Romita Experts: Is this Romita Sr Art?

[comix4fun]

 

Simply because you "had not heard it" doesn't mean it's not happening, and hasn't happened for years. I do work and represent creators and companies in this field. This isn't a guess on my part. I should have probably led with that.

 

 

I, for one, am glad you didn't. It's simply delightful the way that it has played out.

 

Ooopsie. Chris is an expert in this arena.

 

Here's some iconography for whomever gets the proceeds of these "iconic" Lichtenstein "works of art" - a painting of some pants being pooped. Which I can only hope comes to fruition if/when the real artists get their share from said proceeds recipients.

 

No No, not at expert. I have colleagues that spend 100% of their time on this, I do this along with other area of law. I just know where the law is now and where it came from and how to apply it.

[ShaneTurgeon]

The top panel is a lichtenstein piece aswell Except the girl in the lichtenstein painting is drowning instead of sleeping. Sure Lichtenstein did swipes. But So have dozens of other artist. Comic artist do it all the time and we don't give them a hard time. Just last year there was a wolverine cover that was a swipe of Salvador Dali's Persistance of memory yet I don't remember the fine art community bashing that artist for ripping of a great artist like Salvidor dali.

 

I think there's a pretty distinct difference between swipes and homages, which is pretty clear what the Dali/Wolverine cover is.

 

When a comic or other pop culture artist tips his hat to a high profile or famous piece of art that's familiar even to the layman, most people appreciate, and, for the most part, respect the homage to the original and for the artist (hopefully) being clever enough to adapt it and make it interesting for this medium.

 

The Lichtenstein stuff hardly has that distinction. It's blatant image theft, right down to the word bubbles in virtually all of these cases, and uses images from source material and artists that were hardly high profile.

 

 

[comix4fun]

The top panel is a lichtenstein piece aswell Except the girl in the lichtenstein painting is drowning instead of sleeping. Sure Lichtenstein did swipes. But So have dozens of other artist. Comic artist do it all the time and we don't give them a hard time. Just last year there was a wolverine cover that was a swipe of Salvador Dali's Persistance of memory yet I don't remember the fine art community bashing that artist for ripping of a great artist like Salvidor dali.

 

I think there's a pretty distinct difference between swipes and homages, which is pretty clear what the Dali/Wolverine cover is.

 

When a comic or other pop culture artist tips his hat to a high profile or famous piece of art that's familiar even to the layman, most people appreciate, and, for the most part, respect the homage to the original and for the artist (hopefully) being clever enough to adapt it and make it interesting for this medium.

 

The Lichtenstein stuff hardly has that distinction. It's blatant image theft, right down to the word bubbles in virtually all of these cases, and uses images from source material and artists that were hardly high profile.

 

 

 

 

In the Dali example it's extraordinarily clear cut....they look nothing like each other. It's a tribute brought about by creating an entirely new work of art..

 

They'd NEVER be confused for one another..EVER

 

Dali:

 

ASM 592 Wolverine Cover

[comix4fun]

Talking about confusing one for the other.....

 

Lichtenstein can't say the same....

 

 

 

 

This one has all the same text...nice

 

M-Maybe the different background will throw them off.....NOPE

 

 

There are literally over a hundred more just like this.

If appropriating these images is "iconography" then early Americans practiced very effective iconography when they "bought" Manhattan from the natives for some beads.

[SignatureSelect]

OK I will give a Less Clear cut case. Georges Jeanty did the cover to Gambit 25 in febaury 2001 . Jim Lee did the cover to Batman 608 in December 2002. The covers bare a striking resembalance to each other With the exception of the Character on the cover and the lighting in the scene. Yet Not once Have I heard anybody Even Georges Jeanty When I showed him ever speak ill of Mr. Lee for using the same image and only changing lighting the character and a slight angle.

 

Why is it OK for Mr. Lee to do this But not Mr. Lichtenstein.

 

The cover was not a famous well known cover by a famous revered artist. No recognition was given on the cover. Yet nobody ever raised a fuss about it.

[comix4fun]

OK I will give a Less Clear cut case. Georges Jeanty did the cover to Gambit 25 in febaury 2001 . Jim Lee did the cover to Batman 608 in December 2002. The covers bare a striking resembalance to each other With the exception of the Character on the cover and the lighting in the scene. Yet Not once Have I heard anybody Even Georges Jeanty When I showed him ever speak ill of Mr. Lee for using the same image and only changing lighting the character and a slight angle.

 

Why is it OK for Mr. Lee to do this But not Mr. Lichtenstein.

 

The cover was not a famous well known cover by a famous revered artist. No recognition was given on the cover. Yet nobody ever raised a fuss about it.

