Rip

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”

There was a lot of money to be made very very early into the origin of these RL pieces. A lot of that is salesmanship, marketing, and perception. I think there were thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and then ultimately MILLIONS of reasons to prop up one artist and hide another artist. When that artist could not be hidden any more he was degraded and marginalized. This didn't happen by the artist but it happened and still happens. I think RL was out of the decision making process on that relative soon, maybe before he ever saw a piece sold in a gallery since his first few paintings were sold before being shown. I don't necessarily blame him for what happened at the outset. When it became a monster, and that monster started buying its handlers yachts, houses, and luxury cars with the proceeds no one was going to show the chinks in the monster's armor. I think it's naive to not look at the economics and the vested interests of the people that chose and continue to choose what information we was released on these pieces and their origins. You can't think that was an accident. Speaking of the beginnings of the RL market, why would any gallery owner, or auction house working on a commission, voluntarily point out that this image is NOT entirely original, in fact, that it looks strikingly like a panel from a *GASP* comic book? Common sense tells us that their reasons for not making full and clear disclosure was, most likely, NOT because people would care too little, but that they might care too much. With this much money at stake, and in ever increasing amounts from gavel to gavel, there was always a motive to make these works "genius" and "masterpieces" and leave no room for debate on the origins and potential faults. One of the first things my Grandfather taught me as a young boy was, "Never believe how great something is from the person who's selling it to you." People with something to gain and something to lose tend to have their opinions match their bottom line. It's what I like to call a universal truth. Gene is very correct. You really need to understand the history and the zeitgeist of appropriation starting with Duchamp. This isn't anymore sinister and offensive than the many other pieces and artists working within the field of found artwork. Think about the logo designers, newspaper layout artists, pipe makers, plumbers, broom makers, that came before within the context of "low art". This isn't a slight whatsoever but a question of what is art? What can be art? Where can we draw upon our ideas? Its apart of an ongoing intelligent dialog during the time. It's liberating and expanding upon the field of fine art, breaking down what was before. You really need to see what else was out there from the 1900's to the 60's The very idea of working in the medium of found artwork is the gamesmanship of using commonplace type objects, challenging the distinction between what was considered (at the time) art and not artwork. All that may be true, but if you notice I am not talking about the artists, or even the people who simply appreciate the work. I am talking about the people who've been making money off of this stuff from the get go. All those folks on commission, all with a vested interest in it going for as much as possible from sale to sale, gavel to gavel. A market for RL's work was created out of thin air, when no one knew who he was. Pieces sold before the gallery show, and then were sold again at the gallery show with pieces trading hands amongst many of the same people according to written accounts of the time. It's not the artwork, it's the marketing of the artwork and what was used and what was excluded from use in the selling of the artwork and the creating of the market for his artwork. Why would anyone trust the word of someone who is trying to make something on the deal? Honestly I can't speak as to the intimacy of some of these transactions. Nor how he exactly became a smash hit as opposed to others working in that field. But I suspect given the context of other sales during the time and other working artists who appeared out of thin air, any possible exclusion really didn't matter much to the patron. His iconic imagery is now embedded in our cultural history. For better or worse. Dollar signs and all. If you see outrage at his stuff you had better sit down cause there are a lot worse "offenders".

