Rip

There's one biggie I could really use and 3 smaller ones.

I've got my eyes on a few. I'm selling and (maybe) buying

Wow one of my favorite. Not an easy task!

I was having a bit of fun posting images from our tour of Europe, but alas, we start home tomorrow. I've decided to cease posting tour images here because it has come to my attention that at least one individual was personally offended and has chosen to selectively ignore my posts. I've reciprocated by placing him on ignore for that reason, but I still have no clue what I did that offended him. I guess there's no figuring why folks take a personal dislike to others. For the record, I'm very sorry if anyone else was offended or taken aback by my posts. It was all intended in fun. Nah, it just makes you a human. It's sometimes nice to know a real person is posting those comics. Not just some sort of sophisticated computer algorithm taunting me with all of my hopes and dreams. This is what makes the boards fun.

Wow, you don't see those very often.

I guess I have to post my Suspense 8. Finally worked out a deal for it.

Hitler sure got around. He had enough time to get his kicked by about every super hero on the planet. He even got his butt kicked on the football field.

Very cool!

Wow! I'm jealous

After searching for about 5+ hours today, I found this in a box. I got to take it home and keep it for my personal stash. I owned a copy years ago, but this one is much better Colfax Collection part 3 coming

As a graphic designer I thought this was kind of an interesting article. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/13/blake-gopnik-how-roy-lichtenstein-pioneered-our-clip-art-world.html As to original art and getting choice pieces. Who you know and how you spend your money with them means quite a bit. Although it seems the stuff tends to be a little more scattered these days. The impersonal nature of dealing through E-bay, auction houses and the internet in general can have a frustrating effect on networking. I don't know about you, but I don't spend hours on the phone like I used to. (Although this year its picked up a lot) Scott

Gator what are some of your favorite "cool cover" esoteric books that also has an awesome interior?

You beat me to it . . . See my post #5687804 on page 26 for starters. Already seen all that stuff, thanks. So which section confused you the most

You beat me to it . . . See my post #5687804 on page 26 for starters.

When you look at it on your computer screen they tend to look a lot closer. But yes, when the size is larger you can see more of what went into the piece. It certainly doesn't look as close when you see it in person. Some art galleries in fact have the original beside Lichtenstein so you can compare them first hand. Its certainly not the same as if I blew up Snoopy.

Have you seen them in person? Be honest It helps.

This thread was about an artist whose comic-book panels were direct lifts from published (comic-book) works. It's relevant to this forum. I'm sure there are fine art forums, elsewhere, where you can dazzle one another with your knowledge and taste for such things. On a fine art forum, would you want to bring attention to (to your peers) your collection of G.I. Joe comic-strip originals? In fine art class I loved talking about comics. Often the topics would overlap. Sometimes its fun to chit chat with what other comic collectors think. That's also why we have the water cooler.

Nothing against modern art. I grew up in a city which housed a major Art Gallery exhibiting such works. Some of it I liked (and still do). Having an 'understanding' doesn't necessarily help you appreciate something that doesn't strike an emotional chord with you. You can appreciate the idea behind the work, if not the execution. This thread was about an artist whose comic-book panels were direct lifts from published (comic-book) works. It's relevant to this forum. I'm sure there are fine art forums, elsewhere, where you can dazzle one another with your knowledge and taste for such things. On a fine art forum, would you want to bring attention to (to your peers) your collection of G.I. Joe comic-strip originals? Certainly it doesn't always help. But if the dislike is based on a misunderstanding, or if the artwork is taken out of context then sometimes it helps to understand the why. Unless its an internet chat forum, then it just pisses people off

You don't have to like Modern Art, but it does help to understand it a little. We don't like it all either. I happen to not like de Kooning. But I kind of like this piece Which I have seen in person http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/multimedia/interactive_features/78

I didn't know they had Duchamp's Tu m'. Great piece. Not to get to far off track, but just curious, who would you champion as more influential, Duchamp or Picasso? We need a fine art thread.

NoChips was kind enough to sell me this one last month. Its only an 8.5. But I'm more than happy.

...that is barely remembered even with RL's appropriation, without which virtually nobody would know or care about it. If RL had never existed, how much would that original page of OA be worth today? A few hundred bucks? Even in our current reality (not an alternate universe where RL didn't exist), the "I Can See The Whole Room..." original sold for $431 on eBay last year. Not even comic art aficionados seem to value the actual art very highly - apparently the inspiration for a RL painting is worth about 2-3% of a so-so Mark Bagley ASM cover in the marketplace - except that it's priceless to those who insist that no comic art should be considered "low art" and who will defend any and all comic art to the end against any beret-wearing gallery zombie who might deign to look askance at it. BTW, "I Can See the Whole Room..." was sold by Lichtenstein's gallery for $450 in 1961. I don't know how much Whaam! cost the Tate when they bought it in 1966, but we've already established that it was nowhere near the $4 million Heath claims. It's entirely possible that it sold for less than 1% of that amount, maybe 0.1%, of which Leo Castelli would have probably taken close to half. Just to set the record straight. Here is what RL said about Whaam at the Tate write up That sneaky SOB's Got the comic wrong, didn't keep good records. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-whaam-t00897/text-catalogue-entry'>http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-whaam-t00897/text-catalogue-entry http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-whaam-t00897 The artist wrote (10 July 1967): 'I remember being concerned with the idea of doing two almost separate paintings having little hint of compositional connection, and each having slightly separate stylistic character. Of course there is the humorous connection of one panel shooting the other. I know that I got the idea of doing separate panels while working on Tex, so that Tex and Whaam are very closely related, and probably come from the same magazine - possibly from the same story. I think that the comic was "Armed Forces at War". I don't keep any records and I think I may have gotten the above information from your letter to me. 'Whaam relates in feeling to the many war paintings I did during 1962-63, including a five panel sequence entitled Live Ammowhich has since unfortunately been resold and divided among four separate owners, the three paneled painting, As I Opened Fire, owned by the Stedelijk [Amsterdam] (which I think is the most recent war painting) and O.K. Hot Shot, owned by The Hague, as well as many smaller works. All of these portray emotionally charged subject matter as it might be reported in the dispassionate style of group decisions, as well as picturing modern methods of exporting economic and social philosophy.'

Maybe this will help guide some people to the progression of gamesmanship and running dialog at hand within the found object, popular culture, and banality. Wikipedia actually does a decent job here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_objects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_%28artist%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art "Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony. It is also associated with the artists' use of mechanical means of reproduction or rendering techniques." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons

Lets put it this way. Here is what Marcel Duchamp said when he first saw Lichtenstein’s work. “That’s what I meant”