23 March 2011


Just the very word "rephotography" or "rephotographer" makes me feel a little nauseous.

What it appears to mean is that you steal someone else's work, change it, even just a little, and then put it back out as your own work.  Of course this is just bullshit that a talentless thief will say in his defence.

What bought this to my attention is the case of Richard Prince.

Just because he's taken digital images, bastardised and then resold them, he seemed to think it was "okay".  Sorry Richard, it's bullshit.  What you're doing is no real difference from stealing the Mona Lisa, drawing a moustache on her with a big thick marker pen, and then selling it on as your own work.

Here's one example of what Richard does.  Original image copyright belongs to photographer Patrick Cariou.

As you can see, it's bullshit.

Apparently Richard stole 41 photographs from a Patrick Cariou book called "Yes, Rasta", modified them in various ways, and then displayed them in a gallery of his "own" work.  The exhibition went on to generate over $10 million.

I'm not quite sure which is worse.  Richard for producing crap, or the suckers that buy his "art".

Sadly though, having no morals or talent seems to be rather profitable.


Paul Newton said...

I have a real issue with this. You have taken photos of me and done a brilliant job, so does this mean that this guy can use photos of me, with out my permission, and make money from them?

Looks like what he's done already to Patrick and his model?

michaelp42 said...

essentially paul that does indeed seem what this guy does for a living. apparently he stole 41 photos from that one photographer.