Logan510

Whoa, whoa, whoa - I never said that photographers shouldn't have rights! Just look at Cariou vs. Prince - I wholeheartedly agreed with the Court in that case. But, as you even admit in the second paragraph, Fairey didn't just reproduce with photo (or with minor alterations in Prince's case) - he transformed it to something with meaning, thus constituting Fair Use under Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act (no, I didn't Google that; I completed the Art Business program at NYU, where one of my papers was arguing that Lichtenstein's appropriation constituted fair use and, in any case, wouldn't have been penalized in the business/legal climate of the early 1960s, whereas Erro's ripping off Brian Bolland was indeed a copyright infringement).it Speaking of the this statute, it wasn't around when Lichtenstein was doing his early comic paintings. But, it asks: 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 4. The effect on the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work In the case of Lichtenstein: 1. In Cariou vs. Prince, where the Court asked whether there was a Transformative Use, offering meaning and critique, you'd have to say yes. Lichtenstein's created a beautiful work of art and, whether you personally like it or not, it was transformative and offered meaning and certainly critique as we are seeing here. 2. This is the only one that goes against Lichtenstein. Even though the source material was the most banal of "original and creative works" (sorry, truth hurts), it still falls within the realm of copyrightable material. 3. The quantity and importance of the material used was small relative to the whole of the issue. Less than 1%. 4. Effect on the value of such? If anything, the source material was helped by Lichtenstein. I'd say the legal grounds of what Lichtenstein did are far less clear cut than many here seem to think, especially considering the time period. In any case, the world is better off for having Lichtenstein and Fairey in it. 1. It's of a commercial nature. He created it to sell. 2. Yes. Copyrighted material. 3. Seriously? Less than 1%? You mean percentage of difference? I just asked someone who walked by my office - "It's a just a little different. That one's clearer." 4. That panel was a part of a comic that was bought and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people. It's subtle conscious recognition is exactly what made it easily acceptable to the those who made Lichtenstein's work commercially popular. Today, companies are paying for the rights to reproduce comic images, some as old as 75 years ago, that they can put on pillows, lunch boxes, canvas, pieces of wood, whatever they can... because even people who weren't around 75 years ago, can recognize the image, see it as welcoming, entertaining, and purchasable. But all of that is just speculation... opinion, whatever. Bottom line: Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. His purpose was for financial gain. He may have arted it up. He may have some talent. I find that inconsequential to the point. No one's going to sue him over it. He'll never pay a dime. He got away with it, But, Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Plain and simple. Did he lead a Pop Art Renaissance and blah, blah, blah Yeah sure, whatever. Still, Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Was the art 'important' before Lichtenstein got a hold of it... was it 'the most banal of "original and creative works' or whatever... Inconsequential. Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own. Period. You're forgetting he was a genius and drawing skill is overrated.

I would suggest learning more about art history starting with Manet, its a good jumping point for modern history. You'll see Pre-Raphelites hated him also. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsIO41-RCo Thanks for the tip, but I had enough art history courses in art school.

When it comes to the "art" that is the original topic here one quote comes to mind: "there's a sucker born every minute".

Syphilis comes to mind when I read this thread. Syphilis might be less painful.

Yep. It's easy to recognize the shape and form in Monet's painting - it's evolutionary to what came before. Pollock, on the other hand, broke completely new ground in so many areas. No one painted like him before then, and it understandably shocked and confused a lot of peoples' sensibilities, as it still does today. Now that is truly great art. I disagree Every artist had such paint spattered canvasas strewn about. oh god. there are splatters and then theres carefully intricately and PURPOSEFULLY applied WALL of splattered paint. I suppose we should Lichtenstein Pollock too, since he clearly just took other people splatter paintings and cashed in on it without giving credit! I will give Pollock credit for not being a thief. He was a sham, but at least a semi original sham.

You don't think it's telling that he chose Haddon Freaking Sundblom and the Pre-Raphaelites when asked for examples of art he likes? In any case, I'm not wrong. Logan - do you like de Kooning, Mondrian, Rothko, Basquiat, Warhol, Johns, Rauschenberg, Twombly, Malevich, etc.? I didn't think so. Do you like the Impressionists, Salvador Dali, Maxfield Parrish, Golden Age of American Illustration artists, The Studio artists' "fine art" work, etc.? Right, then. Such pap compared to thievery and skullduggery. Bravo

As the Art Titan Andy Warhol said..."art is what you can get away with".

