Aman619

Actually, not many people know this, but Still swiped that image from a printing ink smear defect published in Girls Love Stories #44. So it's yet another example of a dirtbag plagiarist getting filthy rich! ; )

Gil Kane was on fire at that time.

Considering that the celebrated 7.0 that just sold was a 6.5 not long ago is good news for you. You may have a 7.0 too.

me too!

"Heck, the nicest Sgt. Fury 1 just went for a ton of dough." the 9.4 yesterday? I thought it would crack 50K because 9.4 #1s don't show up all that often. Feels like Sgt Fury #1 hasnt shot up in value like all the other Marvel first appearances that are, in the census, many times more plentiful in HG.

The best copy graded so far is a 9.0. I offered the owner $30K for it and he turned it down. The person who won the 8.0 is ecstatic. SHUT UP! wow really.

pretty strong price. didnt realize it was second best. that must explain it. the better copy probably wouldnt go for much more if it ever shows up.

haha beats me! I thought it was an early gallery show maybe.

found this image. look at the scale of these things.. I think they are really cool.

another aspect of this discussion occurred to me this morning. It probably wont change any minds, but I think its interesting to note that being mad at Lichy for his comics inspired paintings selling for 35 million bucks, is akin to expecting Marvel and the creators to get a piece of a comic book that now sells for 100K. Lichtys stake in those paintings ended the moment they placed a red SOLD sticker on them. He never received another dime from creating them. The BIG money that caused this Lynch Lichty thread should be aimed at the 1% who are buying and selling and profiting off the artworks. A side note perhaps, since Lichty still made out pretty good getting 20 or 50K for them back in the 60s (that was big money!) but.... anybody know what they sold for the first time out of the studio? The first wave probably were bought for peanuts compared to their eventual values.

yeah, definitely parallels to our comics world. Some comics grow in stature and value, others wane. Some artists retain their lofty status, others not so much. The market decides. Sometimes it after careful consideration, sometimes theyre sheep.

youre right. thats better, Mwah haha... thanx!

that shoulda been "bwah, hah hah"

thats convoluted. IF he "knew what he was doing" he wouldnt have used "famous" comic artists panels. Truth is hard to take that ALL comics were considered worthless at that time. Even the best names, who founded the huge collectible industry we love today, ALL of them were just hacks back then. Stan Lee was embarrassed all the time at parties when asked what he did for a living back then. He dreaded the question. Said hed rahter have been "in ladies underwear" like ythe other guys at the parties. THAT would have been a better answer than "I write funny books for a living. No, not Batman, No not Superman. No not Archie. No you never heard of my characters." I dont even think he muttered as they walked away" But you WILL someday! heh heh heh..."

Wow. I would have walked too. I don't think its really a comparable example here though. This guy is more like modern comics with 76 different cover variants. Lichtenstein, Pollack and Warhol worked 50 years ago in a very different time in the Art game! And their splashes on the scene, fueled by gallery hype etc has faded. But their works still inspire, move, and --clearly -- ANGER many many people out there. That's Art with a capital A baby. This Tom guy won't last the decade. Everhart's Peanuts paintings have been featured at the Lourve, among other places. When I said he was the "official" Peanuts painter what I meant was that he has q contract allowing him to paint these characters for the duration of his life. His paintings are already selling for 10's of thousands. I imagine that when he dies we'll see some stupid money spent. wow. really? Just another reason the Modern art game is so messed up. Makes the earlier artists work look even more conservative and successful, doesnt it? Everharts approach doesnt seem pinned on any idea besides hype and cashing in... a sort of eighth (in-bred) cousin to previous ideas and formulas... Lichtenstein may have actually have been after the same thing, but at least latched onto an idea of substance that intrigued peoples interest and made them reevaluate something they took for granted. Seeing Snoopy like this doesnt do a thing for me. Do you like them? Or do you see them purely as a short term investment vehicle?

Wow. I would have walked too. I don't think its really a comparable example here though. This guy is more like modern comics with 76 different cover variants. Lichtenstein, Pollack and Warhol worked 50 years ago in a very different time in the Art game! And their splashes on the scene, fueled by gallery hype etc has faded. But their works still inspire, move, and --clearly -- ANGER many many people out there. That's Art with a capital A baby. This Tom guy won't last the decade.

BAck to your previous post, I have to say I love Warhols color portraits. Not all of them, but out of all 60s big art, they are the most pleasing to look at to my eyes. His color choices, the kodalith hi contrast black plates, plus of course how the plates don't line up are electric to take in. The simpler black on color pieces with repetition don't do as much for me.. Nor most of his non portrait stuff. Like the soup cans though. Whi knew looking at a blowup of an everyday object with corporate graphic sensibilities would translate so well as "art"?

Exactly.

