[H. Sapiens]

Interesting, and thanks for sharing. I have not seen this study, but it does not surprise me at all. I have wondered if it all starts with economic capital, and so much of it that even the cost of acquiring the RP print (or whatever thing) is so inconsequential that the price is not even worth mentioning. If a person therefore mentions the price, they are demonstrating that they really haven't "arrived" economically yet, and thus lose their place among the true elite. You can certainly tell I am not among the elite, so I wonder how it all works. My basic theory is that to be elite, it must have the form of "I can have this (thing), but you cannot".

I haven't read the study, myself, only a review of the book (by sociologist Mike Savage). Here is sort of a pitch: People tend to think they belong to a particular class on the basis of their job and income. These are aspects of economic capital. Sociologists think that your class is indicated by your cultural capital and social capital. Our analysis looked at the relationship between economic, cultural and social capital.

Don't forget, it is a British study and it might not be the same distinctions the good people of Texas make. If you want to see where you fit, look here: Huge survey reveals seven social classes in UK - BBC News

[-Spooky-]

He is not recreating anything himself. He is using the print screen button.

Just because you don't see the value in his work doesn't mean it has no value. Would you view his work differently if he used the shutter button instead of the print screen button?

[Rondec]

Just because you don't see the value in his work doesn't mean it has no value. Would you view his work differently if he used the shutter button instead of the print screen button?

I am not the one you are responding to, but I don't think I would feel any differently if the end result was the same -- blurry cell phone snaps with a somewhat voyeuristic feel to them. I don't know what is good "art," but I know that this isn't good photography. My wife shoots professionally and if she handed over photos like this to a client, they would be extremely dissatisfied.

But somehow when someone whose name has cache prints them in a glossy fashion and calls them art, then they are worth thousands of dollars. I don't really care, but certainly it doesn't strike a chord with me -- either good or bad -- and it feels like art should do something -- lift your spirit, unsettle you, anything. This just seems dumb.

[bdery]

Just because you don't see the value in his work doesn't mean it has no value. Would you view his work differently if he used the shutter button instead of the print screen button?

If he had hired a model, paid her, gotten her authorization to use her image, set up the studio, decided on the lighting, exposure, composition, focal length, edited the image, added the instragram look-alike border, and then arrived at the same result we see today, then yes I would respect the work (I would still think it looks dumb but that's personal).

When I give clients the pictures I took of them, I know I worked for it and can be proud of myself. I know I created something. I don't consider pressing the "order prints" button on the Costco website to count as work.

[-Spooky-]

I'm pretty sure that if you gave your clients, your wife's clients, or just about anyone's clients a body of work that was anywhere near as interesting as Richard Prince's work, they would be more than happy. There are many people out there who have open minds to the possibilities of art and the possibilities of photography beyond the polished image. If you don't know what constitutes "good art," then why not try to figure that out? Honing the technical aspects of image making and hard work may get you some clients, but an open mind may lead to much more growth.

[Rondec]

I'm pretty sure that if you gave your clients, your wife's clients, or just about anyone's clients a body of work that was anywhere near as interesting as Richard Prince's work, they would be more than happy. There are many people out there who have open minds to the possibilities of art and the possibilities of photography beyond the polished image. If you don't know what constitutes "good art," then why not try to figure that out? Honing the technical aspects of image making and hard work may get you some clients, but an open mind may lead to much more growth.

I told you that I believe that art is something that triggers different feelings inside someone. The emotions can be uplifting, or unsettling. I certainly know what art has done that for me in the past and as I look at these photos, it is like looking down an instagram feed, which to me is just boring. Sure, he has chosen some of the more salacious photos, but they still aren't great photos (what selfies really are?).

I am not a professional photographer, but my wife does shoot professionally and her clients are very happy and she is as busy as she wants. She does have her own style and the folks she takes pictures of come to her because the end result is different (and better) than what they get when they take their selfies. Most people actually want photographs that make them look their best, for what it is worth.

[H. Sapiens]

I told you that I believe that art is something that triggers different feelings inside someone. The emotions can be uplifting, or unsettling. I certainly know what art has done that for me in the past and as I look at these photos, it is like looking down an instagram feed, which to me is just boring. Sure, he has chosen some of the more salacious photos, but they still aren't great photos (what selfies really are?).

And we are some who value other aspects of the art experience. It is fine you have your idea about what art is, just recognize it is rather arbitrary - it is not mine and it is not the art institution's. It is entirely possible I and others would find your revered art pieces pathetic and boring.

Bringing your wife into the discussion is comparing apples to oranges. Don't you see it is a different form of photography with a different goal and a different audience? Even R. Prince himself don't claim he is a good photographer - consider him an artist who happens to work with existing photography as his material, rather than clay or paint.

