Prince and the Times

A recent slideshow from The New York Times puts the work of Richard Prince in the perspective of the photographers from whom he "borrows." Considered to be a pioneer of appropriation, something that was at its time (in the late 70s) both controversial and unconventional, his work is now accepted even to the point of earning a retrospective show at the Guggenheim. The article does not focus entirely on his work, but brings forth the issues that we all debate about our work and the work of all artists during this Postmodern and perhaps Post-Historical era.

Jim Krantz is presented as the comparison, one of the photographers whose work has been rephotographed and presented as art. But Krantz's photos were taken for Marlboro advertisements, no doubt coordinated and commissioned by a designer who art directed and designed the shoot. By choosing photography and works often created by designers in collaboration with photographers, Prince ties appropriation from the world of fine art (where his work lives) and into the design world (where his sources live), much like Duchamp and Warhol manipulated the ideas and contexts surrounding objects designed for mass reproduction.  

So when the question of ownership and authorship emerges from the observations of the links between these people and their work, it cannot be a one-or-the-other answer. Does it belong to Prince, to Krantz, to the designer who art directed it and held a responsibility to a client, or to Marlboro as a company and brand? 

Who owns the image in the first place? Does the photographer claim sole rights as the first to capture it-- is Prince appropriating an image without meaning? When the photographer's name is diminished by an art director's, does it become the art director's work as part of his concept? Is Prince appropriating the designer's idea? 

Is Prince really taking from Krantz, or instead from the designer of the Marlboro ads-- is he taking from neither, but from work "owned" by Marlboro? And is he asking us to read the message and statement associated with taking imagery from an advertisement or that of taking the uncontextualized imagery of a photographer? 

Is plagiarism about stealing the way something is done or the idea behind it? Does plagiarism even exist in the art world today? Duchamp took industrial design and gave it new meaning. Warhol used commercial design to make his own statements. As designers, our goals in appropriation have more to do with utilizing a style and semiotic meaning. As artists, appropriation itself has meaning and is a means to communicating a message or making a statement. Perhaps Prince, as an artist and not a designer, exploits design through art direction and advertising with the same goals of his Postmodern predecessors. 

As art directors and designers, this might not be fair. The work created for Marlboro was not a personal statement or cultural visualization. It was meant only to be the completion of a project for a client. If the work is seen as belonging to the art director or the photographer, the context of its initial creation is lost. In that frame of mind, I can only hope that Prince's intention is to take the images from advertisements as work that is owned and authored by the company, not the artists who collaborated to create it. 

Designers make a powerful cultural statement with each brand and advertisement we create, yet we create only to satisfy a client's wishes. We wonder why we have little sense of authorship, but it is because we join hands with companies to convey their message, not our own. 

Who is it, though, that Prince challenges? Is it Krantz, who captured the imagery he uses? Is it those that create advertisements, for helping to create a society where they hold such prominence and significance? Is it Marlboro, for using the kinds of imagery in their ads? Or for being moguls of advertising in the first place? Or, as an artist, is he merely challenging the audience, asking them to ask-- why these images, why for these companies, can they be separated from their intended associations, what do the images mean without them? Maybe the ownership and the authorship, despite what could be argued about the two, are only a small part of the challenges of viewing his work as art.