DeadpoolJr.

Was its Jeff Koons Made in Heaven?

There doesn't seem to be an end in site fro this debate.

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 His purpose- to make money, and get famous His perception- Since its not art "cultured" people value it far game.

(thumbs u Shouldn't a Stan Lee signed one go for even less than that, since he didn't even have anything to do with the characters, and comic?

I'm not saying that RL shouldn't have done more to acknowledge where he appropriated his source material. That said, if you attended the retrospective last year, there were interviews with RL in the audio guide where he expressed his admiration for comic artists and had good things to say about them - far from the picture painted here where people say that he snubbed his nose at comics and that he felt he was elevating the mundane. Not true at all. BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous. That's strange because Tiger Woods tried to sue an artist who painted a pic of him from a photo and sold posters and lost. The judge ruled it became the artist's property once he created his own representation of the photo-which was an exact copy. Then there was that Amy Grant Dr Strange cover-they were unable to sue for the use of the image but were successful in suing for tying her to witchcraft which was against her religion. There are a few differences between the cases. For one the person suing was the photographer who took the picture, and owned the rights to it, it wasn't owned by any company that hired him to take it. Plus a judge doesn't always have to agree with case law. "Tiger Wood's exclusive licensing agent sued, claiming in part that the print violated Tiger Woods' right of publicity under Ohio law. The Ohio federal court rejected Wood's argument that the print was "merely sports merchandise" unworthy of First Amendment protection. Instead, the court found that the print sought to convey a message, and that message was a unique expression of an idea, rather than the mere copying of an image. Accordingly, the court decided that the print was protected by the First Amendment, and dismissed the case" The subject of the picture was suing, because someone was selling an image of him without his consent. In this case Obama was not the one suing, it was the photographer who owns the right to the image. Different things.

I'm not saying that RL shouldn't have done more to acknowledge where he appropriated his source material. That said, if you attended the retrospective last year, there were interviews with RL in the audio guide where he expressed his admiration for comic artists and had good things to say about them - far from the picture painted here where people say that he snubbed his nose at comics and that he felt he was elevating the mundane. Not true at all. BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous. That's strange because Tiger Woods tried to sue an artist who painted a pic of him from a photo and sold posters and lost. The judge ruled it became the artist's property once he created his own representation of the photo-which was an exact copy. Then there was that Amy Grant Dr Strange cover-they were unable to sue for the use of the image but were successful in suing for tying her to witchcraft which was against her religion. There are a few differences between the cases. For one the person suing was the photographer who took the picture, and owned the rights to it, it wasn't owned by any company that hired him to take it. Plus a judge doesn't always have to agree with case law.

And it matters why that they could draw? Drawing is an overrated skill. My wife is a trained artist - she's the most creative person I know and she can draw with the best of them. That and $2.50 will get her to her real job on the subway in the morning. Plain vanilla drawings? WHO CARES. Been there, done that for hundreds of years. Sorry Kav - it's just not that interesting. At least poop in a can or someone recording their bowel movements isn't I'll sell you mine at a quarter of the price, it will be a new art series, as an ode to the original poop cans.I will title it "Volume 2 No.2" feel free to pick which bathroom you would like the delivery to be I'm always willing to work with clients.

25 pages and no one brought up the the artist poop cans yet?

If we're talking about Pollock heres what comic artist Greg Horn thought about his painting. "No.5" Greg Horn-"It’s 1948…artist Jackson Pollock ascends a ladder, and has a diarrhea explosion on a fiberboard canvas… 60 years later, the painting titled “No. 5” sells for $140 million… this should INSPIRE you…just think what YOU could do with a bottle a whiskey, a bean burrito and a ladder."

That's the rumor.

A more recent argument that is being made now is photos being copied, and painted, or incorporated without crediting the photographer. I wonder what stance people have on that, I know that there was that whole lawsuit over the Obama campaign poster that was settled with an undisclosed amount.

