·         Appropriation in terms of the copy of a copy in Prince’s work.

·         Other individuals photographing themselves next to his work then posting on social media- places the resource appropriated by Price back in the realm it was taken from.

·         The re-photographing of a printed advert of a photograph of the original (The Marlboro Man ‘Untitled Cowboy’ series).

·         Accessibility of technology – more easy/ quicker to publish images and get resources quicker. 

·         Prince views the whole debate (including legal challenges) as the art-form; the single pieces of work themselves are no longer viewed as art by him.

·         Walter Benjamin’s concern for technology changing the aura of an artwork through reproduction. Is this view relevant or appropriate now- given all the technological changes?

·         The involvement of comment, debate etc. as part of the artwork- changes and alters the art. 

·         Does Prince alter the work appropriately or sufficiently enough to call it art?

·         Princes work becomes more popular as it targets/ uses for its subject matter popular subcultures. 

·         The gallery space protects the work from criticism- viewpoint that as in a gallery its sacred somehow. In contrast, the world of social media is open to criticism.

·         Is an image on social media ever truly ours? Ownership.

·         No-one seemed troubled by Prince when he was unknown in the 1980s (‘Untitled Cowboy’)- simply because new technology had yet to arrive which would circulate the work so widely. Is he only famous because of the internet?

How much Transformation must take place for an Image to truly be ours? - Case study of Richard Prince

·        Accessibility of images  – geographical/ time

· Presentation also enhances this possibility- in that images can now be on portable devices, anything that involves a screen.

· Able to generate immediate response and debate across all of the community.

•          Can be in many formats – democratic/ egalitarian in terms of ownership

•       Quicker method of production and dissemination/ communication of ideas

•         Can be re-edited and reshared- all of which changes the meaning and the original. The manipulation possibilities extends the artwork but raise questions about ownership.

•       The accessibility and affordability of handheld technology means that artists face challenges in ensuring the authenticity of their work remains intact. In addition it proves difficult to maintain the quality as the artist envisaged. Different means of copying, enlarging/ reducing and then sharing can affect pixel definition.

•       The very fact that the original is less affordable or accessible, protects the authenticity and the artist’s intended meaning/ content.

A Critical Analysis of the Circulation of Images, Ownership and Authenticity within Art?

For Digital Print
• Longevity of Digital Print vs Physical Print
• Accessibility of Digital Print – geographical/ time
• Presentation also enhances this possibility- in that Digital Print can be on portable devices, anything that involves a screen.
• Able to generate immediate response and debate across all of the community.
• The manipulation possibilities extends the artwork.
• Can be in many formats – democratic/ egalitarian in terms of ownership
• Quicker method of production and dissemination/ communication of ideas
• No wastage of materials as design software can correct/ adjust or embellish
• If a physical print is generated- tends to be less tactile, being uniformly ‘flat’ to the touch. Although texture could be added- this would be obvious and look ‘designed’ or intended.
• Possibilities of 3D printing offer a unique advantage over physical print.
• Can be re-edited and reshared- all of which changes the meaning and the original.
• The accessibility and affordability of handheld technology means that artists face challenges in ensuring the authenticity of their work remains intact. In addition it proves difficult to maintain the quality as the artist envisaged. Different means of copying, enlarging/ reducing and then sharing can affect pixel definition.

For Physical Print
• Textural qualities
• Authenticity – digital can be manipulated
• One format only- traditionally ensured a monetary value and only a few people owned originals or limited editions.
• Accessibility more restricted to the original or the limited edition
• Presentation tends to be more limited- in that involves considering: the environment (gallery space), conventions of presentation or artist’s stated directions.
• Availability for discussion and comment is more limited (to those who have specialist interest/ knowledge). Consequently reliant on print or physical discussion- time related.
• Slower processes involved- therefore more time required to generate good copies of prints.
• Will be a certain amount of wastage of materials due to errors/ misprints.
• A physical quality to these types of print due to the processes- minor textural subtleties etc. For some people this is preferable. Similarly some artists prefer the physical activity.
• Can immediately know physical properties, such as size. In comparison a Digital Print can be misleading if an image of a physical artwork/ other image (i.e. a photograph).
• The very fact that physical print is less affordable or accessible protects the authenticity of the print and the artist’s intended meaning/ content.

How physical print is becoming limited edition to digital print, and how digital print can be exploited?