do much of anything but just print out photos from online and frame them. He has NO talent for this art form and it's glaringly obvious. First of all you're never supposed to use a whole photo like this. There's a certain % that is considered derivative and that like parody is considered acceptable use. Only when you are using the work of really old artists, things long out of copyright are you allowed to use more. For instance you're allowed to use a part of a famous person's face like their eye, but not their whole face. If the work is still in copyright and someone or their estate is involved it's considered a bit rude to use enough of their work to make it the focal point sans asking.

I have several friends who make derivative art jewelry out of photos and other things. Me too. I've been known to use old holy cards and post cards and things like that from the mid to late 1900's to as late as the 1940's, but only stuff so old and unusual that is long out of copyright. Not one of us would do what this guy is doing. I would never use someone's recent personal photos of themselves or their life sans asking. Of late I've even actually started using my own photography more and more because I want my jewelry to be as unique as possible and this is a way that I can make it even more so.

This guy. He's a total hack and a rather untalented and unimaginative one at that. That he's actually lauded and paid very well for doing virtually nothing but printing low res photos off the internet and framing them it rather disgusts me. Sometimes I really don't get the art world and it's critics. I mean these people have to be total fools and have NO taste at all to be making this guy famous and rich...

tvdtvdtvd · 05-23-2015, 04:14 PM

I'm going to continue to play devil's advocate on this one.

Instagram is a highly relevant aspect to modern online culture. I don't use it to any great extent, but I know many, many
who do. I have several artist friends who use Instagram as their primary outlet for creating a 'buzz'. Like the Ed Sullivan
Show or MTV, it is a very specific outlet of the 'now' for the masses. Unlike Ed Sullivan or MTV, however, the masses
can participate as equals. As voyeur and exhibitionist.

The fact that Richard Prince would choose Instagram as a source of inspiration and material is almost a given. If not him,
someone else, (and surely there are else). Social media is a 24/7 stream of exhibitionism to feed our innate voyeurism.
There is such a flood and overload of content with an insatiable demand for ever more. Rarely does a piece of social media
hold interest for more than a day or two, with most content dropping off notice within hours if not minutes. Yes, there is that
odd contradiction that the internet preserves all, and occasionally something or another resurfaces, but most all of it just gets
swept by in the lust for more new content.

In one respect I do laud what Prince has done: he's taken what has become seen as a disposable spam fest of exhibition
and preserved a tiny slice as High Art. As for the actual execution, I would hardly call it 'brilliant'. I only have the article
sample to go by, but that one sample doesn't indicate any brilliance in his comment. "No cure, no pay....", WTF is that?
Until I'm hip to his obtuse comment, I can't afford him any genius beyond the act of preserving the mundane. And that
too has already been done many times over.

Volker76 · 05-23-2015, 04:35 PM - **1 Like**

well, The Verve were screwed over by the Rolling Stones over a sample.

And this guy is free to steal other people's work.

Mad world. No justice.

officiousbystander · 05-23-2015, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

A five minute creative act. Maybe I'll put it on a mug.

Post it in Marketplace and I'll give you $100,001 for it.

tvdtvdtvd · 05-23-2015, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by officiousbystander

Post it in Marketplace and I'll give you $100,001 for it.

If only you made a reasonable offer, I'd do it and hold you to it. But I won't clutter the Marketplace
with that image because I'm quite certain you're going to renege on that six figure offer.

Tell you what I'll do. Send me a FA31 and I'll grant you exclusive reproduction rights of my masterpiece
in perpetuity. 1/100th the cost you were willing to pay. Such a bargain.

rawr · 05-23-2015, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

I'll admit, I'm a big fan of 'appropriation', 'sampling', 'reinterpretation', 're-use',

It's all great in [art] theory - but if some slob did it to you, and made tons of cash from it without passing a cent to you, you might feel different.

LensBeginner · 05-24-2015, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by magkelly

*snip*
Sometimes I really don't get the art world and it's critics. I mean these people have to be total fools and have NO taste at all to be making this guy famous and rich...

