Update

I was very please to learn that the vile Richard Prince was successful sued! Prince I believe calls himself an "appropriation artist" but actually what I would call him is a intellectual property thief. Here is an example of his so-called work:

Prince's print sold for $1,100,000 recently. I don't know who is more despicable, Prince or the scoundrel who bought it-- who knows full well that there will be a greater fool who will continue to inflate the value until someone points out that the emperor has no clothes. On the other hand, maybe I'm just not bright enough to understand intellectual basis of this transgressive genius, this brilliant artist who succeeds in "shocking the bourgeoisie" This is what one enlightened connoisseur (Dennis Dunleavy) thinks:

"What makes Prince's appropriation interesting is that the iconic nature of the Marlboro pictures signify the cultural pathology of a society obsessed with self-indulgences, individualism, identity and consumption. By appropriating the images, Prince is taking a poke at the very same "high-art" culture that is willing to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars for his work."

For more about this story and other good stuff go to The Online Photographer. Also found at this always interesting blog is this simple but very cleaver image by Spanish photographer Chema Madoz:

In Photography seeing, while not everything, counts for a hell of a lot. I love this image!
Byron