Parasitology is the scientific study of parasites-- creatures that attach themselves to free-living species and suck blood and other nutrients from them.
1. HOOKWORM (Ancylostoma duodenale)
2. RICHARD PRINCE (Lizardus Plagiarista)
Richard Prince has made a lot of money taking the work of other artists and selling it as his own. Prince cannot paint well himself, but he'll take an illustrator's painting, re-frame it along with a copy of the published version, and sell it for a hundred times what the original artist was paid.
The prestigious Gagosian gallery in Manhattan which sells Prince's work explains that Prince's appropriation art "redefined the concepts of authorship, ownership, and aura."
Predictably, Mr. Prince has been sued for plagiarism but just as hookworms hide in crevasses of the bowels, Mr. Prince and his gallery found shelter in a crevasse in the law. A court found Prince guilty of copyright infringement but on appeal a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the original ruling. Two out of three appellate court judges ruled that Prince was making "fair use" of another artist's work because Prince's pictures “have a different character” from the original, giving it a “new expression” and employing “new aesthetics with creative and communicative results distinct” from the original work. The dissenting judge claimed the court was not qualified to decide which of Mr. Prince's works were "transformative" and which were not. ("It would be extremely uncomfortable for me to do so in my appellate capacity, let alone my limited art experience.")
Parasitology tells us that as long as posh art galleries can afford better lawyers than the individual plagiarized illustrator or comic artist, Prince has nothing to fear.
At one time, appropriation art consisted of artists taking functional industrial objects that were never intended to be art-- a urinal or a bicycle seat-- and pointing out the artistic qualities in them. In those days, appropriation artists were clueless about how to exploit concepts to become millionaires. They thought they were having fun. But like all god's creatures, parasites continue to evolve. Appropriation art grew and and tightened its grip, becoming increasingly shameless. Artists were soon appropriating the conscious designs of commercial artists and they now appropriate entire works of art, intact. Sometimes they delete the signature of the original "low" artist and replace it with the signature of the "high" artist.
What can the science of parasitology teach us about the new breed of appropriation artist? Just as hookworms are able to travel from host to host by being excreted in dung, appropriation artists spread via opinions excreted by art dealers, auction houses and Manhattan galleries. Nancy Spector, Chief Curator at the Guggenheim, trills: “Prince’s work has been among the most innovative art produced in the United States during the past 30 years." Better keep your shoes on around the Guggenheim.
Just as with hookworms, people who traffic in dung prove to be the most fruitful hosts for appropriation artists. Well known aesthetes such as Wall Street financiers-- always noted for their artistic sensitivity-- have become the leading investors in Mr. Prince's art. Hedge fund billionaire and Guggenheim donor David Ganek collects Prince's art when he isn't too distracted by his death struggle with the FBI and federal prosecutors over his alleged criminal stock trading schemes.
4. THE ECONOMICS OF PARASITOLOGY
The appropriation artist who adds a concept to a pre-existing work of art often gets paid hundreds or thousands of times as much as the creator of the initial artwork. Whether that is too much or too little depends on the relative value of the contributions, so let's examine both candidly. Many appropriation artists claim they are contributing "irony" or "social awareness" to the original work of art. Prince's contribution, his gallery informs us, is that he "urges the viewer to see shopworn images in a new context." This would seem to be the kind of insight you might expect from a high school literary magazine, but hardly the kind of insight for which someone might spend 1,000 times the price of the original "shopworn image." Is it possible that Mr. Ganek is buying something else with his millions?
Economists distinguish between two types of property: property that is valuable because of its inherent quality, and property that is valued simply because other people can't have it. This second type of property is called "positional goods," and it seems to be one of the healthiest sectors of the fine art market today. The "concepts" being peddled by Mr. Prince and others are for the most part hackneyed platitudes that would not impress a credulous school girl. They couldn't possibly account for the astronomical prices such work commands. No, the thing that accounts for the price is not the concept, it's the exclusivity.
The popular arts being appropriated by artists such as Mr. Prince were the exact opposite of positional goods. Far from being exclusive, they were mass produced and distributed to the largest possible audience for the lowest possible price-- for example, the price of a comic book or cheap magazine. This business model may be the source of their wonderful strength and vulgarity, which are viewed with envy by the anemic fine art community. Fine artists return again and again to commercial illustration, trying to siphon off its potency for use as bait to attract buyers of positional goods. Judging from Mr. Prince's financial success for such slender work, the formula continues to work.
1. HOOKWORM (Ancylostoma duodenale)
 |
| Photomicrograph of the hookworm |
The hookworm is a parasitic worm that burrows into the intestine of its victim. It uses those teeth to hook into the intestine wall and drink the host's blood, while causing infection, nausea, indigestion, anemia and protein deficiency. Hookworms infect nearly 700 million (mostly poor) people around the world. The Center for Disease Control reports that hookworms "account for a major burden of disease worldwide."