[Rondec]

And we are some who value other aspects of the art experience. It is fine you have your idea about what art is, just recognize it is rather arbitrary - it is not mine and it is not the art institution's. It is entirely possible I and others would find your revered art pieces pathetic and boring.

Bringing your wife into the discussion is comparing apples to oranges. Don't you see it is a different form of photography with a different goal and a different audience? Even R. Prince himself don't claim he is a good photographer - consider him an artist who happens to work with existing photography as his material, rather than clay or paint.

Sure.

Prince isn't a photographer. He isn't taking these photos himself, he's just grabbing them off of various women's Instagram feeds. And maybe that's what some art does, but I'm not able to see the creativity in this. Is he shining a light on the shallowness of the selfie generation? Is he posting creepy comments just because he can or is this part of some performance art that the I just don't understand?

I don't really enjoy selfies, regardless of who takes them and who signs their name to them, but no big deal.

As to the arbitrary nature of art, that's what it is. If what I like is boring and pathetic, so be it. A lot of it is housed in art museums, so I guess there are a couple of others out there that appreciate it too, but whatever the case, I don't really value this and find Prince pretty creepy. I would be pretty upset if someone like this posted similar comments on my daughter's facebook page (hopefully she wouldn't ever post photos he would be interested in anyway). I guess the fact that he is an "artist" makes it OK?

[bdery]

If you don't know what constitutes "good art," then why not try to figure that out?

I'd say that's a pretty arrogant way to put it. You say I don't know what good art is, and imply that you do.

I have explained why I have no respect (as well as serious legal doubts) about that man's "work". I have also explained which parts of the process add value to my eyes.

an open mind may lead to much more growth.

You can't just toss comments like these around. What growth? Commercial? Spiritual? Ethical? Just because I criticize someone's methods doesn't automatically mean I have a closed mind.

I'm pretty sure that if you gave your clients, your wife's clients, or just about anyone's clients a body of work that was anywhere near as interesting as Richard Prince's work, they would be more than happy.

Again, pretty arrogant in my view.

I'm not able to see the creativity in this.

That's my point.

I'll add, again, that using pictures of people without their consent, regardless of where the pictures were first displayed, is clearly unethical, and possibly illegal in some places.

[normhead]

Once again, it's the naturalists against the puritans, that on going battle that regularly has Puritans burning or hanging people. The naturalists saying lie back and enjoy. The puritans saying, "only enjoy what we believe it's right to enjoy." Which are often things that aren't terribly enjoyable. The puritans being the militarists, the naturalists being the "live and let live" types for the most part. The puritans keep proclaiming victory, but eventually, "this isn't right" is exposed as what it really is. Usually a discomfort with some perfectly normal part of reality.

It's the Puritans that are the perverts.

Art always pushes back the walls of false morality.

This has been going on forever.

Because puritans react the naturalist point of view rarely gets presented.

Maybe these folk were actually flattered that their images were selected for this series.
Maybe you guys are complaining more than those who's images were used.
Maybe you are defending the school girl approach to school dress codes.
Me- "Button your shirt."
Girl "Why are you looking there you pervert."

And the answer to that never actually said but , the real answer " It's my frigging classroom and I'll look where ever I want you little bitch.If you don't want me to see your tits, cover them up." But of course no teacher could actually say that, parents would be "offended".

Everyone knows that any image they put on the internet can be screen capped. Putting an image out there and then complaining when it's capped would be the height of hypocrisy. You knew it could happen, take some responsibility for it happening. You offered it up, you had absolutely no right to expect it wouldn't be capped. Not only that you are putting these images where they could be viewed in the privacy of someone's bedroom or wherever. Let's not play dumb. These folks are doing this to advance their own personal agenda, whatever that might be. This is a trade. I see your image, maybe you get famous. IN that sense this guy is just promoting their cause.

That in nutshell is the argument being advanced. People's right to post their images in public places, and not have them reproduced. If it's not for public consumption, don't put it out in a public place. You put your statue out in the public square, and I take a picture of it, it's my picture. You put an image out where I can see it from the privacy of my house and I do a screen cap (which is not the same as having the original image), it's my picture.

The viciousness with which the Puritans will respond is to be expected... that's the kind of people they are.
But when they get caught with a hooker, they'll immediately plead for forgiveness, which they believe they should get, because they were Puritans, as opposed to those of loose character who never tried to pervert their natural inclinations into something unrecognizable as human experience.

[Rondec]

Once again, it's the naturalists against the puritans, that on going battle that regularly has Puritans burning or hanging people. The naturalists saying lie back and enjoy. The puritans saying, "only enjoy what we believe it's right to enjoy." Which are often things that aren't terribly enjoyable. The puritans being the militarists, the naturalists being the "live and let live" types for the most part. The puritans keep proclaiming victory, but eventually, "this isn't right" is exposed as what it really is. Usually a discomfort with some perfectly normal part of reality.

