Terry Doyle

And marketing...don't forget the all powerful influence of effective marketing. Yep . . . maybe some of the used-car-salesmen moved in to the fine art business?

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 your peers) your collection of G.I. Joe comic-strip originals?

I think the real problem here is that some of the self-styled 'Art Connoisseurs' on these forums are so insecure in their beliefs that they feel the need to scorn those of us that prefer something a little more traditional. If Lichtenstein, etc, is your bag, great, I'm very happy for you. No denying that type of stuff ranks high in the marketplace. And, no, I don't live on a flat earth. I just know what I like and what I don't like. It all down to opinion anyway . . .

It's a good one. (thumbs u

Funny thing is even with the current "network of comic-book experts" around today it was Bolland himself that discovered it. Scroll down to the entry of 5/18/2010 http://www.brianbolland.net/news.html Yeah, I know about that, Ruben. Several decades too late for the Heaths and Kuberts (etc.) of this world . . .

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. Earlier in this thread, I pretty much echoed your sentiments. I remember discovering Lichtenstein's comic-art panels in the 1960s and thinking they were cool at the time (helping,as I then believed, to promote comic-book drawings as a legitimate art form). Years later, when I discovered that Lichtenstein (as far as my eyes could tell me) merely (yes, merely) copied panels of published strip-cartoons (even if the source material was obscure and produced for a throwaway commodity), my appreciation for his 'artistic efforts' rapidly diminished (replacing my initial reaction of 'innovative' with one of 'poverty of invention'). This thread continues to entertain (and appall) me, in equal measures, even if my sentiments lean towards Chris Caira's sense of fair-play. Normally, when taking a retropspective view of an entertainment form, influences are one of the first things to be discussed in the development of a body of work. Far as I can ascertain, Lichtenstein's 'sources of inspiration' have not been too prominently promoted, if at all? Yes, it's now (conveniently) mentioned that no-one seemed to object to Lichtenstein's methods at time he was . . . creating (?) those comic-book panels . . . but it's perhaps (even more conveniently) forgotten that we didn't have a network of comic-book experts on hand with internet facilities, at that moment in time, to quickly nip this kind of thing in the bud (as was the case with the recent attempts to plagiarize Bolland). I find it stretching credulity a bit, when one poster displays a romantic throway-type of (published) panel alongside a Lichtenstein 'copy' (when one is virtually indistinguishable from the other). . . and then expects us to believe that Roy (somehow) manages to transcend something so . . . mundane . . . and making it into something so . . . so truly moving and poignant. Back to the pseudo-intellectuals (on how we should keep an open mind, and educate ourselves, like they have done, etc, etc, ad nauseum ) . . ?

Good link, speaks volumes. Hope Russ doesn't get hit for copyright infringement.

The covers are in need of some additional dialog. On the published cover, Superboy should be saying, "WTF" . . . . . . . and on the o-m-l cover, Cosmic Boy's welcome speech should start with, "Only kidding!" Superboy then adds, "Hey, you guys had me going for a minute!"

Understand where you're coming from, Romain. At this point in time, even if you received this long-overdue commission within the next few weeks, the bad feelings associated with the resulting artwork would totally eclipse any appreciation for the work. You want to move on and not be reminded of the frustrating experience.

Absolutely insane. What a piece of turd! Fact is often stranger than fiction: Daniel Edwards, the man who also created the controversial 'Moment to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston', the statuette of the Britney Spears giving birth on a bearskin, has come up with another idea for a grand piece of art. 'Suri Cruise's Baby Poop Bronzed for Charity', is a bronze statuette of the famous baby's allegedly first poop and, as anyone can easily see, the plaque even bears the date of its creation, August 18. For all those interested, the exhibit can be seen on display at Brooklyn Capla Kesting Fine Art Gallery. The bronze sculpture is meant to be a social critique and comment on the culture of celebrity and of the attention that people paid to the baby of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. 'It's partially a statement on modern media that "celebrity poop" has more entertainment value than health, famine or other critical issues facing society and governments today', a spokesperson for the gallery said yesterday at the big 'unveiling'. 'Also, it is a statement on the absurdity of the media coverage surrounding Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' new baby, Suri Cruise, which has reached stellar proportions and is eclipsing far more notable events with more substance', he added about the art work that already attracted thousands of curious fans. The gallery, the same one that displayed the Britney-giving-birth statuette, will keep the bronzed poop until September, when the art work is to go on sale on eBay. In this case, I'd definitely agree that the artist's work is superior to the source material as, for no other reason, it's a lot easier on the nose . . .

