Judge Batts to Richard Prince: I'm Not Impressed
Sometimes the distinctions and nuances omnipresent in conceptual art simply don't pass judicial muster.
Judge Batts of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was recently on the bench in a lawsuit where the famous artist Richard Prince was alleged to have wrongfully misappropriated the work of another artist., Patrick Cariou, by drawing over the photographs taken by Mr. Cariou.
As this article in the Wall Street Journal states:
"So, delightfully, Mr. Prince was put under oath and asked just what important idea he was expressing in doodling over Mr. Cariou's photographs. Even a little idea—something, anything—would have done, the judge suggests in her ruling.
And yet, asked what he had in mind when he superimposed sunglasses and a guitar on one of Mr. Cariou's Rastafarians, this was the best Mr. Prince could come up with: "[H]e's playing the guitar now, it looks like he's playing the guitar, it looks as if he's always played the guitar, that's what my message was."
The result? According to the article, Mr. Prince has been ordered to hand over to Mr. Cariou the paintings that remain, and to tell the owners of the works already sold that they cannot be legally displayed (which means those collectors are going to be demanding their money back).
Actually, Prince provided over 30 pages in two affidavits discussing his works, but he discusses them in terms of the artistic references he was making and where he fits himself into artistic traditions. He did not provide any narratives of meaning at all. This appears to be a failure not only of Prince (who may or may not be able to articulate what his works "mean") but of his lawyers, who did not properly appreciate the meaning of the word "transformative" as it is used in copyright law.