Gallery owner Edward Winkleman has a characteristically thoughtful and thought-provoking post on his blog about artists disowning early "non-representative" works and the implied social contract of selling art:
What’s emerged in conversations lately (due mostly to Richard Prince’s refusal to permit reproduction of his much earlier work for a catalog accompanying an exhibition of it) is a question about authorship, specifically whether an artist can essentially rescind authorship because the earlier work no longer represents their current vision. Can Richard Prince declare that for all intents and purposes an earlier work he created is not "a Richard Prince"?
Continue reading, don’t skip the comments!
I really recommend Winkleman’s blog as a whole: his writing explores interesting territories within art and art business while provoking intelligent discussion in the comments. A+ all the way.