I liked this essay by Richard Prince on his controversial Instagram portrait series.
Reading the simple and natural steps that got him to the series has the feel of a grandparent stumbling into social media, and looking at it without the filtered assumptions of a millennial, who most often don't see the forest for the trees in regards to the cultural constructions they are so deeply immersed in.
I can understand why some of the people featured in his portraits were pissed off, however it also reveals the lazy, naive assumptions of a lot of social media users: that what you put online is automatically owned by you and off limits to anyone else. Copyright issues aside, his work is direct, and acknowledges the underlying and often ignored realities of what things are. It plays with our assumptions on what it means to make a picture, to own an image.
I wonder how many subjects of his portraits don't believe that music is worth paying for? Is the money Prince makes on sales any different than the money Facebook and Google make off our data? If you willingly put it on Instagram (which Facebook owns) then throwing a fit over someone else grabbing your image and profiting from is like still wanting the steak even though you know the matrix is real.