Yeah, funny how you like a "million things in-between" and yet I bet that million doesn't include titans of the art world like Warhol, Rothko, Pollock, Lichtenstein, Twombly, de Kooning, etc. To a man, all just hacks and frauds compared to people who drew saccharine pictures like the Pre-Raphaelites. It doesn't get more cliched than the comic book aficionado who loves the Pre-Raphaelites. Wow, that's some incisive analysis there. As I wrote in another thread: I think where my opinion differs from yours and Chris' is that I don't believe that all comic art rises up to the level of Kirby, Ditko, Eisner, Miller, etc., a.k.a. the true artistes of the genre. I mean, this is not Erro ripping off Bolland's [cover] image and well-known style of a trademarked and established character, this was taking single non-descript panels from generic, disposable war and romance comics where the artists had already signed all their rights away to D.C. and were often not even credited by D.C. - I'm not sure Lichtenstein could have credited the artists by name even if he wanted to (and he did, in fact, pay tribute to the original creators and the difficulties of working in the comics medium - all available on the audio guide of the retrospective). You know why the artists didn't sue Lichtenstein? It's because they had no rights to the artwork, and D.C. was undoubtedly very happy by the attention that Lichtenstein brought to their publications. I think you have to do what Chris C. said earlier in this thread - go take a look at one of these paintings in person. In fact, while you're at it, bring a copy of the original comic book with you. The connection is interesting from an iconographic standpoint, but, otherwise, is there really that much similarity? One is an anonymous, non-descript, generic, 4-color, tiny piece of a long-forgotten periodical published on newsprint while the other is art. It is the size of art. It presents like art. It is a complete whole. It has been painted and various treatments like his signature dots have been carefully applied. It tells its own story not being just a piece of a larger whole. Not only that, but Lichtenstein never claimed that these images were 100% original, even if many viewers may have initially assumed as much. All of his pre-comic Pop Art were copies too - of objects, advertisements, etc. But, he did make changes to every single piece - the inside of a car becomes the inside of an atelier, various angles and pieces are changed/omitted in "Whaam!" from the original to make a bigger impact as a standalone piece, etc. I think it's ridiculous for Barsalou to place identically-sized images side by side and point a finger when, in person, the two objects look only superficially alike. I suspect that none of this will change your minds, but I think Lichtenstein's work is brilliant, whereas the original source material is not. Aside from the connection to Lichtenstein, none of us here would stoop to collect this OA, so I say let's stop pretending this stuff is something other than what it really is. And, I think it's also fairly evident that Lichtenstein helped elevate comics as an art form. I know some people will resent that it took a non-comic artist to do that, while others will vehemently deny that he had any influence at all (I think Spiegelman said he did about as much for comics as Warhol did for soup cans), but I think the reality is that he's had a net positive impact that I, for one, would rather acknowledge and be grateful for than resentful. So, aside from spending a lot of money on it, what's your art background?

Can't say that I'm surprised. You're not surprised I like a wide range of work? That's awesome. They would make a nice wide range of postcards I would be happy to send to Grandma or Grandpa during the holidays. (All jabbing aside I like that stuff also) I think he missed the "million things in-between" part of what I wrote

No, you were simply dismissing them completely as artists, even though their art influenced everything in the art world, right down the the ads you see on television and in print, the concert posters to most of the bands you listen to today, the design work to countless visual mediums you regularly interact with, and to some extent the same comics influenced by Heath and the other artists whose work was "stolen" by them. I did all that just by dismissing a thief and a hack? Aside from the time I spent at the Art Institute of Chicago, they were never used as anything but examples of what not to do. Though to be fair, the Art Institute is the only art school I ever attended where they would ask me "how do you feel" as I was working on a piece.

Can't say that I'm surprised. You're not surprised I like a wide range of work? That's awesome. Not surprised that you like a wide range of art that's been pre-digested and is easy to understand. (thumbs u The tone of your response isn't surprising either. (thumbs u

