Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million 2 2

[Terry Doyle]

Did Ramos do those because he's a fan or did he do them to exhibit?

 

Ramos isn't in the same league as Warhol or Lichtenstein, but he's pretty well know in the fine art world for his pop art.

Wiki entry

 

And his intent, just like Lichtenstein, was to exhibit publicly, his works are quite valuable

Ramos Green Lantern sells for $600k

 

That's rather interesting.

 

The Green Lantern painting, as with the Superman and Atom, is quite dreadful.

 

Some of the other works, I see from your Ramos Wiki entry link, look really good.

 

Go figure . . .

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Parts of this thread reminded me of Steve Ditko's BLUE BEETLE # 5 (November 1968) which features an art critic named Boris Ebar as the villain-of-the-issue (spanning the Blue Beetle story through the back-up Question tale).

 

Ditko's story arc sports lots of goofy-looking paintings and statues, sending-up the pop art world, as can be seen here in the cover reproduction:

 

 

Those parts of both (connecting) stories featuring Boris Ebar, pontificating on the merits of the 'works of art' he promotes, are deliciously funny.

 

Snatch of dialogue between Boris Ebar (the art critic) and Syd Starr (World Wide Broadcasting TV network):

 

EBAR (holding up a ‘modern masterpiece’ showing giant feet passing by a down-and-out sat in the gutter, next to a giant discarded cigarette butt and an empty can attached to the painting): “This painting is a present for you, Syd! When I saw it, I knew a man like you would love to have it! . . . A man who understands the finer points of culture and humanity. I’m sure you recognize it as a true masterpiece and can see its symbolism is pure genius . . .”

 

SYD: “I really appreciate this, Boris. Yes, I can see it . . . it really is all you say . . . it’s very moving . . . very enlightening . . . deep feeling . . . and . . . and . . . “

 

EBAR: “Yes, you understand! It represents man’s inhumanity to man! The refusal of man to help his fellow man get out of the gutter! The world walks by! Notice that brilliant stroke . . . a cigarette butt! It symbolizes that man spends his wealth on his own comforts rather than give it to others. The real attached can is pure genius! It proves the reality, the truth of it all!”

 

Well worth checking this comic-book out!

 

 

[The Troll King]

Did Ramos do those because he's a fan or did he do them to exhibit?

 

Ramos isn't in the same league as Warhol or Lichtenstein, but he's pretty well know in the fine art world for his pop art.

Wiki entry

 

And his intent, just like Lichtenstein, was to exhibit publicly, his works are quite valuable

Ramos Green Lantern sells for $600k

 

I'm familiar with his pinup pieces of course but didn't realize that these superhero ones had ever been sold.

[AtlasFan]

Did Ramos do those because he's a fan or did he do them to exhibit?

 

Ramos isn't in the same league as Warhol or Lichtenstein, but he's pretty well know in the fine art world for his pop art.

Wiki entry

 

And his intent, just like Lichtenstein, was to exhibit publicly, his works are quite valuable

Ramos Green Lantern sells for $600k

 

That's rather interesting.

 

The Green Lantern painting, as with the Superman and Atom, is quite dreadful.

 

Some of the other works, I see from your Ramos Wiki entry link, look really good.

 

Go figure . . .

 

 

His work is dreadful, IMO. If I were paying for a comic artist to do a commission for me and I got something like that, I would refuse to pay. UGH.

[comix4fun]

Did Ramos do those because he's a fan or did he do them to exhibit?

 

Ramos isn't in the same league as Warhol or Lichtenstein, but he's pretty well know in the fine art world for his pop art.

Wiki entry

 

And his intent, just like Lichtenstein, was to exhibit publicly, his works are quite valuable

Ramos Green Lantern sells for $600k

 

That's rather interesting.

 

The Green Lantern painting, as with the Superman and Atom, is quite dreadful.

 

Some of the other works, I see from your Ramos Wiki entry link, look really good.

 

Go figure . . .

 

 

His work is dreadful, IMO. If I were paying for a comic artist to do a commission for me and I got something like that, I would refuse to pay. UGH.

 

 

I think you may have hit on why they have an open bar at all those gallery showings. You'd need "martini-goggles" to enjoy the aesthetics on come of these pieces.

[chrisco37]

 

I think you may have hit on why they have an open bar at all those gallery showings. You'd need "martini-goggles" to enjoy the aesthetics on come of these pieces.