There was a lot of money to be made very very early into the origin of these RL pieces. A lot of that is salesmanship, marketing, and perception. I think there were thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and then ultimately MILLIONS of reasons to prop up one artist and hide another artist. When that artist could not be hidden any more he was degraded and marginalized. This didn't happen by the artist but it happened and still happens. I think RL was out of the decision making process on that relative soon, maybe before he ever saw a piece sold in a gallery since his first few paintings were sold before being shown. I don't necessarily blame him for what happened at the outset. When it became a monster, and that monster started buying its handlers yachts, houses, and luxury cars with the proceeds no one was going to show the chinks in the monster's armor. I think it's naive to not look at the economics and the vested interests of the people that chose and continue to choose what information we was released on these pieces and their origins. You can't think that was an accident. Speaking of the beginnings of the RL market, why would any gallery owner, or auction house working on a commission, voluntarily point out that this image is NOT entirely original, in fact, that it looks strikingly like a panel from a *GASP* comic book? Common sense tells us that their reasons for not making full and clear disclosure was, most likely, NOT because people would care too little, but that they might care too much. With this much money at stake, and in ever increasing amounts from gavel to gavel, there was always a motive to make these works "genius" and "masterpieces" and leave no room for debate on the origins and potential faults. One of the first things my Grandfather taught me as a young boy was, "Never believe how great something is from the person who's selling it to you." People with something to gain and something to lose tend to have their opinions match their bottom line. It's what I like to call a universal truth. Gene is very correct. You really need to understand the history and the zeitgeist of appropriation starting with Duchamp. This isn't anymore sinister and offensive than the many other pieces and artists working within the field of found artwork. Think about the logo designers, newspaper layout artists, pipe makers, plumbers, broom makers, that came before within the context of "low art". This isn't a slight whatsoever but a question of what is art? What can be art? Where can we draw upon our ideas? Its apart of an ongoing intelligent dialog during the time. It's liberating and expanding upon the field of fine art, breaking down what was before. You really need to see what else was out there from the 1900's to the 60's The very idea of working in the medium of found artwork is the gamesmanship of using commonplace type objects, challenging the distinction between what was considered (at the time) art and not artwork.

If you guys are looking for an example of an artist who DID indeed cross that legal line, look no further than Jeff Koons who I mentioned before. The famous case of Rogers VS Koons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

I wasn't getting into the legalities as much as artistic equities in this situation but we can give it a shot. Without speaking to what would actually happen and any specific piece of artwork, it doesn't matter who made it popular. It only matters to what extent the piece is infringing upon another piece of work. How similar they are, etc. In music, using a material portion of another song, as short as 2.5 seconds long would give the original artist a claim to half or more of the royalties and proceeds from that song. It all depends on how close to the original the new song is. That was my line about "Freddie Mercury". One, small, less than 3 second section of "under pressure" and Vanilla Ice owed him a gigantic sum of money. It's come up over and over again in films, music and artwork. Derivative works, deemed too close to the source material, without license or compensation and there will be money owed. If someone, today, tried to do what Lichtenstein did, they wouldn't get very far and word would have spread and C&D letters issues before the check cleared from the first sale at a gallery show. Nothing flies under the radar and creators, and other rights holders, normally now don't mess around with their livelihood and creations as may have happened. Pull a panel from Walking Dead, blow it up for 1000% size, drop some dots on the page and try to sell it at a gallery. The sparks will fly immediately. Ask Brian Bolland, he (by himself with no legal help) just shut down a French artist trying to do the exact same thing to his work. It's not so much a change in the law as it is a change in awareness of the law and of the free (and fast) flow of information we have today. It wouldn't work at all in this day and age and it shouldn't work. The context is now different. The dialog has been done.

Dammit, said I wasn't going to comment again, but... this knowledge and understanding that people keep alluding to... that everyone knew Roy was using specific panels from already-created comics is not a widespread phenomenon, in my mind. In my art classes, the sources for Lichtenstein's paintings were never mentioned. I don't recall them being cited in my art history books. I don't recall seeing them cited at the show I went to of some of his pieces. Indeed, I would argue that VERY FEW people knew (and even, given recent articles I've seen, know NOW) that Roy lifted his panels directly from other works. It wasn't something I was made aware of until closer to the end of my collegiate career. And guess what? That "knowledge" completely changed my opinion of his work. Believe it or not, I used to be an "I like Lichtenstein" kind of guy in my earlier years. But I changed my mind on him. Preposterously baffling to some here, I'm sure. In my classes they were. In my text books they were. In the museums I saw them in they were. In fact that's how I tracked many of them down. But I can't speak as to how much art history you got or how detailed your education was. For what its worth I have a Art History degree and a Art Studio degree at CSUC. I'm also currently a graphic designer. (And part time comic book trader )