I bet those guys get their yummy (un)fair share for speaking well of his "art"...

05-23-2015, 10:10 AM	#1
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	A good reason to never use Instagram Artist Richard Lewis is selling other peoples' Instagram photos for $100,000 each in New York - Business Insider

05-23-2015, 12:37 PM	#5
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	A five minute creative act. Maybe I'll put it on a mug. Attached Images

05-23-2015, 01:08 PM - 1 Like	#6
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Blatant theft. By that reasoning I could stick "ta da" on the end of Beatle songs and sell them as my own. Last edited by SpecialK; 05-23-2015 at 07:27 PM.

05-23-2015, 05:00 PM	#13
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by officiousbystander Post it in Marketplace and I'll give you $100,001 for it. If only you made a reasonable offer, I'd do it and hold you to it. But I won't clutter the Marketplace with that image because I'm quite certain you're going to renege on that six figure offer. Tell you what I'll do. Send me a FA31 and I'll grant you exclusive reproduction rights of my masterpiece in perpetuity. 1/100th the cost you were willing to pay. Such a bargain. Last edited by tvdtvdtvd; 05-23-2015 at 05:11 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
One reason why Pentax will never be a major player	enoxatnep	Pentax DSLR Discussion	114	01-04-2014 10:16 AM
"To me, there's always reason for hope, and never much reason for optimism."	jeffkrol	General Talk	5	07-25-2012 02:58 PM
Night A damn good reason to own a Pentax	Ouroboros	Post Your Photos!	7	04-27-2011 02:51 AM
Good reason to use film rather than dslr?	ragamuffin1171	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	112	09-21-2010 12:37 AM
Good reason NOT to use photo sites like FLICKR	MRRiley	General Talk	37	07-07-2009 06:00 PM

05-23-2015, 10:59 AM	#2
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	I'll admit, I'm a big fan of 'appropriation', 'sampling', 'reinterpretation', 're-use', ...... DaDa. The term 'remix culture' is the latest branding of the concept but the concept is far from new. Indeed, the only thing I find truly annoying about remix culture is the insinuation that it is a new, spontaneous, revolutionary idea when in fact it's just an extension of one of the dominant themes in 20th century art. I can't say I've heard of Richard Prince before this article. Can't say I see anything especially brilliant in the one sample that's highlighted in the article. I can definitely say that, " Jerry Saltz gushed in Vulture that "it's what [Prince] does in the comments field that is truly brilliant, and which adds layers on top of the disconcerting images. Here he is delving as deep as he ever has into privacy, copyright, and appropriation, twisting images so that they actually seem to undergo some sort of sick psychic-artistic transubstantiation where they no longer belong to the original makers." " sounds like artsy-fartsy mumbo speak. Most significantly, it's incredibly easy to play tit for tat. Simply re-appropriate any Richard Prince work to your liking. Easy peasy art on the fly.

05-23-2015, 12:04 PM	#3
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd snip Most significantly, it's incredibly easy to play tit for tat. Simply re-appropriate any Richard Prince work to your liking. Easy peasy art on the fly. That'll only give him more visibility. A serious con-artist, IMHO.

05-23-2015, 12:16 PM	#4
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by LensBeginner That'll only give him more visibility. A serious con-artist, IMHO. True. And yet, L.H.O.O.Q did more to propel Duchamp's career than Da Vinci's. There's no mistaking the source material, but L.H.O.O.Q. is unmistakably a Duchamp artwork.

05-23-2015, 01:17 PM	#7
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Originally posted by SpecialK Blatant theft. By that reasoning I could stick "ta da" on the end of Beatle songs and them as my own. Then you probably won't appreciate this: Plunderphonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Yet another stop-over along the timeline, which is also being claimed 'fresh' by remix culture.

05-23-2015, 03:11 PM	#8
Steve.Ledger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Far North Qld Posts: 3,301	The biggest problem here is not the git nicking the images it's the idiots buying them for stupid money.

