Narrator: Listen to part of a lecture in an art theory class.
Professor: As we’ve seen, the second half of the twentieth century was a pivotal period in art history. It was a time of pushing the definition of what art is, and crossing boundaries that had never before been crossed. Among the artists who were pioneers in this regard is Richard Prince.
Richard Prince is an American painter and photographer who became known for his work in copying the work of other artists. It was 1975 when he created his first “rephotograph,” or photograph of a photograph, that would become a highly valued piece of art. It was a photograph of a photograph, the latter of which had been featured in a cigarette ad. Prince’s rephotograph sold at auction for over a million dollars in 2005.
He was not the only person creating rephotographs at the time, however. Rephotography was actually a movement in the art world in the 1970s. The nature of it is appropriation, which means taking something from someone else to use yourself—usually without permission. In this case, it meant taking the photography of others to use in one’s own photography. Prince, in particular, was interested in how photographing a photograph immediately created a new history for it—like beginning its life as a piece of art again, from scratch. He was fascinated with how photographic film was a kind of automatic appropriation device, since it was able to do this in an instant.
His most famous pieces are of cowboys from those Marlboro cigarette ads, like the one I mentioned a moment ago. It’s like… by taking a picture of a picture someone else took, he’s asking, “What makes a work of art real, or not?”
Now, you may not be surprised to learn that this didn’t go over well with a lot of the photographers whose work Prince appropriated. It was only a matter of time before one of them sued him. In 2008, a photographer named Patrick Cariou sued Prince for copyright violation. The suit involved 35 photographs of Cariou’s. The question for the court was really whether Prince had transformed Cariou’s work into something new, or if he hadn’t transformed it enough for it to count as different. The question was the degree of transformation. We have to acknowledge here that this is a very subjective question to ask about a piece of art. Could we say, for example, that even just knowing that a photograph is actually a rephotograph makes us have a different experience of it than we would have if we thought it was just a plain old photograph? Can it count as “transformation” if the change is just conceptual, in the mind of the viewer, or does it need to be visually obvious?
The court agreed with Cariou—it ruled that Richard Prince had violated Cariou’s copyright. But then, a higher court reversed this ruling for most of the photos, so the question wasn’t ever fully resolved.
Prince wasn’t done raising the question of what constitutes art. In 2017, nine years after the Cariou lawsuit, he asked this question again, in a different way. The daughter of a prominent politician had purchased one of Prince’s works—a rephotograph—years before her father ran for office. She still owns it—it’s apparently featured in her home, and worth a fair amount of money. It was an original Richard Prince rephotograph, after all. But then Prince did something unheard of in the art world. As an act of political protest against her father, he declared publicly that this piece—the one this woman bought from him—was not his. He disowned it, and returned the money she paid him. So that raised the question—does a piece of art exist apart from its creator’s views of it? Can an artist rescind his or her signature on the piece? Or maybe there is something special about art that makes it separate from its maker once it’s made. And then there is the question of what the nature of the art is to begin with, and whether that matters. Would we feel differently if it were, say, a painting, instead of a photograph of a photograph?
One thing is for sure: Richard Prince has not shied away from controversy and social commentary throughout his career, and he continues to contribute to public discourse on the definition of art.
