Photo by person other than Richard Prince
Much has recently been made about the issue of (photo) plagiarism. And not to make light of the issue, but for whatever reason, I just can't get too worked up about this- particularly when someone the likes of Richard Prince can so blatantly steal and appropriate an image with such little consequence (other than being rewarded with a small fortune).
Photographers are often indoctrinated with the mantra that the very slightest variance of exposure, angle or quality of light can ever so subtly, or profoundly, affect the ultimate meaning or nature of that photograph. Perhaps it is that very indoctrination that prevents me from getting too excited about plagiarism- and from allowing a more standardized means of defining and identifying what actually constitutes photographic plagiarism.
Meanwhile, I'm surprised this interesting little experiment involving none other than Martin Parr has gone so under reported. While not directly related to plagiarism, it certainly does raise some interesting questions as to how a unique signature style and vision can be gradually disseminated unto the public's visual vernacular.