Althouse: "Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC."

May 24, 2015

"Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC."

"Yes, it's just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. It's already sold ($90K I've been told) during the VIP preview. No, I'm not gonna go after him. And nope, I have no idea who ended up with it! 😳 #lifeisstrange #modernart #wannabuyaninstagrampicture"

Me & @pidgindoll. 👯 I wore #RedVelvet on the lips (actual lip color @jdavidmckenney put on the doll!) and did my eye makeup with #limecrimeVENUS palette. Close-up of the makeup next! 🔎
A photo posted by Doe Deere (@doedeere) on Nov 1, 2014 at 10:06am PDT

33 comments:

Sydney said...: How can that possibly be fair use? The instagram users chose the subject, framed the shots, etc. They are responsible for any artistic value of the photos, not the huckster making the money.; 5/24/15, 6:41 AM
Bob R said...: I don't get it. Do the buyers enjoy the fact that this is "stolen art?" Putting a screen shot of an Instagram photo on your wall?; 5/24/15, 6:42 AM
Bob R said...: @sydney - One answer could be that (as he says) he genuinely doesn't give a damn. (The way to cure that would be to sue the gallery owner as well.)

Another answer is that the screen shot aspect makes his contribution "meta-discourse" commentary on communications, Instagram, art on the internet, blah, blah.; 5/24/15, 6:50 AM
clint said...: He's not creating art, he's curating the interwebs.

He's just found a way to get paid significantly more than if he were doing that by blogging with links to "neat things I saw on instagram".

Expect more of this -- the huge amount of content on the internet makes "curating" (aka what Drudge does) a valuable, but underpaid, service.; 5/24/15, 7:28 AM
David A. Carlson said...: just taking money from the 1%. They don't need it. Warhol anyone? Scam people in business, go to jail. Scam people with "art", your a demigod; 5/24/15, 7:45 AM
Phil 314 said...: Is photography allowed in the gallery?; 5/24/15, 8:12 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Key data point: she is not going after him.

Also: Is she not benefited? Everybody wins.... But you have the sense that she should win more. Why?; 5/24/15, 8:23 AM
Ann Althouse said...: How much money does Instagram make off these contributions? What are the Instagram terms of service re copyright and licensing? You put up a picture with the expectation and hope that it eill be shared....; 5/24/15, 8:26 AM
lemondog said...: Warhol anyone? Scam people in business, go to jail. Scam people with "art", your a demigod

For shame Philistine!!!! Obvious you do not appreseeate true ‘art.’ Notably, Warhol's Dollar Bill; 5/24/15, 8:27 AM
Bob R said...: "But you have the sense that she should win more. Why?"

I'm getting more and more skeptical of the value of copyright, so maybe I no longer fit the premise of your question. But I've been a strong advocate in the past, and the basic answer is this.

Establishing copyright is one congressional power that is actually enumerated in the constitution, and they've used that power to protect creative works like this. The idea that new works of art can be stolen with impunity is bad for artists to let get around. Prince needs to be swatted pour encourager les autres.; 5/24/15, 8:35 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Meanwhile, a photo of this very same girl, with the same colored hair but no doll, and with an erect glistening cock in her mouth, would circle the internet endlessly, never to be considered Art.

Maybe she should think about this.

Maybe she should think about this long and hard.

I am Laslo.; 5/24/15, 8:42 AM
trumpintroublenow said...: Ann - I hope your "everybody wins" comment doesn't come back to bite you.; 5/24/15, 8:54 AM
Skipper said...: Who in their right minds would pay upward of $100,000 for one of these? Steal your own pix if you're so inclined.; 5/24/15, 9:19 AM
MadisonMan said...: At some point, someone will go after him. His large bank account virtually (ahem) guarantees it.

Maybe he can instagram the change in the balance, make an image, and sell it.; 5/24/15, 9:46 AM
David said...: I have no idea who this person is. Good for me.; 5/24/15, 9:55 AM
MadisonMan said...: Wait a minute -- make that, the person who goes after him can instagram the increase in their bank account, and then the "artist" can appropriate it, sell it, and *then* everyone wins.; 5/24/15, 9:58 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Her October 28, 2014 picture is going the right direction, if she lost the ridiculous shoes and one assumed that she wasn't wearing panties.

If she wants a Stalker she is going to have to work harder on these things.

I can help.

I am Laslo.; 5/24/15, 10:17 AM
ganderson said...: @David- Yeah- who the hell is she?; 5/24/15, 10:55 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: If I happened to be her Stalker i would examine her photographs and comments for details of her whereabouts: they always tell too much, eventually.

Once located I would show up at the coffee bar she frequents and sit across from her, then casually remove my Laslo Doll from my pocket and set it on the table, turned slightly away from her to sufficiently pique her curiosity. Then: our eyes connect.

"Wow," she says, "You have a doll that looks just like you."

"Oh? This thing?" I say, turning it to face her. "A lesbian friend of mine made it for me. She is big into anime, make-up and dolls."

Lesbian = understanding of diversity: check. Anime, make-up and dolls = understanding of Cute Precious Culture: check.