Better yet, why do you tell us what kind of art you think is brilliant? I'd be especially interested if you like any art from the second half of the 20th century or if you think it's all a sham. I'd like to know what artistic qualities you hold in high regard. My guess would be they're the same qualities that can be replicated by any half-decent Chinese or Vietnamese back-alley copyist for a hundred bucks. Here's what I wrote about Pollock in the Great Art Thread in the Water Cooler: Figurative representation, taken to the extreme by the hyper-realists, is not the height of artistic expression. Would the art world really have been better served if it had never branched off into abstraction and people were still only doing portraits and still-lifes and landscapes? To say that "my kid could do what Pollock did", as some do, or ask what the point of it is really misses the point. The point is that Pollock and others who led the revolution in Abstract Expressionism broke new ground in determining what art could be. This group of artists put New York City on the map as a leading art capital and arguably influenced nearly every artist that followed by firmly breaking away from realistic representation (not that they were the first, as various European movements had started to do so starting with the Impressionists). Doing so also represented a complete rebellion against established artistic norms and traditions and thus often conveyed themes of anarchy, disorder and nihilism even without portrayals of figures. In developing his own style, Pollock also revolutionized painting technique - just think about what painters had been doing for centuries versus how Pollock created his paintings. So, no, it's not just about talent, representation or even just passion. It's about challenging established norms and changing what billions of people in generations who followed think about what art is and can be. It's about innovation. It's about intellectual revolution. It's about cultural impact. It's about changing the course of history. Jackson Pollock did it. Hilo Chen...not so much. I might also add that most abstract artists went to art schools and were trained in classical drawing and can probably draw/paint figurative representations as well as most commercial illustrators and comic book artists. Being reasonably involved in the art world, including serving on one of the acquisitions committees at the Guggenheim Museum, I have come across ample evidence in my experience of this. Were you one of my instructors at the Art Institute? I didn't swallow it then sir and I'm not swallowing it now. So what you're saying is the art he likes sucks and the art you like rocks? No, what I'm saying is I'm never going to be convinced that Lichenstein was anything other than a plagiarist and that Pollock was anything other than a sham. Teachers I had back then used flowery platitudes trying to justify those hacks. I didn't buy it then, I'm not buying it now. Taste in "art" is subjective and I would never tell anyone what they can or cannot like. But if we're discussing the merits of the "art" or "artist" ( I use the terms lightly when it comes to those two ), I feel I'm just as entitled to my opinion. Think about it this way...In the grand scheme of things Ditko and Kirby were not especially great artists. In our world they are the masters. Nirvana was not a musically exceptional band, but they changed everything in the world of music. Night of the Living Dead was not a great movie but it is taught in film schools everywhere because its creation changed the world of film. Same with Pollack and Lichtenstein (among others). You may not like them, you may debate the merits of the work, but you can't deny that they were important and influential. I'll agree to influential...but I was never really arguing against that.

Can't say that I'm surprised. You're not surprised I like a wide range of work? That's awesome.

So, what kind of art do you appreciate, then? Who are your favorite artists and what are your favorite art genres/periods/movements? What qualities do you think make a great artist? At what point in history did the art world go off the rails and become unpalatable to you? I like all kinds of work ranging from Pre-Raphaelite to Haddon Sundblom and a million things in-between.

Better yet, why do you tell us what kind of art you think is brilliant? I'd be especially interested if you like any art from the second half of the 20th century or if you think it's all a sham. I'd like to know what artistic qualities you hold in high regard. My guess would be they're the same qualities that can be replicated by any half-decent Chinese or Vietnamese back-alley copyist for a hundred bucks. Here's what I wrote about Pollock in the Great Art Thread in the Water Cooler: Figurative representation, taken to the extreme by the hyper-realists, is not the height of artistic expression. Would the art world really have been better served if it had never branched off into abstraction and people were still only doing portraits and still-lifes and landscapes? To say that "my kid could do what Pollock did", as some do, or ask what the point of it is really misses the point. The point is that Pollock and others who led the revolution in Abstract Expressionism broke new ground in determining what art could be. This group of artists put New York City on the map as a leading art capital and arguably influenced nearly every artist that followed by firmly breaking away from realistic representation (not that they were the first, as various European movements had started to do so starting with the Impressionists). Doing so also represented a complete rebellion against established artistic norms and traditions and thus often conveyed themes of anarchy, disorder and nihilism even without portrayals of figures. In developing his own style, Pollock also revolutionized painting technique - just think about what painters had been doing for centuries versus how Pollock created his paintings. So, no, it's not just about talent, representation or even just passion. It's about challenging established norms and changing what billions of people in generations who followed think about what art is and can be. It's about innovation. It's about intellectual revolution. It's about cultural impact. It's about changing the course of history. Jackson Pollock did it. Hilo Chen...not so much. I might also add that most abstract artists went to art schools and were trained in classical drawing and can probably draw/paint figurative representations as well as most commercial illustrators and comic book artists. Being reasonably involved in the art world, including serving on one of the acquisitions committees at the Guggenheim Museum, I have come across ample evidence in my experience of this. Were you one of my instructors at the Art Institute? I didn't swallow it then sir and I'm not swallowing it now. So what you're saying is the art he likes sucks and the art you like rocks? No, what I'm saying is I'm never going to be convinced that Lichenstein was anything other than a plagiarist and that Pollock was anything other than a sham. Teachers I had back then used flowery platitudes trying to justify those hacks. I didn't buy it then, I'm not buying it now. Taste in "art" is subjective and I would never tell anyone what they can or cannot like. But if we're discussing the merits of the "art" or "artist" ( I use the terms lightly when it comes to those two ), I feel I'm just as entitled to my opinion.

