VintageComics

I want a piece for using the word Dokken before you did today.

This seems to be at the crux of what the argument is circling around. Nobody is stomping down or diminishing other artists. Anybody that appears to be diminishing another artist's work is simply trying to portray them in the light that they were appreciated in when they were first published. Let's face it we all love Russ Heath and his work but it wasn't fawned upon by the average person. It's not a question of talent, it's exposure and marketing. Steranko broke out of comics and Neal Adams did too, to an extant. Crumb as well. Most didn't. Gene is echoing my feelings (and that is rare). The panels were basically forgotten and invisible and they were taken and thrust into the face of society and became representative of social issues at the time. They did not even represent their original intended purposes. Again, it's important to note that had these panels not been borrowed and become famous, we may not even have a culture with comics at the forefront. They may have stayed forgotten.

Admittedly, I'm relatively new to the discussion. Did anyone protest RL's use of panels back when he did it? Did any of the original artists recognize their panels and comment on them?

I'm not suggesting it should be an accepted practice, I'm suggesting that at the time lifting a panel from a comic and expanding on it would be akin to finding a piece of anonymous newsprint in a garbage can and lifting a panel from it and calling it art. Don't get me wrong, I don't think comics were ever garbage...I personally think they are fine art, but they were perceived as garbage by most of the world at the time. It was sensationalism and rebellion all wrapped up into one and because it was so against social norms (calling comics art) it struck a chord with people during a time when rebellion was king. I agree that at the very least, RL should have said that he got the idea from panels he had used/copied. So how would intellectual law break down compensation in this case? Since RL made it popular how do you decide who gets how much?

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". Yes, but does the person drawing the pipe owe the true originator of the pipe a nod? We are sitting on what was previously native soil arguing about whether an artist should give an artist credit when using his work. Again, I'm not cool with the idea of someone stealing someone else's property (whether intellectual or physical) but Gene's article speaks volumes about what it was like at the time. 50 years ago, many comic book artists did not even sign their work, let along get recognition (beyond a paycheck) for it by their own employers: There are literally millions of comics out there where the original artist is simply unattributed. Doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just the reality of the situation.

That is what I've been saying all along. Marketing (and it's perception) is just as important as talent in the world of art.

Exactly what I was trying to say. It's tough to perceive was the 1960's were like unless this topic was broached in that time period. (thumbs u

Check out CBR's "Swipe File", it's discussed all the time. In today's world, with image warehouses online, acute awareness of rights, and instant information transfer people don't get away with this stuff of more than 10 minutes. There have been books pulled from the shelves for this kind of thing, etc. What flew in the darkness of pre-internet age, doesn't fly in the bright light of day. ...that's sort of what I was getting at...I'm not saying it's OK but copyright and reproduction law evolves as society evolves. If I draw a stick man do I have to attribute it to a cave drawing? I know stealing is stealing, I'm not arguing that it isn't. I am curious as to what plagiarism (and similar) laws were like 40 or 50 years ago and have they changed over time to include things that at one time were not included? I know people hate to hear this but it really can be a relative argument with a lot of grey area and it's when big money is involved that the grey areas become less grey and more black and white.

Especially in a circumstance such as these comic panels where the source is so closely tied to what he painted. Excluding it makes the motive for doing so seem sinister. For the record, I'm agreeing with you guys. (thumbs u