That is actually really sweet ! In a horrific sort of way . . .

In the first video, you catch a brief glimpse of a painting of a sock. That had me rolling around with laughter!

Arrived this morning . . . front page cover, from TIGER comic (UK), November 1964, featuring "Olac the Gladiator" in a Ben Hur-type scenario: Image size is a whopping 17" x 22.5". At £60 on ebay (about $95), an affordable whim.

Arrived this morning . . . two more pages from a fondly-remembered (UK) KELLY'S EYE storyline, "The Vampire of Raffino", that saw publication (over here) during 1965 . . . and later reprinted in 1973 and 1976, due to its popularity. Episode 11 page 2 Episode 19 page 2 I'm now at 27 pages, out of a total 48, which puts me well over the half-way mark on trying to piece-together as much of this story as I can find. Currently in the process of concluding a deal for a further 5 pages, so the hunt fares well. . . NOTE; The whole storyline can be read (sequentially) in my CAF gallery, as I've included copies of the missing pages (scanned from the comic-books) as addional images.

Well, if it's any consolation, your framer can splatter paint with the best of 'em.

Nice Matte. Jackson Pollack?

Thanks . . . currently following two more leads, watch this space! Arrived this morning, another complete two-page episode from this fondly-remembered (UK) storyline from the long-running 1965 Kelly's Eye strip . . . I'm now at 25 pages, out of a total 48, which puts me over the half-way mark on trying to piece-together as much of this story as I can find. Currently checking-out another lead, so the hunt continues . . . NOTE; The whole storyline can be read (sequentially) in my CAF gallery, as I've included copies of the missing pages (scanned from the comic-books) as addional images.

Well worth waiting for, I'm sure. (thumbs u

Thanks . . . currently following two more leads, watch this space!

Just in . . . another page from this storyline from 1965 that I've been trying to put back together: http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=863035&GSub=109670 I'm now at 20 pages out of a total of 48! The hunt continues . . . Three more pages of this 1965 UK serial arrived this morning! http://www.comicartfans.com/galleryroom.asp?Order=Date&Page=1&GSub=109670 Which now puts me at 23 pages out of a total of 48. One of the three latest additions: Nearly half-way there . . . only another 25 pages to find ()!

Thanks! I've got a lead on a further 5 pages. A Spanish collector (on CAF) has a page, but won't entertain cash or trade - unless I get him a nice Bolland original (which is about 10 - 15 times the value of what the Kelly's Eye pages routinely go for). Although I'm quite happy to go over the odds, I don't want to be exploited. Realistically, I doubt that all the remaining pages will ever make their way to me - but I'm certainly happy with what I've got, so I'm not complaining! I like all the early episodes, which were dark and moody, and I've been very lucky in obtaining quite a few of those. Part of the fun in trying to piece-together something like this is the thrill of the hunt, if that makes sense? Collecting would be less satisfying if everything we wanted fell into place a little too easily . . .

Just in . . . another page from this storyline from 1965 that I've been trying to put back together: http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=863035&GSub=109670 I'm now at 20 pages out of a total of 48! The hunt continues . . .

. . . and I'm not so sure I want to drink Alien Centaur's milk

Arrived this morning, three more pages of Dan Spiegle artwork from the landmark very first issue of Space Family Robinson (Lost in Space)! Late last year (2011) I was fortunate enough to win a page from this fondly remembered title of my youth on eBay . . . and from the very first issue, no less! The seller Dave Karlen (acting as Dan Spiegle's art rep) advised me that some further pages were available, if I was interested? Dan Spiegle + SFR + # 1 issue . . . a fan's dream! Dave was great to deal with and, having been buying artwork from American dealers for over 30 years, I'd say his level of service is second to none. Check out Dave's CAF or web-site for lots of great art at very reasonable prices!

Nice cartoon image. Every time I see this picture, it makes me think of Homer Simpson as a kid (wearing a Cap America playsuit).