"That's so funny! I have a doll of my own that looks just like me!"

"What a coincidence," I say: girls love happy coincidences.

"That's great! I'd love to see it!"

"Oh, dang: it is at home, sleeping."

(OK: don't let the 'doll sleeping' thing throw you...)

"Wouldn't it be funny to introduce our dolls to each other?" I say, smiling innocently.

"That would be adorable!" she says, her voice reaching a child-like register.

"It would!" I agree, "Does your doll like have its nipples kissed with feathery little kisses?"

"What?"

"I think my doll is really good at that; very gentlemanly."

"I'm not sure.." she replies, a bit uncomfortable.

"You shouldn't let your doll be closed off to new experiences," I say warmly. "My Laslo Doll is very sensitive to a woman's needs."

"My doll likes sensitive men."

"We should get them together and see what happens. We can have English Tea and chaperone."

"That sounds delightful," she says; I'm not positive, but I believe I can see a stiffening of her nipples beneath her starched shirt. I won't ask if her doll likes anal until later...

I am Laslo.; 5/24/15, 11:09 AM
rhhardin said...: In wonder what app Instagram uses for display. Whatever it is, it doesn't work on my computer.; 5/24/15, 11:12 AM
kzookitty said...: Hmmm...maybe I'll publish a bestseller using Althouse blog posts. Of course I'd keep all that nasty money it generates for myself.

Everybody wins!

kzookitty; 5/24/15, 11:13 AM
JAORE said...: I'm dumbfounded by the $90k. Sure there is a LOT of art that makes my WTF sense tingle. But a blown up copy of an instagram pic?; 5/24/15, 1:27 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Damn. Sounds like my drunk coed cell phone snapshot collection could be that retirement nest egg I've been looking for!; 5/24/15, 1:43 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Tom Wolfe, call your agent!; 5/24/15, 1:48 PM
CWJ said...: It's interesting to see what subjects produce an Althouse emotional response, and which subjects produce a reasoned response.

This case comes down to the money. The permission thing is a little dicey since posting the image online implies pretty broad publc permission in the first place. The problem is that in a reasonable world, one would never expect a blown up screen shot with banal commentary to garner $90,000.

Emotionally, I'd like to see a sharing of the wealth with the young woman, while at the same time thinking the guy's approach to art is pretty despicable. But rationally, if the "art" is not being misrepresented, and the buyer knows what he is getting, you can't really cure the fact that people have more money than brains.; 5/24/15, 2:02 PM
Ann Althouse said...: It's his attitude, whatever you think of it, that makes him the artist and that's what the buyer is buying.

Anyone can print the young lady's photo, enlarged, and frame it and hang it. Go ahead and do that too and try to sell it. If you can't get $90,000, then you are staring straight at Prince's artistry. Bow down to his genius!; 5/24/15, 2:31 PM
Ann Althouse said...: What do you care if some rich guy is parted with his money or if his bet pays off down the road?

The lady got her photo and her image out there, which was precisely what she sought. She has us talking about her. She couldn't buy an ad campaign for her brand that would be this good.

All boats rise.; 5/24/15, 2:34 PM
Rusty said...: Ann Althouse said...
What do you care if some rich guy is parted with his money or if his bet pays off down the road?

The lady got her photo and her image out there, which was precisely what she sought. She has us talking about her. She couldn't buy an ad campaign for her brand that would be this good.

All boats rise.

And by "taking her cut" she very well damages the brand.; 5/24/15, 2:38 PM
Levi Starks said...: I have no problem with this, what I do have a problem with is that it's acceptable only because it's done by a "real" artist. If an ordinary nobody were to do the same with a (you name the celebrity) they would be left defenseless by an immediate slap down law suit.; 5/24/15, 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, I have a problem with it. I hope someone sues the living fuck out of him even if she's not interested.

Or maybe my father should come back from the dead and just solve it by punching him in the face. (Reference to a comment of mine in another thread, simply for my own amusement.)

As a creative, he's lazy. As an emperor's new clothes carnie huckster, less so.; 5/25/15, 4:20 AM
Anonymous said...: From what I understand about brand/trademark/copyright, you have to take action to protect it otherwise you forfeit your rights. By not suing or demanding compensation, theoretically, could a person forfeit the rights to their own image?; 5/25/15, 4:28 AM
Aussie Pundit said...: By not suing or demanding compensation, theoretically, could a person forfeit the rights to their own image?

No, that's true for trademarks, but not copyright. If you don't enforce a trademark you lose it. Copyright, you can ring the bell at any time in the future.; 5/25/15, 5:01 AM
Aussie Pundit said...: The lady got her photo and her image out there, which was precisely what she sought. She has us talking about her. She couldn't buy an ad campaign for her brand that would be this good.

All boats rise.

Your argument that she benefits from the theft of her material doesn't wash. The same argument has been made for illegal downloading of musicians (it gets them "publicity").

It's her artistic material, and it's not up to some other business person to decide what is good publicity for her.; 5/25/15, 5:04 AM