I am not an artist but for me it's statements like this that make me automatically want to attack "Lichty's" art. You just said you couldn't understand how artists don't "get it". Well, as an artist, how can you call someone else's work throw away? IMO most pop art is not great or even good art. It's 99% hype. It was a novel idea and had one or two examples been created to make a point it would have been an interesting footnote. I'm sure most people here that object to the adulation and millions heaped upon Lichty wouldn't be as upset if the community that embraces him wasn't so dismissive of the source material. How would the art world react to a photographer going to an artist's show (someone the art world elite embraces), photographing the artwork (in a specialized, artistic style) then published the prints? Yes, they are visually different but obviously derived from someone else's work. Would the gallery be happy about it? Would the artist be? How would fans of the artist react if the photographer said "the source material was throw away, I'm the real artist by forcing society to see it with new eyes." This is a circular argument that will never end. I wanted to avoid contributing to the thread but I found it... funny?... to see an artist calling out other artists for not getting Lichty in one breath and calling comic artist's work "throw away" with another. I think there are 2 points that are worth addressing in your post. 1) All work is derivative. Nothing is truly original. Each generation is inspired by the previous one. So at what point do you draw a line and say derivative is now a copy? 2) I believe what Aman meant by "throw away" was that the art was published in children's comic magazines that were indeed throw way. They were read, traded, drawn in, rolled up and thrown away. I don't think he was talking about the art itself, he was talking about the delivery medium (a throw away comic book) that was preserved in a way that it could not be thrown away (a studio wall). I wrote this in another thread but I think it's worth repeating: a successful artist is one who has a talent AND the ability to find a target market and touch it. It's more than just good art, it's bringing to the forefront something that society either wants or needs to see at that point in time. While Lichenstein did borrow heavily, he also took something that was for the most part forgotten (a panel from a comic that had over 1MIL issues published, let's say) and put it into the forefront of the art world. The original artists didn't do that. They couldn't do that. Otherwise they would have done it. Love it or hate it, successful art is a combination of talent and marketing and RL had both. None of which makes any of it less an infringement of intellectual property rights (whomever those rights holders may be). Successful marketing doesn't equate or negate actual creation of the source material, without which there would be nothing to "transform." These original creators deserve more than being thrown away along with credit for what they created. The hubris of "well it's high art now" and the dismissive attitude some have that it wasn't a creation before, worthy of attribution, is extraordinarily distasteful. As for the notion that all artists should appreciate what RL did, I wonder how the writer of a manuscript that saw limited publication (maybe in a throw away high school publication) should feel about that same story altered very slightly, perhaps changing character names or adding DOTS all over the place, being made into a best selling novel without attribution, credit, or compensation. Infringement is infringement regardless of advertising/marketing speak, most of which is perpetuated by those with something to gain from the sale of such pieces and something to lose if common sense and knowledge of global copyright law were to seep into the collective thought process. I understand the gallery owners, auction houses, and critics holding these views. They have jobs to protect. Everyone else that drinks this koolaid and buys this analysis carefully crafted to perpetuate a multimillion dollar art market built on the backs of other artist's work? Well, Freddie Mercury can't stop laughing from the beyond. I was speaking strictly from the point of view of whether it was art or not. I do agree that if he borrowed heavily (and I personally agree that he did) that there should be some form of recognition and compensation...but it's very difficult to look back 4 decades and keep things in perspective. As Aman said, he was taking images that were basically being thrown in the trash (literally) at the time and making "high art" out of them. It's one thing to be there at the time and another to look back 5 decades now that comics are at the forefront of pop culture and analyze it...ironic considering RL was likely at the very least a small cog in making comics become an accepted art form. Had his art been unsuccessful and comics all been destroyed and forgotten, would people still be having this argument? Yes, he'd still have "copied" the original artists but with no $$ to speak of would people be as outraged? It's a great discussion, and I love this thread. Just wondering if it would be here if RL was nobody and comics were forgotten.

I think the run of Romita covers from ASM #39 to #75 is one of the best in Marvel's history. There are a few less-than-great covers like #59 and #61. But for the most part, it's a pretty phenomenal series of memorable Spidey images. I think FF #39 to #75 might come close. And Thor #126 to #169 are great runs of covers too. But to me, they're not as consistently awesome as the ASM run. Romita was a terrific artist but I think Kirby influenced his layouts greatly from early on when JR joined Marvel on the DD run. I think the reasons the covers are so great is that Romita was a very talented linesman but learned to layout covers by adapting the Kirby "larger than life" way. I agree, a very memorable set of covers.

This is the kind of high-brow talk that really gets my goat...in this day and age, where does someone get off calling comic book art "low"? I can hear them now saying: "I say, ol' boy that Lichtenstein is a genius! He took lemons and made not lemonade, but champagne!". But comics were considered "low art" at one time. They were looked down upon, thrown out (thank god for moms throwing out kids comics making your books all the more valuable today), smudged with food and donated for pulp. They were made to be throw away magazines, never to be remembered. The fact that they started to be collected and remain as a part of pop culture was very much evolutionary and not intended. Like it or hate it, Lichenstein also had a part in planting comics as a part of pop culture just as much as the comics themselves did.

