Richard Prince's $100K Instagram Art Work

Richard Prince
(Image: Patrick McMullen,
posted in observer.com)

I don't know if the artist Richard Prince's friends call him "Rich." Many others do, but more as a Homeric epithet than an informal greeting. The non-royal Prince has made a staggering amount of money (by art world standards) through appropriating the work of others. He has claimed, and successfully defended in court, that he brings extra value to each "borrowed" work through adding some nuance to it. These additions often border on the insultingly trivial.

Recently, Prince has shifted his aim from the work of established photographers to amateurs posting images on Instagram. Similar to a chef topping cooked fish with a parsley sprig, Prince joins a selected Instagram photo with a comment. And, voila, an "original" work of art is born. (For more juicy details on this episode, including Instagram's public statement on the issue, by all means read a related Business Insider story by Madison Malone Kircher.)

Meanwhile, as reporter Lizzie Plaugic's well-written article in theverge.com noted, Prince's Insta-art sells for $100,000 per piece. The powerful Gagosian Gallery provides Prince's work the marketing and sales muscle and hot client list required to move such high-priced merchandise.

At the heart of the issue is the legal notion of "fair use." Plaugic's piece explores this point without jumping into fair use's deep water. It appears Prince has cynically exploited the intent of the law for selfish commercial gain. He seems indifferent to fairness, never mind "fair use." Between his own financial resources and Gagosian's clout, Prince can simply continue his reverse Robin Hood style of artistic creation. How fair is that?