If you're comparing the drawing quality of Lichtenstein to the original comic book artists, you're asking the wrong question (plus you're just wrong anyway; Lichtenstein's versions were much more evocative than the throwaway panels he swiped). Lichtenstein at this point in his career (he only did these paintings for a few years out of a glorious multi-decade career) was all about turning everyday commercial images into art. Taken out of a nondescript comic book and blown up to huge size with vivid colors, Ben-Day dots, etc., and putting it into a gallery setting? It's as much about the idea as it is the execution. Seeing one of RL's paintings in a gallery or a museum evokes a much difference response from staring at two identically sized images on David Barsalou's anti-Lichtenstein website (which, I'm sorry, is just pointless and preposterous). Comics historian Arlen Schumer has some things to say about this latest round of Lichtenstein-bashing: Here we go again! Dean, the "blame" for Russ Heath's old-age situation should be placed where it belongs: not at Lichtenstein, who made legitimate fine art out of Heath's found-art, commercial panel (the very definition of pop art), but at the very comic companies who used Heath as a full-time freelancer, and never paid royalties or benefits or anything that longtime company employers should provide workers like Heath who gave their best years, blood, sweat and tears to them. Instead, we get the usual boogeyman-blaming of Lichtenstein. OK, so maybe back in his early years Lichtenstein should've credited his sources (his Estate credits them in shows & catalogs now)--but no one was doing that back then, or in the early years of music sampling either. But in NO WAY does Lichtenstein owe ANY of his comic book sources ANYTHING. Blame DC and Marvel Comics for never doing the right thing by their artists or writers. Again, let's separate what RL "should've" done from what he "had" to do, and still "has" to do, legally, ethically and morally. Led Zeppelin didn't credit the blues songs they "covered" for their 1st album in 1969 (credited as Page-Plant "originals") until they were hauled into court decades later. Roy Lichtenstein's work is the VERY DEFINITION of pop art itself: the idea that everyday objects and motifs/ideas/forms from our commercial and popular culture environment could be legitimate areas of artistic study and exploration as valid as the more traditional ones of the "natural" world (landscapes and still lifes) and the inner imagination (abstract expressionism). Lichtenstein chose the world of comic art for his particular pop art, and produced a body of work that turned out to be his life's work. Through his artistic transformation of his "found" art subject matter (what Pop shared with the Dadaist/surrealists like Duchamp)--not the pejorative of "tracing comic panels," "ripping them off," etc.--Lichtenstein explored many of the most classic artistic subjects of culture, society, relationships, image, identity, perception--and art itself, in a complete turning inside-out of the art-imitates-life-imitates-art moebius strip that both confounded and won over art critics, and is the source of a kind of humor in his work. He also makes a great point (can't find his exact post on Facebook) about how comic book fans have this perception that the fine art world snubs their noses at them, and yet, So because he spend more time copying one panel then some one else who did a whole book and making it bigger where he can add or in some cases less detail thats makes him better? Nope.

Why is it silly to be upset fifty years later, how do you know he wasn't upset before? Seeing your work get copied and sold without a mention is something that anybody would get angry about it doesn't matter how much time went by when that piece you worked, and taken on gets considered to be so iconic. Also its not just the money, if Lich had asked permission to use it then people would have been ok with it, because at least he acknowledged that he was using the work from another artist, and that $50 fee you said it would cost would be nothing for him. But no he didn't even do that, but hey I guess since it wasn't you he stole from its ok right?

Whats the difference between what he did, and this http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/05/20/brian-bolland-takes-on-erro-and-wins/ besides the fact that Bolland did something in this case, as opposed to the publishers not doing anything about Lichtenstein? You can't criticize one, and give the other a pass for doing the same thing. Lichtenstein got lucky with the publishers back then, if he was here today, and attempted to do what he always did he would have lawyers on him faster then he could pick the panel to copy from. All because he wasn't called out for plagiarizing all those years ago doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Why, because unlike the other things you mentioned he took it from another artist. A shark in a jar is not the same as blatantly copying another artist drawing. He took work that was created by other artist that he then passed of as his own, and not even crediting them as where he got the idea from. His drawing are also inferior when viewed side by side with the originals Its even more hypocritical that on his website they say that you can't modify, edit, or reproduce the text and graphics without their consent even though that's exactly what he did himself.

I think David Ayer already spoke to that list. At least the core members. It is the actors filling the roles that is pending. Harley was not mentioned yet. Yet. I would of liked to have seen Deadshot but since he's in Arrow I doubt they'll put him in. Some bets I would make would be Nightshade, Amanda Walker, Vixen, and Rick Flag.

Over 200 for a 3.5!? http://www.mycomicshop.com/search?ItemID=26315582

I recall hearing this issue is known for having a miscut, but shouldn't affect the grade since CGC doesn't deduct for printing errors, it has more to do with the largely black cover since those always show the worse defects. If I'm wrong please chime in.

Its a word filter that automatically mask profanity, and other naughty words on the forum.

Yea man the one on the left is the first appearance of Buck Rogers in comics I think, and also if those two pieces of OA are from the original marvel star wars run, that also money in the bank. Congrats to the OP fora great haul.

Guys no talking about the Yankees in a Spider-man thread, he is a Mets fan after all.

I'm not sure it can, bunter. I guess this was a swing and miss.

Don't own any of these but if someone could post scans of the ones they own that would be nice. Mad #59 Flash Comics #78 Comic Cavalcade #12 Bugs Bunny Halloween parade

Didn't you read the description it says it looks like a 9.9, better buy iy now before somebody else gets this great deal.

Their still in debate.