I am not an artist but for me it's statements like this that make me automatically want to attack "Lichty's" art. You just said you couldn't understand how artists don't "get it". Well, as an artist, how can you call someone else's work throw away? IMO most pop art is not great or even good art. It's 99% hype. It was a novel idea and had one or two examples been created to make a point it would have been an interesting footnote. I'm sure most people here that object to the adulation and millions heaped upon Lichty wouldn't be as upset if the community that embraces him wasn't so dismissive of the source material. How would the art world react to a photographer going to an artist's show (someone the art world elite embraces), photographing the artwork (in a specialized, artistic style) then published the prints? Yes, they are visually different but obviously derived from someone else's work. Would the gallery be happy about it? Would the artist be? How would fans of the artist react if the photographer said "the source material was throw away, I'm the real artist by forcing society to see it with new eyes." This is a circular argument that will never end. I wanted to avoid contributing to the thread but I found it... funny?... to see an artist calling out other artists for not getting Lichty in one breath and calling comic artist's work "throw away" with another. I think there are 2 points that are worth addressing in your post. 1) All work is derivative. Nothing is truly original. Each generation is inspired by the previous one. So at what point do you draw a line and say derivative is now a copy? 2) I believe what Aman meant by "throw away" was that the art was published in children's comic magazines that were indeed throw way. They were read, traded, drawn in, rolled up and thrown away. I don't think he was talking about the art itself, he was talking about the delivery medium (a throw away comic book) that was preserved in a way that it could not be thrown away (a studio wall). I wrote this in another thread but I think it's worth repeating: a successful artist is one who has a talent AND the ability to find a target market and touch it. It's more than just good art, it's bringing to the forefront something that society either wants or needs to see at that point in time. While Lichenstein did borrow heavily, he also took something that was for the most part forgotten (a panel from a comic that had over 1MIL issues published, let's say) and put it into the forefront of the art world. The original artists didn't do that. They couldn't do that. Otherwise they would have done it. Love it or hate it, successful art is a combination of talent and marketing and RL had both.

But in the real life community the serial killer is often described thus: "He kept to himself but he was always quiet and polite." You are one of the politest people I know. Pretty quiet too.

Yup.

Fixed it. My android does that all the time. (thumbs u Finally got a smart phone? Nope. I use an Android Tablet for internet access when travelling. I keep my phone restricted to being just a phone.

Fixed it. My android does that all the time. (thumbs u

Arch has all of the evidence archived. It would seem that if members of the collectors society are recieving threats, CGC should do something about it. He hasn't made any threats against CGC that I know of. I don't know why you don't just press charges if he's made a personal threat against you. I'd have done so ages ago. I take your point Roy, but we are a community of sorts, I just think we should put forward a united front against this sort of . How easy is it to actually press charges in a situation like this? Serious question, I have no experience in matters like this. It seems like it could be time to take it to that level. Well, of course we are a community but it's an internet community, not a community where we all know and see each other every morning like on a street in a suburb. If someone steps on our daisies you tell him to get lost. Consequently, if someone utters a death threat, you're not going to treat the guy like he stepped in your garden. In cases like this there are internet police divisions to specifically handle stuff like this.

Arch has all of the evidence archived. It would seem that if members of the collectors society are recieving threats, CGC should do something about it. He hasn't made any threats against CGC that I know of. I don't know why you don't just press charges if he's made a personal threat against you. I'd have done so ages ago.

Mike, there is nothing that Arch can do except ban a current account. All anyone has to do is create a new name with a new email address and anyone can join. How do you stop that?

I doubt the movie had much effect...there has been a lot of upward pressure on the book for as long as I can remember. I've been an #83 fan for a long time and I remember when you could get an 8.0 for about $6000 and a 9.0 for about $13,000-$15,000 around 2006 and they've been climbing steadily every year. I sold a 9.0 for a hair under $40K early last year and a second one for $45K towards the end of last year. The buyer was actually willing to pay $50K for the second JIM #83 (I had his offer come through on my website) but we worked in a second book (JIM #85 CGC 9.4) into a $60K deal so I divided the sales as $45K and $15K on the books. And yes, I do have one right now. Kinda hoping I can hang onto one for a while.

Wow. Vern if you ever upgrade this would be the perfect keeper copy for me.

I remember that book. So you finally got it graded?

This coming from you.

That must have been early on in their "Stealth development" division.