• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Romita Experts: Is this Romita Sr Art?

Started by markseifert,

82 posts in this topic

devilsrain

devilsrain

Posted
Posted
that was my second guess. man lichtenstein and warhol blow. I know using pop references was a big deal then but MAN to me at least their art does not stand the test of time.

 

I dont mind Lichtenstein although the swipe bothers me. I completely agree with you on Warhol tho. Silk screen

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicartcom

comicartcom

Posted
Posted

I dont mind Lichtenstein although the swipe bothers me.

 

Lichtenstein didn't "swipe". He used the images as icons to represent popular culture. I believe all of his paintings of the period can be traced back to specific comic book images. Most who have seen Lichtenstein's work in person would be generally impressed. His work is quite good, but it does lose something in print. The paintings are meant to be seen in their very large size or the iconography is lost

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

I dont mind Lichtenstein although the swipe bothers me.

 

Lichtenstein didn't "swipe". He used the images as icons to represent popular culture. I believe all of his paintings of the period can be traced back to specific comic book images. Most who have seen Lichtenstein's work in person would be generally impressed. His work is quite good, but it does lose something in print. The paintings are meant to be seen in their very large size or the iconography is lost

 

 

If that's what Roy was trying to do, and honestly felt that way, then why doesn't he credit the source material in any way?

 

If it's meant as an expansion of existing cultural iconography and not an entirely new work then why do they fight so hard to downplay or eliminate the discussion of the source material while withholding credit where it is due?

 

Why does the estate continue to claim that the changes in color and size are enough to make the pieces "entirely new works"?

 

Most people, attorneys included, are SHOCKED that Lichtenstein was never sued for copyright violation. There are dozens of his works that are line for line copies to be sure, but even the ones where he chose to make some alteration are also in violation of copyright as "derivative works". Many artists were never aware of the copying of their work, George Tuska included, until recently.

 

"Roy Lichtenstein, Copyright Thief?" by Atty. Mark Weissburg

 

If sampling 3.5 seconds of a 4 minute song is enough to be a violation of copyright, how can copying (in many cases line for line) an original piece of artwork NOT be a violation? At its most sinister it's outright theft from these artists and copyright holders, at it's most innocent it's entirely derivative work that should not be lauded as any advance or achievement in artwork regardless of how he many colors he changed or how large he chose to paint it.

 

You should look at Deconstructing Lichtenstein the author catalogs over 140 exact or nearly exact copies Lichtenstein created and their source material side by side.

 

There's no amount of mealy mouthed, pinky raised, merlot swilling, brie eating art gallery double talk that's going to change what you see there. I can't believe anyone in the world would believe that changing some colors and making the piece extremely large (which, by the way, on pieces as simplistic as this is a tool of artist unable to do fine line details on a smaller scale) Frankly, the guy trying to sell me a piece of art for $42 million dollars is going to be the LAST person who's objective about whether it was swiped from source material.

 

In my opinion, the guy didn't create an entirely original piece of art in his life, that's kind of sad.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

I forgot to add, that in many cases Lichtenstein's copy was inferior to the original.

 

KISS-1--2004.gif

 

Eee Gads! My 7 year old draws better hands using crayons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted

Even the opening page where you have to agree not to copy or reproduce the images on the site...

 

Lichtenstein Foundation Site

 

is, in my opinion, a poorly copied image of a growling dog drawn originally by Joe Kubert.

 

YES the image telling people not to copy or reproduce images is ITSELF copy and a reproduction of another artist's work.

 

GRRRRR--04.gif

 

 

If this were a biblical fable you would now be smelling the faint odor of ozone preceding a MASSIVE LIGHTING STRIKE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
Doesn't look like Romita art to me. Face shapes do not look like Romita, and expressions don't look romitalike.

 

 

He's credited with the story, and there was an interview with him talking about the swipe a while back. He confirmed working on this story, but it's unknown if he worked with an inker on it.

 

Also this was in the years before he took over Spider-man at Marvel. He did a bunch of romance books the eyes are his for sure. The rest? Anything can change given a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted
^^^^ glad to see I'm not completely out to lunch. I thought the layouts were romita-ish and the face shapes (sorry Dale! :) ) actually very reminiscent of his work too on the 70s marvel romance titles that I'm at least a little bit familiar with. I suspect its his but inked by someone who killed a bit of his style? But I am no romita expert that's for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dale Roberts

Dale Roberts

Posted
Posted
Doesn't look like Romita art to me. Face shapes do not look like Romita, and expressions don't look romitalike.

 

 

He's credited with the story, and there was an interview with him talking about the swipe a while back. He confirmed working on this story, but it's unknown if he worked with an inker on it.

