What is wrong with the art world?? How does a reproduction of a photograph by another worker (I hesitate to call him a photographer) become valuable art? Is it not decadent to reward the copyist (is "thief" accurate?) rather than the original artist?
NY Times reports on exhibit at Guggenheim Museum in NY of work by Richard Prince. His work consists of photocopies of *other photographer's published works* including some from the famous Marlboro ad series by Jim Krantz. The museum sells photo posters at $9.95 and Prince's work has auctioned as high at $1.2 million.
Why, if the original images are good (and they are although their use to promote smoking was evil) don't they use the original artwork?? Is this decadent or what!
What does this say about copyright protection or the lack thereof? And when an artist / photographer does work for a client, and the image becomes valuable, shouldn't the artist profit too?
If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What’s the Original?
By RANDY KENNEDY
Published: December 6, 2007