05-23-2015, 03:44 PM	#9
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	If he was actually doing anything interesting with them, like collage work or something like that I wouldn't be quite so down on the guy. Derivative art is a pretty legitimate art form these days but there are rules you're supposed to follow and this guy doesn't do much of anything but just print out photos from online and frame them. He has NO talent for this art form and it's glaringly obvious. First of all you're never supposed to use a whole photo like this. There's a certain % that is considered derivative and that like parody is considered acceptable use. Only when you are using the work of really old artists, things long out of copyright are you allowed to use more. For instance you're allowed to use a part of a famous person's face like their eye, but not their whole face. If the work is still in copyright and someone or their estate is involved it's considered a bit rude to use enough of their work to make it the focal point sans asking. I have several friends who make derivative art jewelry out of photos and other things. Me too. I've been known to use old holy cards and post cards and things like that from the mid to late 1900's to as late as the 1940's, but only stuff so old and unusual that is long out of copyright. Not one of us would do what this guy is doing. I would never use someone's recent personal photos of themselves or their life sans asking. Of late I've even actually started using my own photography more and more because I want my jewelry to be as unique as possible and this is a way that I can make it even more so. This guy. He's a total hack and a rather untalented and unimaginative one at that. That he's actually lauded and paid very well for doing virtually nothing but printing low res photos off the internet and framing them it rather disgusts me. Sometimes I really don't get the art world and it's critics. I mean these people have to be total fools and have NO taste at all to be making this guy famous and rich...

05-23-2015, 04:14 PM	#10
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	I'm going to continue to play devil's advocate on this one. Instagram is a highly relevant aspect to modern online culture. I don't use it to any great extent, but I know many, many who do. I have several artist friends who use Instagram as their primary outlet for creating a 'buzz'. Like the Ed Sullivan Show or MTV, it is a very specific outlet of the 'now' for the masses. Unlike Ed Sullivan or MTV, however, the masses can participate as equals. As voyeur and exhibitionist. The fact that Richard Prince would choose Instagram as a source of inspiration and material is almost a given. If not him, someone else, (and surely there are else). Social media is a 24/7 stream of exhibitionism to feed our innate voyeurism. There is such a flood and overload of content with an insatiable demand for ever more. Rarely does a piece of social media hold interest for more than a day or two, with most content dropping off notice within hours if not minutes. Yes, there is that odd contradiction that the internet preserves all, and occasionally something or another resurfaces, but most all of it just gets swept by in the lust for more new content. In one respect I do laud what Prince has done: he's taken what has become seen as a disposable spam fest of exhibition and preserved a tiny slice as High Art. As for the actual execution, I would hardly call it 'brilliant'. I only have the article sample to go by, but that one sample doesn't indicate any brilliance in his comment. "No cure, no pay....", WTF is that? Until I'm hip to his obtuse comment, I can't afford him any genius beyond the act of preserving the mundane. And that too has already been done many times over.

05-23-2015, 04:35 PM - 1 Like	#11
Volker76 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 211	well, The Verve were screwed over by the Rolling Stones over a sample. And this guy is free to steal other people's work. Mad world. No justice.

05-23-2015, 04:47 PM	#12
officiousbystander Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery Posts: 912	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd A five minute creative act. Maybe I'll put it on a mug. Post it in Marketplace and I'll give you $100,001 for it.

05-23-2015, 07:58 PM	#14
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd I'll admit, I'm a big fan of 'appropriation', 'sampling', 'reinterpretation', 're-use', It's all great in [art] theory - but if some slob did it to you, and made tons of cash from it without passing a cent to you, you might feel different.

05-24-2015, 12:01 AM	#15
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by magkelly snip Sometimes I really don't get the art world and it's critics. I mean these people have to be total fools and have NO taste at all to be making this guy famous and rich... I bet those guys get their yummy (un)fair share for speaking well of his "art"...