Speedy-D

Yeah, I thought that too. But y'know, the world is a bit odd.

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from? They might not have known the panel, but the whole point of the exercise was that it came from a comic book. The same holds true today of course, even for 99% of comic fans. Put up ten Lichtensteins and see how many people can identify the specific panels. But that was my point. He could have just made his own "panel" and said it came from a comic book. No one would know the difference. And no one would be arguing if he "stole" it. Not that I understand anything about pop art or whatever it is so maybe that doesn't work. I suppose he could have done that. Just as Warhol could have made his own soup can labels and painted those. But no, that's not what the point was so it would not be the same thing. But I assume Warhol took something everyone would recognize on purpose. Seems like the panel was something no one would specifically recognize. Would that really have changed things? Would it not have sold for all that money if people realized it was never really a comic but something he made himself? Just to be clear, that is a serious question. I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of it. It's a good question, and a good point about the difference between Warhol and Lichtenstein's work. To be honest, I don't know. My gut says it's important that it's taken from real, published throwaway commercial art, but I can't articulate why yet. I'm trying to think of a comic image he could have used with anything close to the universal recognition of a Campbell's soup can. There probably isn't one. Actually, I can't even say for certain that every single one of his "panel paintings" has a real published analog, but I'd be surprised if it didn't. At least the stuff from this particular period.

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from? They might not have known the panel, but the whole point of the exercise was that it came from a comic book. The same holds true today of course, even for 99% of comic fans. Put up ten Lichtensteins and see how many people can identify the specific panels. Now I kinda want to determine all his source material and add them to my collection.

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from? They might not have known the panel, but the whole point of the exercise was that it came from a comic book. The same holds true today of course, even for 99% of comic fans. Put up ten Lichtensteins and see how many people can identify the specific panels. But that was my point. He could have just made his own "panel" and said it came from a comic book. No one would know the difference. And no one would be arguing if he "stole" it. Not that I understand anything about pop art or whatever it is so maybe that doesn't work. I suppose he could have done that. Just as Warhol could have made his own soup can labels and painted those. But no, that's not what the point was so it would not be the same thing.

Except that he did admit that he sourced the images from comic books. In fact, that was the point. “The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content. However, my work is entirely transformed in that my purpose and perception are entirely different." - Roy Lichtenstein, 1964 Did he take a Heath (or any other artist for that matter) panel and explicitly give credit to Heath? Credit for specific panels may have been given at some point, but let's say no. Did he readily acknowledge that he took panels from comics? Yes. Did he go into detail about the particular panel? No. Everyone can agree on this. How to interpret it or internalize it is up to you. Maybe it's rank theft done by a hack pulling a scam on art snobs. Maybe it's a hack thinking he has a good idea but he's wrong. Maybe it's an earnest artist trying to do his thing and succeeding. Maybe not succeeding. If we're not going to trust what he says himself about his inspiration and intent, that's cool. But really, no point in debating right? Just enjoy enjoying his art, or enjoy hating it.

Did I? Did anyone recognize the panel at the time? Did they know where it came from? They might not have known the panel, but the whole point of the exercise was that it came from a comic book. The same holds true today of course, even for 99% of comic fans. Put up ten Lichtensteins and see how many people can identify the specific panels.

awesome!!!

Pish tosh...Swift's 1989 uber alles!!

Since when does going to art school make someone significant? Do I get a bump in my significance for getting a BFA too? Did you suffer for it? No, but the rest of us suffer because of it. That's it, you're going on the list!!

Hell no. 2 years of that brainwashing was enough for me to switch majors to science. I was dumb enough. I got an Art History Minor along with my BFA. Loved every class and my life is richer for it. In truth I don't mind, I got an Art Studio degree, an Art History degree and for the last two years I've been doing work for Disney. (thumbs u Although I always wish pay was better. But who doesn't. Working for Disney as an artist? That was the best possible goal one of my professors could think of. I get paid okay, but my work has next to nothing to do with what I studied in school.

I did a Summer sculpture class at RISD while I was in high school. I don't remember any arrogance, or not any more than I see everywhere in life.

Hell no. 2 years of that brainwashing was enough for me to switch majors to science. I was dumb enough. I got an Art History Minor along with my BFA. Loved every class and my life is richer for it.

Since when does going to art school make someone significant? Do I get a bump in my significance for getting a BFA too? Did you suffer for it? I'm suffering for it in this thread!!

Since when does going to art school make someone significant? Do I get a bump in my significance for getting a BFA too?

Called it!

Can't say that I'm surprised. We got both kinds, Country and Western!!

Kind of tough to get into that one, Gene. Everyone you're debating with I already have on ignore. :roflmao: Wait, I'm in there!!

Never heard of him. How much money are we talking about? Given that he's new and hasn't posted for a while, I'd be worried too. Starting the Paypal process could get him to respond to you, if nothing else. If you're worried about your money and no longer trust the guy, start the refund. This is business, it's not personal, so there's nothing to feel bad about. As for the PL, well, you have a while to wait yet.

Even for a laymen, there must be something more special about him, or we wouldn't be talking about it so strongly over 50 years after the point. His paintings sell for big bucks and I get the feeling kav doesn't like it. And really that's what it's all about isn't it?(Selling for big bucks) Doesn't matter your level of talent - if you can sell it for big bucks, you're an artist. Rob Granito went about it all wrong. There is no single thing that "it's all about." Some great art sells for huge money. Some never sells at all. My mother has been an artist all her life. She has shows, sells work, but has never gotten rich off it by any stretch. She is an artist and it's not because of money. What's "great" is up to me, because it's my world. Just like it's up to you, because it's your world. My opinion, just like everyone else's, is determined by my personal tastes, my life experiences, and how I interpret and internalize the tastes of others. Some killer artists are great draftsmen, some don't know how to hold a pencil. Some art is great because of its beauty, some is great because of the ideas behind it, some is great because it moves the medium forward in a new direction. For these reasons, arguments about whether a high school student "could have done it" or "it's just splatter on canvas" are silly and meaningless. It doesn't matter if you went to art school or not, it's a pointless argument. All artists, all of them, draw on the work that came before them, some to a huge extent, some much more subtly.

Even for a laymen, there must be something more special about him, or we wouldn't be talking about it so strongly over 50 years after the point. His paintings sell for big bucks and I get the feeling kav doesn't like it. This forum needs a Jeff Koons thread. You might find me on the other side of that discussion!

Even for a laymen, there must be something more special about him, or we wouldn't be talking about it so strongly over 50 years after the point. His paintings sell for big bucks and I get the feeling kav doesn't like it.

You're missing the main point m'man. It's not about the changes he made, although he did make changes, it's not copying. The point of these works of his, and the Pop Art movement in general, was to take commercial "trashy non-art" and make it art. It's hard to accept these days because, partly due to the success of the Pop Art movement, much of what was once "trash" now gets much more respect. It's doubly hard for comic fans because, well, we love comics and see no need to do anything to them to make them arty art. The idea that he kept his "theft" a secret ain't right. The whole point of Pop Art, as you allude to, assumes knowledge of the pre-existence of the content. As for how well he could draw, or whether you could make a coloring book version of a Lichtenstein painting and color by numbers...that's just uninformed foolishness.

I understand. I'm just saying not everyone agrees with only one "side," if there have to be sides. I dig comics as much as anyone and can 100% appreciate Lichtenstein's pop art. It's awesome and well deserving of the praise it receives.

You finished paying two days ago, right? After not hearing from him for a month and a half?

I've got a page I can let go.