It's free speech until it starts infringing on the rights of others insofar as there are laws on the books against what he's doing - which he proudly admits to

It's free speech until it starts infringing on the rights of others insofar as there are laws on the books against what he's doing - which he proudly admits to not care about. Should there finally be a court (civil?) case that tests the applicability of fair use in his Instagram method, he very well could be found no better than a person who sits in a movie theater and records the film on a camcorder and says because they coughed every once and a while or farted or rustled a bag of popcorn that they've "added" something to the art. By implication, the buyers will have implicity supported an unauthorized work - they'd be no better than pirates buying bootleg DVDs on the street. And, for the record, yes, I do get to make the assessment that I, as an individual, do not believe Rothko's art is worth millions, and the art market can not force me to believing otherwise as a person. Am I allowed to pay what I believe it is worth? No, the art market does indeed set that value. Trying to split "market forces" from "cultural value" is, to me, a short-sighted proposition when in the context of art, which, by its inherent existence, doesn't have intrinsic monetary value (unless it's made from precious metals or stones or whatnot, which is a tangential notion of value).