 

 

These look a little closer, the one leg is sticking out but turned a different way. If the poses were exact I would probably have a problem with it, but the head, arms and legs are all different. We've seen a dozen characters in this sort of pose over the years. If Jim Lee would have lightboxed Georges piece ala Land or Mack it would be something people might get annoyed about.

 

However you are talking about Jim Lee, outside of a tracing job he's not going to get called out. Jim Lee founding member and publisher of Image, owner and publisher of Wildstorm and, current publisher of DC comics? That Jim Lee?

 

If you make that accusation you had better have better evidence than this, unless working in the industry is not important to you.

 

Batman

Gambit

 

 

I'll post some swipes in a second so you can see the difference in what I am talking about.

[Bronty]

The top panel is a lichtenstein piece aswell Except the girl in the lichtenstein painting is drowning instead of sleeping. Sure Lichtenstein did swipes. But So have dozens of other artist. Comic artist do it all the time and we don't give them a hard time. Just last year there was a wolverine cover that was a swipe of Salvador Dali's Persistance of memory yet I don't remember the fine art community bashing that artist for ripping of a great artist like Salvidor dali.

 

I think there's a pretty distinct difference between swipes and homages, which is pretty clear what the Dali/Wolverine cover is.

 

When a comic or other pop culture artist tips his hat to a high profile or famous piece of art that's familiar even to the layman, most people appreciate, and, for the most part, respect the homage to the original and for the artist (hopefully) being clever enough to adapt it and make it interesting for this medium.

 

The Lichtenstein stuff hardly has that distinction. It's blatant image theft, right down to the word bubbles in virtually all of these cases, and uses images from source material and artists that were hardly high profile.

 

 

 

 

In the Dali example it's extraordinarily clear cut....they look nothing like each other. It's a tribute brought about by creating an entirely new work of art..

 

They'd NEVER be confused for one another..EVER

 

Dali:

 

ASM 592 Wolverine Cover

 

First time I've ever seen that wolverine cover. Its really clever!

[AtlasFan]

Hmmm...I wonder what would have happened if Roy had swiped ..er.. I mean was "inspired" by images of Mickey Mouse? How far would his pop-art revolution had gone?

 

 

[comix4fun]

THIS is what I am talking about, and closest to what I was referring to...

 

 

New Avengers #39

 

EVERYONE was up in arms, dozens of artists entered the fray, taking sides, arguing and slugging it out over what happened and policies were changed as a result.

 

On the left of the Magazine Cover that featured the female figure first and the Mack NA cover on the right.

 

 

 

This is an overlay of one on top of the other in case there was any doubt

 

 

 

This cover was printed and Marvel had to do an entirely new run of the book, delaying its appearance on the stands by a couple of weeks and a memo from Marvel to all its artists about using copyrighted material to all their talent soon followed.

 

When it's a clear cut case like this, of a copyrighted image of a professional photographer outside the comics field EVERYONE responds to avoid the lawsuit.

 

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

Hmmm...I wonder what would have happened if Roy had swiped ..er.. I mean was "inspired" by images of Mickey Mouse? How far would his pop-art revolution had gone?

 

 

There's some discussion over whether or not Disney characters were used in one piece and the circumstances behind it.

[stinkininkin]

OK I will give a Less Clear cut case. Georges Jeanty did the cover to Gambit 25 in febaury 2001 . Jim Lee did the cover to Batman 608 in December 2002. The covers bare a striking resembalance to each other With the exception of the Character on the cover and the lighting in the scene. Yet Not once Have I heard anybody Even Georges Jeanty When I showed him ever speak ill of Mr. Lee for using the same image and only changing lighting the character and a slight angle.

 

Why is it OK for Mr. Lee to do this But not Mr. Lichtenstein.

 

The cover was not a famous well known cover by a famous revered artist. No recognition was given on the cover. Yet nobody ever raised a fuss about it.

 

 

These look a little closer, the one leg is sticking out but turned a different way. If the poses were exact I would probably have a problem with it, but the head, arms and legs are all different. We've seen a dozen characters in this sort of pose over the years. If Jim Lee would have lightboxed Georges piece ala Land or Mack it would be something people might get annoyed about.

 

However you are talking about Jim Lee, outside of a tracing job he's not going to get called out. Jim Lee founding member and publisher of Image, owner and publisher of Wildstorm and, current publisher of DC comics? That Jim Lee?

 

If you make that accusation you had better have better evidence than this, unless working in the industry is not important to you.

 

Batman

Gambit

 

 

I'll post some swipes in a second so you can see the difference in what I am talking about.