While the use or storytelling intent behind the piece may be different, the piece itself is very much the same by many easily quantifiable variables and categories. In most cases the images are so much so the same that arguments to the contrary by galleries, "experts", and auction house representative can be interpreted to be disingenuous and, ultimately, call motives into question. It's not about diminishing the RL piece as it is giving another artist, without whom there would be no RL piece at all, his just credit and proper attribution. That's what's fair. It's well short of what's equitable, but it's certainly what's fair given the state of the work and when it was done and under what circumstances. Perhaps you feel that it would not diminish RL's pieces of artwork, but perhaps there are people that feel differently. Perhaps those people had/have a vested, monetary interest in how these pieces were and are perceived. How quickly (or at all) would RL's career have taken off? How well would these pieces have sold if they were displayed along side the source material, if the artists of those pieces had their names included along with RL? There are people who made sure that NEVER happened. A very large amount of money has been made over the years, in part, by keeping the original artists OFF the pieces in question, marginalizing the art form where the source material was lifted, and putting great effort into euphemistically defending the practice of "lift and appropriate". When something as simple as attributing source material to another artist is delayed, fought, hidden, and resisted with so much vigor, while at the same time saying 'it matters little" makes me wonder why it was fought (and is still fought) to this day. If it doesn't diminish the piece to attribute to the source material, then the source should be cited, every time, without fail. There's something to be said for artistic honesty. To allow the viewer to see the piece for all that it is, all that it was, and what it has become. The Lichtenstein pieces can have their power and impact, and they can still tell their story as he saw it, and as those who appreciate it see it, without marginalizing and stepping on the people that gave him the material without which there would be no power, no impact, and no story to tell. Again you attribute this underlining sinister nature to the piece. When in fact it is quite often a given (and wanted element) among historians to tell the full story in art history classes, museums, and text books. Unless the buyers are lacking the most basic knowledge of the pieces, I doubt a copy of the original to go along with the RL troubles them in the slightest. Is it shown beside every piece, at every museum I doubt it. But I suspect very little lack the understanding in the art community that the original came from a comic book. I'm sure there are also many who really don't care who's name goes along with it, anymore than it slights the pipe maker or the newspaper, or the Brillo Box logo designer etc etc. I would also suggest you see one of these in person. It's not as close as you think. The changes to the originals are very intentional.

The real pipe, painting of a pipe is a faulty analogy when we are talking about dual artistic renderings of an image that are rather similar. This isn't a "real girl' and the "drawing of a girl." It's a "drawing of a girl" and a "drawing of a girl." It's the same format of visual media, it's a two dimensional artistic rendering, in cartoon form. It's not a tangible, 3 dimensional item that is now a painting. Many are unwilling to admit, even on the most basic level, how very very similar many of these images are. As if, the admission of the source material, and how intangible these purported changes are will somehow undermine this carefully crafted marketing "house of cards." Making it larger, and hanging it in a gallery does not change the basic essence of the image you are looking at, certainly not enough to call it "Completely Different". The problem is 2D vs 3D doesn't really matter. The uses for a pipe and a painting of a pipe are completely different. As different as the use of the frame to tell a romance story in a comic book vs a frame blown up taken out of its context to be apart of a greater dialog about modern artwork. (Among other things) An admission of the source material can be glorified if one wants but detracts nothing from the piece. I used René Magritte because it IS a simple example of a much greater art dialog that is missing in the understanding of the context of the piece under discussion.

Yes it's a completely different way. It's vastly different, about as much as a real pipe and a painting of a pipe. Each has a different use and each tells a far different story. Many here seem unwilling to understand its new context.

I know many galleries,text books, and classes do give the sources. At least from what I remember in the early 90's. If I remember correctly the SFMOMA certainly does give context when I saw his work there. I remember looking through my Art History book tracking down the original books. I don't find anything sinister in the slightest. Anymore than AW's soup cans. I can't image how the conversation would be if a stickier subject like Jeff Koons was brought into the debate. (Who I also like as an artist) EDIT: Well except for some of his later stuff. I think he was a little too much into his wife to think straight.

Preserved for posterity. Yeah, that's embarrassing, he completely forgot about the long cigarette holders. People get on me for lawyer-speak all the time in casual situations, so I feel your pain. This would be a fun debate to jump into, but I think I need to shave and get a hair cut first. One thing is for sure that crying girl sure has a hot