|
What does the professor mainly discuss? |
Gist-content. The professor mainly discusses the artist Richard Prince, and how he has challenged the definition of art. |
|
| ✓ | A The pioneering work of artist Richard Prince |
Correct. Pioneering means “advancing new ideas or values.” That is what Prince has done in his career, and his work is the main topic of the lecture. |
| ✗ | B The history of rephotography |
This is discussed to some extent, but is not the main focus of the lecture. |
| ✗ | C The new meaning of art in the twenty-first century |
The lecture is also about art theory in the twentieth century. Also, it is focused primarily on one specific form of art, not art in general. |
| ✗ | D Innovations in the early days of photography |
The professor does not discuss the early days of photography. Also, the primary form of art discussed is rephotography, not photography. |
|
According to the professor, how did Richard Prince challenge common notions of what constitutes art? Choose 2 answers. |
Detail. The professor discusses Prince’s rephotographs at length. Also discussed is Prince’s decision to rescind—or take back—his signature on a previous work, out of political protest. |
|
| ✓ | a By taking photographs of photographs |
Correct. Rephotographs represent a challenge to the accepted definition of art. |
| ✗ | b By filing a lawsuit against a fellow photographer |
The lawsuit discussed was filed against Prince, not by Prince. |
| ✗ | c By refusing to sign his work |
Prince disowned a piece of his own artwork, which is different from refusing to sign it in the first place. |
| ✓ | d By disowning a piece of art he had made and sold |
Correct. Prince revoked his signature, raising the question of what that implies about the status of the work he disowned. |
|
What can be inferred about Prince’s future career as an artist? |
Inference. The professor references Prince’s present and future work at the end of the lecture, when he states that Prince continues not to “shy away” from controversy. |
|
| ✗ | A Prince’s work will likely revolve around how to maintain popularity. |
There is no mention of Prince’s broad popularity, nor his level of interest in maintaining it or focusing on it as a subject. |
| ✗ | B Prince’s work will probably lead to many more lawsuits. |
While this possibility exists, it is not mentioned or suggested in the lecture. |
| ✓ | C Prince’s work will likely raise more political and social questions. |
Correct. By noting that Prince continues not to “shy away” from controversy, the professor suggests that Prince’s work will continue to raise political and social questions. |
| ✗ | D Prince’s work will probably answer more questions than it raises. |
If anything, the opposite is true. The professor suggests that Prince’s work raises questions, but does not necessarily answer them. |
|
What is the professor’s opinion of Richard Prince? |
Speaker’s Attitude. The professor does not criticize Prince. If anything, the professor seems impressed with Prince’s contributions to art theory. |
|
| ✗ | A He thinks that criticisms of Prince are unfair and unwarranted. |
The professor offers no personal opinion on criticisms of Prince made by others. |
| ✓ | B He believes that Prince has made valuable contributions to how the definition of art has evolved. |
Correct. The professor devotes the lecture to a discussion of Prince’s contributions to art theory, noting in particular the questions Prince raises about what constitutes a work of art. |
| ✗ | C He thinks that photographer Patrick Cariou should have prevailed in court. |
The professor offers no personal opinion on this lawsuit, other than to suggest that its result did not definitively answer important questions about the definition of art. |
| ✗ | D He believes that Prince breaks rules and expectations in the art community that should not be violated. |
While the professor does discuss the ways in which Prince violates rules and expectations, he doesn’t criticize these actions. |
|
What are two key features of appropriation as discussed by the professor in the context of rephotography? Choose 2 answers. |
Detail. The professor describes appropriation as using someone else’s work in one’s own work, often without permission. |
|
| ✗ | a Asking for permission to use one’s work |
The professor states the opposite. Appropriation is using someone else’s work without permission. |
| ✓ | b Taking someone else’s work for one’s own use |
Correct. This is the main feature of appropriation as defined in the lecture. |
| ✗ | c Refusing to grant permission to someone who wants to use one’s work |
Appropriation is an action taken by a person using someone else’s work, not by the person whose work is potentially being reused by someone else. |
| ✓ | d Using someone else’s work without permission |
Correct. This is often a feature of appropriation, especially within the context of the professor’s discussion of rephotography. |
|
Why does the professor describe Prince’s revocation of his signature on a work of art as “unheard of in the art world”? |
Organization. The expression “unheard of” is used to describe something as very uncommon. Quite often, it refers to something that has never happened before. |
|
| ✗ | A It was problematic for the art world. |
There is no direct suggestion that Prince’s revocation of his signature was problematic for the art world. |
| ✗ | B It angered art critics. |
Responses by art critics were not discussed in the lecture. |
| ✓ | C It had likely never been done before. |
Correct. “Unheard of” is an idiom meaning that something has never happened before, or at least is extremely unusual. |
| ✗ | D It was an action that was performed silently. |
“Unheard of” does not mean “silent”—it means exceptionally rare, or possibly unprecedented. |