 

Jeezus, no kidding Chris. The guy comparing the Lee Batman cover to the Gambit cover has no idea what he is talking about. First of all, it's not a swipe. It's a similar idea, and layout, but not a swipe.

 

Secondly, this is the image that Jim Lee used as source for his more iconic Batman 608 cover...

 

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryPiece.asp?Piece=543812&GSub=84918

 

(sorry, I don't know how to post images on this message board, so if someone else wants to put all three pieces up to make the point, be my guest).

 

This image was published in the March 2000 issue of Gotham Knights #1, and is by, um, some guy named Jim Lee. That's a year before the Gambit cover in question, and Jim has said in numerous interviews that he used his own image for the Batman 608 cover and attempted to improve it the second time around.

 

Come on guys. Don't go on a public forum and talk about things you don't know anything about.

 

Scott Williams

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

Thanks Scott,

As I was responding I was thinking of you. There are similar poses and there are swipes. I had forgotten about Jim's earlier Batman image and was searching around comicartfans for it but you beat me to it.

 

Jim's not known as a swiper at all. He's created some of the more dynamic images of the last 20 years to be sure.

 

Best,

C

 

 

Here's that image you were linking to:

 

[Nexus]

Scott beat me to it. I'm reading BATMAN: BLACK AND WHITE Vol. 2 right now and that Jim Lee Batman story appears in it. Weird timing!

[SignatureSelect]

I appologize for making the statement about the gambit cover and the batman cover. I wasn't saying that Mr. Lee did anything wrong. I was just asking a question and making a comparison.

 

I happen to be a big fan of Mr. Lee and his artwork. I just happen to also be a fan of Roy Lichtenstein and his artwork. I felt Mr. Lichtenstein was being unfairly bashed. Mr. Lichtenstein has passed away and is no longer with us to defend his art work and his actions.

 

I am Gald you are here Mr. Williams to help set the story straight and defend Mr. Lee against my comments.

[rjpb]

Here is a link to an earlier thread concerning Lichtenstein.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4004664&fpart=1

 

While the mind boggles at the prices his work garners at auction, and I'm not that enamored of his work, one has to remember that at the time he was making these paintings, most people understood he was appropriating comic book panels, and that was part of the pop art appeal - turning images from a low-brow mass produced medium into "high art".

 

 

Also, he and many other pop artists did use Disney characters ( especially Mickey Mouse) in their art, and generally without problems from Disney. It was only when a bunch of pot-smoking hippies made a smutty comic book using Disney characters that the lawyers got involved.

[stinkininkin]

I appologize for making the statement about the gambit cover and the batman cover. I wasn't saying that Mr. Lee did anything wrong. I was just asking a question and making a comparison.

 

I happen to be a big fan of Mr. Lee and his artwork. I just happen to also be a fan of Roy Lichtenstein and his artwork. I felt Mr. Lichtenstein was being unfairly bashed. Mr. Lichtenstein has passed away and is no longer with us to defend his art work and his actions.

 

I am Gald you are here Mr. Williams to help set the story straight and defend Mr. Lee against my comments.

 

I appreciate your retraction thecollector. It appeared to me that you were implying that Jim did something wrong when commenting that no one had ever called him out on his swipe of the Gambit cover because he was Jim Lee(and which we have now proven was not a swipe). But the record has been set straight now, and it's all good. Thanks again.

 

Scott Williams

[AKA Rick]

That's the beauty of art, it's all in the eye of the beholder, subject to the laws of supply and demand to a degree, so if an artist like Lichtenstein can command millions of dollars, nobody forced the buyer to pay that amount, and if it's an auction format, the there's at least 2 people interested in the piece that sees value.

 

So, with that, for those who criticize artists who use lightboxes or photo references, yet have a fan following, let them co-exist with all of the other artists

 

It's similar if a person likes music, and happens to like one genre like rock n' roll, but dislikes hip hop, so denounces that form of music as noise pollution, yet album sales, pop charts and fans contradict that person's claim to the popularity and artistry that it is in fact recognized as music.

 

Art is the same way, it's to be appreciated by those who want to and feel a connection to the piece and an individual choice, which shouldn't be criticized by the tastes or opinions of others. That contradicts the spirit for which art and creativity is all about.

 

Or at least that's my general opinion.

[comix4fun]

That's the beauty of art, it's all in the eye of the beholder, subject to the laws of supply and demand to a degree, so if an artist like Lichtenstein can command millions of dollars, nobody forced the buyer to pay that amount, and if it's an auction format, the there's at least 2 people interested in the piece that sees value.