Hookworms are able to move from one host to another when the hookworm is excreted in dung. After they land on soil, hookworms are able to penetrate the bare foot of another human host and burrow through to the intestine.
2. RICHARD PRINCE (Lizardus Plagiarista)
Richard Prince has made a lot of money taking the work of other artists and selling it as his own. Prince cannot paint well himself, but he'll take an illustrator's painting, re-frame it along with a copy of the published version, and sell it for a hundred times what the original artist was paid.
The prestigious Gagosian gallery in Manhattan which sells Prince's work explains that Prince's appropriation art "redefined the concepts of authorship, ownership, and aura."
 |
| In a hilariously loathsome moment, the Gagosian web site credits Prince as the artist because he conceptually re-framed this painting, and credits Rob McKeever for photographing the work for their web site, but nowhere mentions the name of the actual painter, Rafael DeSoto because, you see, that would be irrelevant. |
Predictably, Mr. Prince has been sued for plagiarism but just as hookworms hide in crevasses of the bowels, Mr. Prince and his gallery found shelter in a crevasse in the law. A court found Prince guilty of copyright infringement but on appeal a divided Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the original ruling. Two out of three appellate court judges ruled that Prince was making "fair use" of another artist's work because Prince's pictures “have a different character” from the original, giving it a “new expression” and employing “new aesthetics with creative and communicative results distinct” from the original work. The dissenting judge claimed the court was not qualified to decide which of Mr. Prince's works were "transformative" and which were not. ("It would be extremely uncomfortable for me to do so in my appellate capacity, let alone my limited art experience.")
Parasitology tells us that as long as posh art galleries can afford better lawyers than the individual plagiarized illustrator or comic artist, Prince has nothing to fear.
At one time, appropriation art consisted of artists taking functional industrial objects that were never intended to be art-- a urinal or a bicycle seat-- and pointing out the artistic qualities in them. In those days, appropriation artists were clueless about how to exploit concepts to become millionaires. They thought they were having fun. But like all god's creatures, parasites continue to evolve. Appropriation art grew and and tightened its grip, becoming increasingly shameless. Artists were soon appropriating the conscious designs of commercial artists and they now appropriate entire works of art, intact. Sometimes they delete the signature of the original "low" artist and replace it with the signature of the "high" artist.
What can the science of parasitology teach us about the new breed of appropriation artist? Just as hookworms are able to travel from host to host by being excreted in dung, appropriation artists spread via opinions excreted by art dealers, auction houses and Manhattan galleries. Nancy Spector, Chief Curator at the Guggenheim, trills: “Prince’s work has been among the most innovative art produced in the United States during the past 30 years." Better keep your shoes on around the Guggenheim.
Just as with hookworms, people who traffic in dung prove to be the most fruitful hosts for appropriation artists. Well known aesthetes such as Wall Street financiers-- always noted for their artistic sensitivity-- have become the leading investors in Mr. Prince's art. Hedge fund billionaire and Guggenheim donor David Ganek collects Prince's art when he isn't too distracted by his death struggle with the FBI and federal prosecutors over his alleged criminal stock trading schemes.
4. THE ECONOMICS OF PARASITOLOGY
The appropriation artist who adds a concept to a pre-existing work of art often gets paid hundreds or thousands of times as much as the creator of the initial artwork. Whether that is too much or too little depends on the relative value of the contributions, so let's examine both candidly. Many appropriation artists claim they are contributing "irony" or "social awareness" to the original work of art. Prince's contribution, his gallery informs us, is that he "urges the viewer to see shopworn images in a new context." This would seem to be the kind of insight you might expect from a high school literary magazine, but hardly the kind of insight for which someone might spend 1,000 times the price of the original "shopworn image." Is it possible that Mr. Ganek is buying something else with his millions?
Economists distinguish between two types of property: property that is valuable because of its inherent quality, and property that is valued simply because other people can't have it. This second type of property is called "positional goods," and it seems to be one of the healthiest sectors of the fine art market today. The "concepts" being peddled by Mr. Prince and others are for the most part hackneyed platitudes that would not impress a credulous school girl. They couldn't possibly account for the astronomical prices such work commands. No, the thing that accounts for the price is not the concept, it's the exclusivity.
The popular arts being appropriated by artists such as Mr. Prince were the exact opposite of positional goods. Far from being exclusive, they were mass produced and distributed to the largest possible audience for the lowest possible price-- for example, the price of a comic book or cheap magazine. This business model may be the source of their wonderful strength and vulgarity, which are viewed with envy by the anemic fine art community. Fine artists return again and again to commercial illustration, trying to siphon off its potency for use as bait to attract buyers of positional goods. Judging from Mr. Prince's financial success for such slender work, the formula continues to work.
Post a Comment