The Richest Photographer in the World

Ned Fleming

Member
Messages
18
Reaction score
8
Location
Topeka, USA, US
You may have heard of this fellow before -- Richard Prince -- the richest photographer in the world.

What may surprise you is what he takes photographs of and how he does it. He takes photographs of photographs. That's right.


In this regard, he's another Warhol or Picasso, well-paid for doing nothing. Nice work if you can get it.
 
...
In this regard, he's another Warhol or Picasso, well-paid for doing nothing. Nice work if you can get it.
There are lots of people who dream of becoming the next Warhol or Picasso. Yet, few of them have the talent to be as oppressively trite and painfully banal as they were.
 
You may have heard of this fellow before -- Richard Prince -- the richest photographer in the world.

What may surprise you is what he takes photographs of and how he does it. He takes photographs of photographs. That's right.

http://priceonomics.com/the-richest-photographer-in-the-world/

In this regard, he's another Warhol or Picasso, well-paid for doing nothing. Nice work if you can get it.
"Renowned" and "Artist" are the most bastardized words regarding this jack-ass. He hurts everything creative that is for sale by hard working folks.

Good post. +1
 
"He hurts everything creative that is for sale by hard working folks."

I've heard the criticism of this guy, but look. No one else came up with the idea. They may have come up with similar ideas, but he was lucky and his worked.

He came out on top in court, too. You can debate whether his win is good or bad (probably a bit of both), but the good is that people are free to do more with other people's stuff (compare to the ridiculous French prohibition against photographing the Eiffel Tower at night and claiming the photo as original work).

The bottom line on copyright infringement has always been protecting the financial reward being sought by the original creator. These people on Instagram weren't selling their stuff. You could say, "Well, they might have," but as far as I've heard, they weren't.

Most of the complaining about this guy sounds like sour grapes.
 
Are you just now discovering that large amounts of money exchange hands over things you don't care about?
 
Are you just now discovering that large amounts of money exchange hands over things you don't care about?
That's just my take on it.... There's really no accounting for taste. Much more useful I think to keep an eye out for work that you really enjoy rather than letting yourself fall into the trap of getting angry about what other folks may think is good...
 
"He hurts everything creative that is for sale by hard working folks."

I've heard the criticism of this guy, but look. No one else came up with the idea. They may have come up with similar ideas, but he was lucky and his worked.

He came out on top in court, too. You can debate whether his win is good or bad (probably a bit of both), but the good is that people are free to do more with other people's stuff (compare to the ridiculous French prohibition against photographing the Eiffel Tower at night and claiming the photo as original work).

The bottom line on copyright infringement has always been protecting the financial reward being sought by the original creator. These people on Instagram weren't selling their stuff. You could say, "Well, they might have," but as far as I've heard, they weren't.

Most of the complaining about this guy sounds like sour grapes.
He also lifted work from a photographer's book which he found--for sale--in a bookstore.
 
Interesting article.

In many cases, and in some of the examples... he did certainly repurpose... kind of like collaging...
 
I was never a fan of warhol's either, although I was around in his era. I'm no fan of DJs either, who take good music (and some that's bad) and mess it up.

But Picasso -- the OP has it wrong there, the man was a genius. So much life in so few lines.
 
When Picasso was young, in his teens and early twenties, yes, he was talented. His early work is good. Then he discovered dadaism and found he could produce junk and sell it.

Picasso was a full-time mooch during his adult life. He wasn't shy in professing it and his motives for doing so. He wanted money and he got it by putting the shuck on the rubes, the same thing Richard Prince is doing. The art world and its critics are in cahoots, oftentimes, and if the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, it's OK to say so.
 
Sigh. Well, that's the world for you.

He has a talent for self promotion and marketing. I don't have that. So I guess he's original in that respect at least, and certainly better than me at it.

But, man! The weird things people will pay good money for.
---------------
Tom B
 
"He hurts everything creative that is for sale by hard working folks."

I've heard the criticism of this guy, but look. No one else came up with the idea. They may have come up with similar ideas, but he was lucky and his worked.

He came out on top in court, too. You can debate whether his win is good or bad (probably a bit of both), but the good is that people are free to do more with other people's stuff (compare to the ridiculous French prohibition against photographing the Eiffel Tower at night and claiming the photo as original work).

The bottom line on copyright infringement has always been protecting the financial reward being sought by the original creator. These people on Instagram weren't selling their stuff. You could say, "Well, they might have," but as far as I've heard, they weren't.

Most of the complaining about this guy sounds like sour grapes.
Brad, hope you never create something great and have it stolen and replicated by bleeding hearts defenders of robbery like yourself. Your argument leans towards stealing is okay.
 
Are you just now discovering that large amounts of money exchange hands over things you don't care about?
That's just my take on it.... There's really no accounting for taste. Much more useful I think to keep an eye out for work that you really enjoy rather than letting yourself fall into the trap of getting angry about what other folks may think is good...
Problem is, your idea of what good is ????

My take on you.
 
Last edited:
When Picasso was young, in his teens and early twenties, yes, he was talented. His early work is good. Then he discovered dadaism and found he could produce junk and sell it.

Picasso was a full-time mooch during his adult life. He wasn't shy in professing it and his motives for doing so. He wanted money and he got it by putting the shuck on the rubes, the same thing Richard Prince is doing. The art world and its critics are in cahoots, oftentimes, and if the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, it's OK to say so.
Here here...HERE!!

Very true... great art when fire is in the belly is often unrewarded... then tripe w age gets paid premium...
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top