 

Also this was in the years before he took over Spider-man at Marvel. He did a bunch of romance books the eyes are his for sure. The rest? Anything can change given a few years.

 

I still don't see it as Romita pencils. Now I could buy that he inked someone else..... hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicartcom

comicartcom

Posted
Posted

I dont mind Lichtenstein although the swipe bothers me.

 

Lichtenstein didn't "swipe". He used the images as icons to represent popular culture. I believe all of his paintings of the period can be traced back to specific comic book images. Most who have seen Lichtenstein's work in person would be generally impressed. His work is quite good, but it does lose something in print. The paintings are meant to be seen in their very large size or the iconography is lost

 

 

If that's what Roy was trying to do, and honestly felt that way, then why doesn't he credit the source material in any way?

 

If it's meant as an expansion of existing cultural iconography and not an entirely new work then why do they fight so hard to downplay or eliminate the discussion of the source material while withholding credit where it is due?

 

Why does the estate continue to claim that the changes in color and size are enough to make the pieces "entirely new works"?

 

Most people, attorneys included, are SHOCKED that Lichtenstein was never sued for copyright violation. There are dozens of his works that are line for line copies to be sure, but even the ones where he chose to make some alteration are also in violation of copyright as "derivative works". Many artists were never aware of the copying of their work, George Tuska included, until recently.

 

"Roy Lichtenstein, Copyright Thief?" by Atty. Mark Weissburg

 

If sampling 3.5 seconds of a 4 minute song is enough to be a violation of copyright, how can copying (in many cases line for line) an original piece of artwork NOT be a violation? At its most sinister it's outright theft from these artists and copyright holders, at it's most innocent it's entirely derivative work that should not be lauded as any advance or achievement in artwork regardless of how he many colors he changed or how large he chose to paint it.

 

You should look at Deconstructing Lichtenstein the author catalogs over 140 exact or nearly exact copies Lichtenstein created and their source material side by side.

 

There's no amount of mealy mouthed, pinky raised, merlot swilling, brie eating art gallery double talk that's going to change what you see there. I can't believe anyone in the world would believe that changing some colors and making the piece extremely large (which, by the way, on pieces as simplistic as this is a tool of artist unable to do fine line details on a smaller scale) Frankly, the guy trying to sell me a piece of art for $42 million dollars is going to be the LAST person who's objective about whether it was swiped from source material.

 

The guy didn't create an entirely original piece of art in his life, that's kind of sad.

 

 

there is a major difference between creating a one-of piece of art and sampling 3.5 seconds of a song to be background on a another song that will be sold in the millions (or even just hundreds) for profit and any attorney will also tell you this. Part of reality is that at the time, some people did indeed point out the comic panels that Lichtenstein iconized and it became part of "Lichtenstein's lore". Keep in mind, that in the beginning, Lichtenstein did not sell prints of his work - he sold the painting itself - and iconography is a common thread in paintings and general art and while his paintings did use comic panels as source material, I have never seen a "line for line" copy. Maybe 50% or more, but never line-for-line exact copies and this is allowed and may indeed fall into the fair use doctrine.

 

Warhol iconized a Campbells soup can, Marilyn and other subjects.

 

Futhermore, some comic artists were fully aware that their work was sourced and were very proud that what they did could be the basis for fine art. Keep in mind - this was the 1960s. People were not litigious then as they are now looking to sue for some perceived slight

 

Furthermore, when you say "The guy didn't create an entirely original piece of art in his life" it only shows you haven't done your homework. He had been an well known artist for years and if you read this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

you'll see that his first one-man show was in 1951 - long before he shifted to iconography

 

the list of artists who have copied others is infinitely long since the dawn of time and includes hundreds or thousands of comic artists who have used everything from ancient art, to easel paintings to previous comic art for their own source material. I doubt anyone is going to sue the comic artists who used that famous Michaelangelo statue for things like the Death of Captain Marvel graphic novel cover. How many times have Marvel artists replicated previous covers by Jack Kirby and signed their name to it without putting "XXX from Jack Kirby previously published cover"

 

The period in which Lichetnstein did the comic panels is known as his "abstract expressionism period". Expressionism is a type of art that frequently uses iconography as subject matter and there is the key. His subject matter was popular culture.

 

One more comment - I have never heard a single attorney claim Lichtenstein was doing anything illegal. His art is a representation of popular subject matter of his time and he was hardly the first one to do so and he didn't only use comic panels. He iconized advertising images as well - which only benefitted the advertisers even more as they could claim greater fame for products they were selling and ergo - probably added to sales.

 

Pop Art - a segment of fine art that Lichetnstein was part of - was practiced by hundreds of artists in all forms of media from paintings to writings to film.. on-and-on during the time period. He and Warhol just happen to be the epoch of that art movement and so they are lightning rods for criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing