So infamous “lazy photographer” Richard Prince has been selling pseudo-screengrabs for tens of thousands of dollars. The Warhol inside me approves.

How? The First Amendment protects the artist’s right to parody society, that’s how! Popular understanding vs. the reality (re: legality) of image ownership is a big issue these days and I can’t believe I’m saying this but good art questions preconceptions. Not on my walls, thanks, but the fact that the concept is better than the execution just makes it all the more artsy. The internet is (perhaps rightly) furious with Richard Prince but I believe the true chodes are the people who bought the art over the artist himself.

Thoughts?