Better yet, why do you tell us what kind of art you think is brilliant? I'd be especially interested if you like any art from the second half of the 20th century or if you think it's all a sham. I'd like to know what artistic qualities you hold in high regard. My guess would be they're the same qualities that can be replicated by any half-decent Chinese or Vietnamese back-alley copyist for a hundred bucks. Here's what I wrote about Pollock in the Great Art Thread in the Water Cooler: Figurative representation, taken to the extreme by the hyper-realists, is not the height of artistic expression. Would the art world really have been better served if it had never branched off into abstraction and people were still only doing portraits and still-lifes and landscapes? To say that "my kid could do what Pollock did", as some do, or ask what the point of it is really misses the point. The point is that Pollock and others who led the revolution in Abstract Expressionism broke new ground in determining what art could be. This group of artists put New York City on the map as a leading art capital and arguably influenced nearly every artist that followed by firmly breaking away from realistic representation (not that they were the first, as various European movements had started to do so starting with the Impressionists). Doing so also represented a complete rebellion against established artistic norms and traditions and thus often conveyed themes of anarchy, disorder and nihilism even without portrayals of figures. In developing his own style, Pollock also revolutionized painting technique - just think about what painters had been doing for centuries versus how Pollock created his paintings. So, no, it's not just about talent, representation or even just passion. It's about challenging established norms and changing what billions of people in generations who followed think about what art is and can be. It's about innovation. It's about intellectual revolution. It's about cultural impact. It's about changing the course of history. Jackson Pollock did it. Hilo Chen...not so much. I might also add that most abstract artists went to art schools and were trained in classical drawing and can probably draw/paint figurative representations as well as most commercial illustrators and comic book artists. Being reasonably involved in the art world, including serving on one of the acquisitions committees at the Guggenheim Museum, I have come across ample evidence in my experience of this. Were you one of my instructors at the Art Institute? I didn't swallow it then sir and I'm not swallowing it now.

That's me. Man of pedestrian art tastes. I'm comfortable with that. Many of the examples of 'fine art', such as the ones kav gave, are just nonsense to me, and makes me wonder if the accumulation of enough money anaesthetizes one's tastes. I would just like someone to explain to me how Pollock and Lichtenstein are brilliant. One is a plagiarist and the other is possibly the greatest artistic sham of the last half century.

Its not plagiarism. Because its big! It's not plagiarism because even though he stole another artists work, he made it "important". That is the scam, that is the unfortunate joke that people have bought into for all these years.

Its even sadder to try and explain the fine art world within the context of 1963 to those that never want to understand. Very few on the forum have any understanding of Pop Art, Marcel Duchamp, or even set foot in a museum and seen one of these pieces in person. You don't have to LIKE it, but it would help if people here understood it. I understand theft and if you like I can quote some comic book artists who also call Lichtenstein's work theft. I guess they don't understand the fine art world either.

That anyone would defend his plagiarism...and that's what it is...is sad.

You must have really handsome feet.

[font:Book Antiqua]IMHO He don't deserve it. He just have a very vocal Haters Fan Club . (Yes the same 5 guys) [/font] One of those 5 guys must be a mod because he's received several strikes. Perhaps you're a mod Mr. Dent?? So, I'm two faced because I pointed out you've received several strikes?

[font:Book Antiqua]IMHO He don't deserve it. He just have a very vocal Haters Fan Club . (Yes the same 5 guys) [/font] One of those 5 guys must be a mod because he's received several strikes.

Are you kidding? CC did that again?

People talk. I have a reliable source that says you're a knob of biblical proportions.