Richard Prince's cowboy crap
Associated Press reports that the Tate Modern has shut down an exhibit of Richard Prince's Spiritual America which includes a photo of a photo of a nude ten-year-old Brooke Shields.
Never mind that this image of Prince's is about thirty years old. Never mind that it's a photo of a photo. And never mind that a quick Google search will turn it up. In fact, let me Google that for you. British police have decided that now it's a bad photo.
And good god they're right. But why did it take the police to shut down Prince's show? Wasn't there anyone else in the museum hierarchy who could see that this guy's work sucks? That anything would be an improvement over a Prince show? That it would be better and more edifying for the public if they left the rooms at the Tate Modern empty and let visitors stare at blank walls? That once an artist has stooped to child porn to keep his stock afloat, as Prince did 26 years ago, he's irredeemable?
Shutting the show down because they don't want to cause offense to their visitors? How about not giving that crap house room in the first place? I'm offended and I've never even been to England, let alone the Tate Modern. I don't even have to set foot in the damned place to be offended. It's a sad fucking day when I'm on the side of the jackbooted thugs, but hearing that anyone anywhere is still displaying Richard Prince's efforts is almost enough to make me want to join al Qaeda. Stick a fork in it -- clearly Western Civilization is done.
So many people love this guy's art. It is amazing. He is art world royalty.
his art is ravishing.
The Emperor's New Clothes, as a parable, doesn't even adequately explain the appeal of Richard Prince. As I wrote at Franklin's, when I see crap like that extruded by Richard Prince being lauded and sold -- for record-breaking sums -- I realize I have absolutely no idea how the world works.
If I could google awesomeness for you, I would, because that link rocked my afternoon.
I don't mind being your Google monkey.
YES, Yes he does.
So Chris, tell us something we don't know. The Art World, of course, is what it is, which is presumably all it can be, considering the players. Anyway, as for Prince, his stuff reminds me of that classic physics put-down: "He's not even wrong."
Prince is an asshole and like many artist I'd really like to have a one on one with him and find out what the fuck happens in his head. The original photos of shields were take by Gary Gross whom Prince bought the rights from. Were laws that different back then? ? Shields mother got payed for this photo shoot!? The history behind the shoot and the images so CAUTION can be found here:http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/brooke-shields-by-gary-gross/
The odd thing is that I am a fan of of someone like Jock Sturges.. I believe his lens and do not find the images sexualized or I don't feel like he's taking advantage. I see these photos by gross and I feel like a kind of play acting is taking place and the result is an attempt at a playboy image of a minor. I'm not the most moral person in the world but this was unnecessary and an odd "wardrobe malfunction" on the museums end.
-flannigan
In my admittedly limited experience, when you ask an artist like Richard Prince (I keep spelling out his whole name so we don't start to think we're talking about the star of Purple Rain) what's going on in his head, you get back a blank stare. Not literally, of course -- morons like him can blather on for hours about the supposed meaning of their work -- but really what you're getting is a blank stare. Because they have no idea what they're doing. They did a whole bunch of things, one thing in particular got them noticed and made them money, and they kept doing that one thing. The end. I can't fault them entirely because I imagine it's hard to say no to money, but I'd like to think, in their place, I'd not do something obviously worthless and stupid just to get paid.
As far as Gary Gross' original images, I'm not sure what to think. They strike me as wrong and, well, gross. But I'm not sure. Our culture is so weird about children.
As far as Sturges goes, I had a conversation about his work last year. I thought I eventually worked my way around to considering him a disgusting pervert, but apparently not in that conversation. Maybe that was somewhere else. I suppose you can't fault the guy for happily wandering around without pants in a house full of beautiful naked 14-to-16-year-olds, but it seems wrong to me.
Wait, that blog post you pointed to says Prince re-photographed the photos in 1992. Is that right? I thought Prince took the re-photos in the early 1980s.
If he took them in 1992 it's even worse, even more pathetic, and even more transparent attempt to rile up controversy.
You know, if you show Richard Prince's Spiritual America to any regular person on the street, they'll immediately register disgust. If you explain the situation to them (even without showing them the image), they'll register resigned disgust with the art world. Because it's the kind of stupidity they've come to expect.
How do art world people lose touch with that? How do they get that far away? Or do they think that reaction is some kind of validation?
"How do art world people lose touch with that? How do they get that far away?"
All they need is enough rich collector types to play along, and that they've got. There's also the old and very tired delusion of being above and beyond "regular" people, who are supposedly not "advanced" enough to "get it." Yawn.
I agree in part, the Brooke Shields photo-phot is really disgusting.
But his other works, especially the cowboy stuff, is awesome.
He's abstrad beyonf abstract. His cowboys are more pointless than anything else. Abstract like no colors or weird spots (Picasso, Kandinsky, Pollock), just everyctay pictures we all know, totally meaningless, pointless.
That's what makes it so big and kind of interesting. You have a picture (a man on a horse), but there's no deeper or hidden meaning. It's just totally pointless. Kind of funny, in a way.
That's great! Love it!
The Brooke Shields photos are not disgusting because of what Prince photographed, they're disgusting because of why he photographed them. Because he needed to get noticed some more.
His pictures are not abstract or beyond abstract. They are pointless but pointlessness in itself means nothing. They're not funny, they're stupid. There's a difference.
Richard Prince is an idiot. He should give all of his possessions and money to a worthwhile charity and go live in a cave on a mountain thinking about his sins.
ha! I love the cowboy picture, regardless of who took it when and first and what not. Given the evidence, I am also not a fan of richard prince, but none the less the cowboy picture is intersting. Wouldn't the cowboy be leaning foward since the horse is running? He's sitting straight up as if the horse was trotting. I think this is whats interesting about it, but I guess 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.