I'd have to go read some Lichtensteins books to find out if his Bad drawing was cause he was copying freehand and it came outthat way because he can't draw, or, since he could have easily projected the comic panel and traced it, he CHOSE to mess it up that badly. Heck, he probably was aware of copyright issues that a line for line recreation would have Opened him up to. Either way, showcasing his drawing "ability" wasn't what he was going for. Isn't that clear yet! Your drip painting has some nice moments! A little heavy handed over all... But it does show that with a few years more practice, you could fake a Pollack. And why can't a painter paint drunk? Or be a drunkard? Anyway, since I also feel the ART business is just a business, fueled by Hype more and more... I don't really follow it closely. But I know what I like, and what moves me and pleases my eyes. And whose work I feel is well thought out and earns my respect and interest. I liked Banksys work in Exit Thru the Giftshop. I'm afraid of your opinion on him!!,

We have to separate artistic ability, which should be lauded, and marketing ability, which can be good or bad depending on what's being sold and what the buyer is being told. We have to be careful not to laud someone just because they got rich. These comic panels would have been transformed into new art if he would have told his appreciators where the panels came from, how he interpreted them and then RE-interpreted them. Madoff turned nothing investments into a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme. Not all marketing jobs should be applauded. Selling people something that's really nothing is a talent and a skill that most people don't have or would not use if they did have it. I just got an email today, that will allow me to buy my first Licht. piece, it's from an enterprising Nigerian man promising millions for allowing him to use bank account. What ingenuity on his part. I think you and I are getting close to a agree to disagree point, so I'm hesitant to quarrel on new points with you. But here I'd like to comment on your use of the phrase "artistic ability" I find that for most people who can't or don't draw, or Do not consider themselves artists of any sort, tend to glamorize the ability or the talent level of artists, or artistic persons. They also limit it to the artist's ability to wield instruments in fashioning realistic looking two dimensional images on paper or canvas. Yes thats a simplification that doesn't encompass artists other than painters and drawers. But these are the talents we are discussing so its apt. You guys decide who draws the best looking (most realistic) images and that guy is a good artist. The anti Lichtenstein position here is basically that he CAN'T draw, and the comics "hacks" can, so Roy stole from them. I say hacks here not because I think the guys whose panels were lifted we're the hacks in our world, but because these little images were very much indistinct from the thousands of comics panels created by lesser artists, and these guys best works as well. But, those of us who don't mind lichtensteins use of the source materials to fashion a larger and bolder statement to a wider or more "elite" audience do not limit the phrase "artistic ability" as narrowly as you do. Drawing well, drawing with lifelike realism is in many ways, while amazing and commendable, and not easy, really little more than a parlor trick that some can do and most can't. But ART Has always been about the human condition, and spirit. About our minds as well as our hands and eyes. ARTISTS have strived to archive a deeper penetration in our minds than that of photographic realism. It's why Frazetta is so much cooler than Boris, for example. Anyway, I'm losing my train of thought.... Basically we give Lichtensteins lifting and transformation of these panels a pass because he put them to far better use than the comics did. It's not about which of them could draw and who couldnt. Not anymore. Those days area long gone back to choosing a portrait painter. Who does that anymore based on who can get the best likeness?? Who even has a portrait painted? I'd also like to add that many abstract artists are in fact excellent draftsmen. Who excelled in art schools in their early years. But the styles they settled on that made their reputations were distiller to say a brushstroke, or an attitude. Mondrian is one example. Picasso another. Even Leroy Neiman could draw as realistically as Neal Adams or Russ Heath!! He just liked the dynamism of dripped paint a lot more once he got there. And yes, that's a reference to poor defamed Pollack too! He chose to pour paint like that on purpose. And please go out and TRY to duplicate their finesse at it sometime ! Looks easier than it is.

I think it's been done. And wouldnt the Mona Lisa be public domain? But I see your point.

Bolland did as tight a job in describing what Erro did to him as a his line work! Especially comparing it to stealing from savages.... But I still feel Lichtensteins work, and his place in art is of greater significance than this Johnny come lately. His pieces lack the simplicity and power of Lichtys work... Just pastiches of other stuff, not a distillation and reimaging of them.

One other aspect you haven't commented on is that Lichtenstein didn't only see the artwork in the panels. Ou appear to be very upset for the artists rights to their work. But, Lichtenstein was just as interested in the captions in the panels. One could argue, even more than the artwork, which he didn't copy line for line as you can see in your examples. I don't believe text was used much in fine art before these paintings appeared. The viewer reads the captions which inform them as much if it more than the artwork you are obsessing over. Seems the letterers whose work was totally redrawn ought to get some defense here too!

Well, it's been done already. So yeah, no fine artists will go down this road again. You are probably correct. And you misspoke before. The publishers owned all these panels. Work for hire, remember?

Gee. And I just spent an hour watching YouTube videos of Hockney and his optics guru looking for links t post here thinking we'd branch into more interesting directions ,.. And you still just wanna blast Lichtenstein! Sigh. Sure he copied the comics. He never claimed not to. It was found objects of no importance to him other than as raw material and the source of inspiration. For me, that's fine. He created an extension of what those panels were. You seem to feel he owes them money or something. I think he say to them that hey didn't value it UNTIL he'd made those little panels famous!! That without his efforts an cleverness, not even we comics fans would ever single ou those panels as ANYTHING worth even a second reading. They are now a part of art history. Have any of the comics artists ever expressed anything over than a flush of indirect fame? Any lawsuits?