Richard Prince and I « Contemporary Art World -101

Richard Prince and I

Back in the day – I exhibited wonderful work on paper by Richard Prince. Today, he renounces these works although at the time they were exhibited and sold to museum and corporate collections.

Richard Prince, Four Men Laughing, 1975

His renunciation raises all kinds of questions regarding originality, attribution, and ultimately value in the art world.

The situation raises soooo many questions. Primarily, how much control does the artist have over his work, and how much should he have. Prince made these works of art, received payment, and was happy at the time.

1. If Prince can say this or that is not part of his oeuvre arbitrarily, what’s to stop him from renouncing the Nurse paintings, or disowning the Joke paintings. Maybe collectors who buy the work should be required to read in small print that the artist can change his mind if he decides a particular body of work is not part of his “Oeuvre”

2. Prince often uses imagery from other artists without permission. Therefore it puzzles me why he cared one way or another if these early pieces were reproduced.

3. His renouncing the art does not change the fact that he made the art and got paid for the art, and exhibited the art. So perhaps one could you say that I can authenticate the work because I can testify to its originality, but I can’t attribute the work to Richard because he denies attribution. But then what will happen when he dies – Can an art historian change attribution based on my testimony against his?

4. Maybe all these questions are academic because Richard really just wants to make a joke. His work critiques sincerity and exposes emotions as banal and impossibly inauthentic. His art world persona is purposely elusive and jokey. The e renouncement of 5 years worth of work is totally illogical, and perhaps this is just another example of his penchant for art world trickery.

5. Prince said in an interview “I’ve never felt that I had to put out work that I actually liked-just because it’s out there doesn’t mean that I have to stand behind it. A lot of it’s experimental, spontaneous. (Karen Rosenberg, May 2, 2005 issue New York Magazine) So maybe he really doesn’t care one way or another about the early pieces.

6. My favorite quote is in the comments to Ed Winkleman’s blog about this conundrum. David Palmer quips that “someone who bought the early work can’t say they own an artwork by Richard Prince. The work they own is by the artist formerly known as Richard Prince.”

7. Ha ha ha I really do love that quote – I know its corny

8. But seriously folks, and this is where the art market comes into play, neither Sotheby’s nor Phillips will take the work for auction because they require that a living artist authenticates the work before they can sell it – So is this the definition of authentication – a living artist must say he made it. My testimony does not count (until Richard dies I guess) so here’s where the art market comes in – There is no way to value the work if you can’t sell it at auction. So this whole thing so reminds me of the impossibility of valuing anything these days. Are my Richard Prince pieces toxic assets?

9 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Prince is being tiresome and acting like a schoolboy.

Comment by martin moskof — April 8, 2009 #

Reply
You might consider creating a group letter involving other art dealers and interested parties to send to Christie’s and Sotheby’s (Phillips too?) regarding the Richard Prince conundrum. It could be noted that the sale rooms DO NOT ROUTINELY ask living artists to confirm that works are original or authentic. If there is a valid provenance such authentication would be superfluous. Those signing might protest this approach, suggesting that if they feel the market considers art works to be unoriginal or “fake” unless accompanied by an artist’s certificate of authenticity, then all works offered henceforth by living artists should be so accompanied.

I’ve bought works at auction by living artists and later found that the artists did not even know their works had been offered at auction, much less that the saleroom involved had contacted them for authentication. That fact sadly leaves Sotheby’s or Phillips caught in a lie…clearly they have offered works of art at auction without requiring – or indeed seeming to care – that a living artist authenticated the work before they sold it.

Hal

Hey great idea Hal – Didn’t really think through implications of Auction House role. Hope all is well K

Comment by Hal Bromm — April 8, 2009 #

Reply
I find it interesting that he decided to renounce older work. It would be a real test of his “sense of humor” for him to renounce the Nurse paintings, et al., to have his work completely removed from auction.

Comment by Debra Ramsay — April 8, 2009 #

Reply
Dear Kathy,
Because you and I and Ellen Sragow, who all gave exhibitions long before he was rich or famous, and because we have all been forced into this category of owning artworks by RP which he has chosen not to acknowledge, I think we should pool our collections and mount an exhibition in NYC entitled “Salon de Refuse.”
On a serious note, the more his egregious behavior is publicized, perhaps the questions you raise will bring about some thoughtful responses. I certainly hope so!

Comment by Angus Whyte — April 8, 2009 #

Reply
I suggest no one buy Richard Prince’s work anymore, at auction or elsewhere,since he is so enamored with joking with the market! Or if one does purchase, enjoy and understand that you are buying into his trickery as an integral part of his “art process.”

Comment by Irene Mahler — April 8, 2009 #

Reply
Prince’s actions bring up a host of ethical and legal issues relating to commerce. If he represents a work as something he has authored and receives money for it based, in part, on that fact, then takes overt action to devalue it, doesn’t that violate laws governing business practice? Isn’t he setting himself up for huge legal troubles?

Comment by Macyn Bolt — April 8, 2009 #

Reply
One question to be put to members of ARS (Artists Rights Society) :
Does an American artist have a right to deny any work he has signed and been compensated for without having, first , reimbursed the buyer of the work ? French law states clearly : “” l’auteur ne peut exercer son droit de repentir qu’à charge d’indemniser préalablement le cessionnaire du préjudice ”
Thank you for keeping me in the loop, dear Kathryn, Lise

By the way, when RP refused to give Michael Lobel permission to reproduce his early works in the catalogue for the Fugitive Artist exhibit in 2007, he (RP),in fact, admitted he was the author of these works.

Comment by Lise Hoshour — April 10, 2009 #

Reply
Isn’t this merely a ploy by Prince to bring MORE attention, not less, to the very work he now disavows? It is known to be his work, whether or not he chooses to authenticate it. He isn’t the first to toy with the notion of what determines ‘value’ and he won’t be the last.

Comment by Tamar Zinn — April 12, 2009 #

Reply
I guess if Sherrie Levine can claim other people’s work as her own, Richard Prince can claim his own work is someone else’s!! It stinks though.

Btw, shouldn’t it be “Richard Prince and Me” — or am I being too anal?

Comment by Charles Kessler — May 14, 2009 #

Reply