 

So, with that, for those who criticize artists who use lightboxes or photo references, yet have a fan following, let them co-exist with all of the other artists

 

It's similar if a person likes music, and happens to like one genre like rock n' roll, but dislikes hip hop, so denounces that form of music as noise pollution, yet album sales, pop charts and fans contradict that person's claim to the popularity and artistry that it is in fact recognized as music.

 

Art is the same way, it's to be appreciated by those who want to and feel a connection to the piece and an individual choice, which shouldn't be criticized by the tastes or opinions of others. That contradicts the spirit for which art and creativity is all about.

 

Or at least that's my general opinion.

 

 

I agree with everything you said here. I do.

 

However, when a creator has his work, his property because that is what a copyright creates...a property right, taken from him and used without his permission and without compensation it is theft.

 

As in your music analogy, I don't know if anyone here is decrying "hip hop" for the sake of it being hip hop, there is room for all genres of art to exist. However, if that musician takes wholesale chunks of another persons work without credit, attribution, permission or compensation there is EVERY REASON to decry that work as less art and more theft. They aren't saying the art isn't good, they are saying it's "hot".

 

 

It's no different than someone walking up to your house, hot wiring your car and driving it away. They can give it a new paint job and a new set of rims but it's still YOUR CAR. It doesn't matter how pretty it looks now, they still stole it from you.

 

I have never said that people aren't allowed to like Lichtenstein or Mack or anyone else who has appropriated images and called them their own with minimal revision. However, I do think that people should take into account how a piece was "created" and what its true origins are before deciding just how much they like that piece. It may change their mind.

[rob_react]

(coincidentally listening to Girl Talk as I catch up with this thread.)

[Romain]

That's the beauty of art, it's all in the eye of the beholder, subject to the laws of supply and demand to a degree, so if an artist like Lichtenstein can command millions of dollars, nobody forced the buyer to pay that amount, and if it's an auction format, the there's at least 2 people interested in the piece that sees value.

 

So, with that, for those who criticize artists who use lightboxes or photo references, yet have a fan following, let them co-exist with all of the other artists

 

It's similar if a person likes music, and happens to like one genre like rock n' roll, but dislikes hip hop, so denounces that form of music as noise pollution, yet album sales, pop charts and fans contradict that person's claim to the popularity and artistry that it is in fact recognized as music.

 

Art is the same way, it's to be appreciated by those who want to and feel a connection to the piece and an individual choice, which shouldn't be criticized by the tastes or opinions of others. That contradicts the spirit for which art and creativity is all about.

 

Or at least that's my general opinion.

 

 

I agree with everything you said here. I do.

 

However, when a creator has his work, his property because that is what a copyright creates...a property right, taken from him and used without his permission and without compensation it is theft.

 

As in your music analogy, I don't know if anyone here is decrying "hip hop" for the sake of it being hip hop, there is room for all genres of art to exist. However, if that musician takes wholesale chunks of another persons work without credit, attribution, permission or compensation there is EVERY REASON to decry that work as less art and more theft. They aren't saying the art isn't good, they are saying it's "hot".

 

 

It's no different than someone walking up to your house, hot wiring your car and driving it away. They can give it a new paint job and a new set of rims but it's still YOUR CAR. It doesn't matter how pretty it looks now, they still stole it from you.

 

I have never said that people aren't allowed to like Lichtenstein or Mack or anyone else who has appropriated images and called them their own with minimal revision. However, I do think that people should take into account how a piece was "created" and what its true origins are before deciding just how much they like that piece. It may change their mind.

I partly disagree .....

I would personnally like a nice swipe of a romance panel nobody ever cared for not even their creators rather than looking at the dread things copyright owners do to these stories I so much cared for ...!!!

Before the art was offered to teenage fans, now we buy it for thousands !

At least Romita or Kirby and all the old timers didn't work thinking how much their art would be worth and that's the beauty of it, but they lived from their art, got published and fame while most artists actually don't !

Today the problem of the copyrights is who owns it and what they do with it ...

I believe Disney should have been entitled to plaggia as well as Tarantino but they have the best lawyers ..

My brother is doing oil paintings after Star Wars pictures, does that make him a thief ?? Should G.Lucas be afraid if my bro gets some money out of it ? Seriously ?

 

Lichtenstein is part of the History of Art and it is sad to say that he contributed as much as the Marvel licence in the movies to our beloved hobby who turned in a stock market !!!!

 

I believe art is about transmission, I love hip hop and I don't think sampling is stealing !

Most artists borrow from another ..I don't think there are so many geniuses but there's a lot of artists to appreciate !!!

 

 

A good friend recently said to me : "there's no genius in Romita, what you seek is nostalgia ... !!! "

Well, all I know is how much I love Romita !