It's the Puritans that are the perverts.

Art always pushes back the walls of false morality.

This has been going on forever.

Because puritans react the naturalist point of view rarely gets presented.

Maybe these folk were actually flattered that their images were selected for this series.
Maybe you guys are complaining more than those who's images were used.
Maybe you are defending the school girl approach to school dress codes.
Me- "Button your shirt."
Girl "Why are you looking there you pervert."

And the answer to that never actually said but , the real answer " It's my frigging classroom and I'll look where ever I want you little bitch.If you don't want me to see your tits, cover them up." But of course no teacher could actually say that, parents would be "offended".

Everyone knows that any image they put on the internet can be screen capped. Putting an image out there and then complaining when it's capped would be the height of hypocrisy. You knew it could happen, take some responsibility for it happening. You offered it up, you had absolutely no right to expect it wouldn't be capped. Not only that you are putting these images where they could be viewed in the privacy of someone's bedroom or wherever. Let's not play dumb. These folks are doing this to advance their own personal agenda, whatever that might be. This is a trade. I see your image, maybe you get famous. IN that sense this guy is just promoting their cause.

That in nutshell is the argument being advanced. People's right to post their images in public places, and not have them reproduced. If it's not for public consumption, don't put it out in a public place. You put your statue out in the public square, and I take a picture of it, it's my picture. You put an image out where I can see it from the privacy of my house and I do a screen cap (which is not the same as having the original image), it's my picture.

The viciousness with which the Puritans will respond is to be expected... that's the kind of people they are.
But when they get caught with a hooker, they'll immediately plead for forgiveness, which they believe they should get, because they were Puritans, as opposed to those of loose character who never tried to pervert their natural inclinations into something unrecognizable as human experience.

Wow, Norm, that's harsh. Not totally sure how not appreciating Mr Prince's art ends up with me being with a hooker...

I just am not connecting with this and don't see the creativity. That's all. If you do and you think it is amazing, then I guess good for you. On the other hand, I have no desire to burn Mr. Prince. If I did the same thing he did, (a) the women involved really would view me as a creep and (b) few people would view it as "art."

I'm not sure where all this Puritan versus Naturalist argument comes up. I don't really see most of the people in this thread offended by the content of Mr Prince's photos. They are mostly bothered that there seems to be a lack of creativity. This is a photography forum. It is generally frowned upon here to link to someone else's images -- certainly without attribution. Yet that is exactly what he is doing.

Oh well, I feel as though you, Norm, want to burn those who don't appreciate Mr. Prince's work, but I don't see anyone here wanting to burn Mr. Prince.

[-Spooky-]

I'd say that's a pretty arrogant way to put it. You say I don't know what good art is, and imply that you do.

I wasn't specifically talking to you, but my comment (question) still stands. You are free to like or dislike anything, but I think your critique of Richard Prince's work is under-informed and arrogant. Using the word "dumb" when you talk about someone's work says more about your artistic vocabulary than it does about their work.

You can't just toss comments like these around. What growth? Commercial? Spiritual? Ethical?

Thank you for clarifying what comments I can't just toss around. The growth I was referring to, on a photography forum, was obviously photographic (artistic) growth.

Again, pretty arrogant in my view.

At least we are in agreement about something. I feel the same way about some of your comments.

[BrianR]

This is a photography forum. It is generally frowned upon here to link to someone else's images -- certainly without attribution. Yet that is exactly what he is doing.

All "his" portraits from this series have the person's Instagram account name at the top. It should also be pretty clear from the context that he didn't take the original portraits. I wouldn't have thought the equivalent linking in forum terms was a problem. Posting other's photos to the forum for discussion purposes has always been acceptable as far as I know (attribution and link to the originals preferred of course). Posting other's photos in a way they could be confused as yours, or worse outright claiming they are yours, is what's not cool, but that doesn't seem equivalent to what he's done.

That doesn't mean you have to like it, or hate it, or feel anything towards his work though.

[Rondec]

All "his" portraits from this series have the person's Instagram account name at the top. It should also be pretty clear from the context that he didn't take the original portraits. I wouldn't have thought the equivalent linking in forum terms was a problem. Posting other's photos to the forum for discussion purposes has always been acceptable as far as I know (attribution and link to the originals preferred of course). Posting other's photos in a way they could be confused as yours, or worse outright claiming they are yours, is what's not cool, but that doesn't seem equivalent to what he's done.

That doesn't mean you have to like it, or hate it, or feel anything toward's his work though.

I personally wouldn't grab someone else's photo and print it up -- with or without attribution. I know it's technically legal, it just feels shady.

[normhead]

Some of us still have problems with Andy Warhol's Campbell's soup can labels... and polaroids, the ideal here, is, just don't call it photography, it isn't, it's graphic art.