 

No doubt about it. The booze tends to loosen the grip on the wallet. Same reason why casinos give you free drinks.

[Ares]

This "dress" featuring Roy Lichtenstein?

 

 

It costs $2000. And there are only 99 available. Go buy one for the wife.

 

This is the stuff I have a problem with. Not so much that he licenses it to m0rons who put a $8 silkscreen on a $10 garment and charge idi0ts $2000 for it. But because he swiped the image, composition and style from someone else and he/his estate profiteers greatly from it.

 

If an artist in this day and age attempted to do what Lichtenstein did - they'd be sued. Just because the laws were lax 50 years ago does not make what he did acceptable. Regardless of "personal expression".

 

This argument could go on forever, and probably will. Such a shame - I'd rather die a complete unknown artist that had a modicum of integrity, than die knowing that a large portion of the art community thought I was nothing more than a copy artist in a turtleneck.

Lets find the original image Lich swiped from, license it and sell the shirts for $50

[The Troll King]

This "dress" featuring Roy Lichtenstein?

 

 

It costs $2000. And there are only 99 available. Go buy one for the wife.

 

This is the stuff I have a problem with. Not so much that he licenses it to m0rons who put a $8 silkscreen on a $10 garment and charge idi0ts $2000 for it. But because he swiped the image, composition and style from someone else and he/his estate profiteers greatly from it.

 

If an artist in this day and age attempted to do what Lichtenstein did - they'd be sued. Just because the laws were lax 50 years ago does not make what he did acceptable. Regardless of "personal expression".

 

This argument could go on forever, and probably will. Such a shame - I'd rather die a complete unknown artist that had a modicum of integrity, than die knowing that a large portion of the art community thought I was nothing more than a copy artist in a turtleneck.

Lets find the original image Lich swiped from, license it and sell the shirts for $50

 

[tth2]

This "dress" featuring Roy Lichtenstein?

 

 

It costs $2000. And there are only 99 available. Go buy one for the wife.

 

This is the stuff I have a problem with. Not so much that he licenses it to m0rons who put a $8 silkscreen on a $10 garment and charge idi0ts $2000 for it. But because he swiped the image, composition and style from someone else and he/his estate profiteers greatly from it.

 

If an artist in this day and age attempted to do what Lichtenstein did - they'd be sued. Just because the laws were lax 50 years ago does not make what he did acceptable. Regardless of "personal expression".

 

This argument could go on forever, and probably will. Such a shame - I'd rather die a complete unknown artist that had a modicum of integrity, than die knowing that a large portion of the art community thought I was nothing more than a copy artist in a turtleneck.

Lets find the original image Lich swiped from, license it and sell the shirts for $50

That`s a pretty clever idea, actually.

[Terry Doyle]

This "dress" featuring Roy Lichtenstein?

 

 

It costs $2000. And there are only 99 available. Go buy one for the wife.

 

This is the stuff I have a problem with. Not so much that he licenses it to m0rons who put a $8 silkscreen on a $10 garment and charge idi0ts $2000 for it. But because he swiped the image, composition and style from someone else and he/his estate profiteers greatly from it.

 

If an artist in this day and age attempted to do what Lichtenstein did - they'd be sued. Just because the laws were lax 50 years ago does not make what he did acceptable. Regardless of "personal expression".

 

This argument could go on forever, and probably will. Such a shame - I'd rather die a complete unknown artist that had a modicum of integrity, than die knowing that a large portion of the art community thought I was nothing more than a copy artist in a turtleneck.

Lets find the original image Lich swiped from, license it and sell the shirts for $50

That`s a pretty clever idea, actually.

 

How about this one?

 

 

The linework and attention to detail is easily on a par with Lichtenstein or Ramos's superhero work . . and I'm sure it carries some deep, inner meaning that, right now, I'm darned if I can figure out . . .

 

Cool, eh?

 

[Whizzer]

How does Lichtenstein differ from Rob Granito? Given the page rates that the artists who RL swiped from were on isn't he actually more of a dbag than Granito?

[tth2]

This "dress" featuring Roy Lichtenstein?

 

 

It costs $2000. And there are only 99 available. Go buy one for the wife.

 

This is the stuff I have a problem with. Not so much that he licenses it to m0rons who put a $8 silkscreen on a $10 garment and charge idi0ts $2000 for it. But because he swiped the image, composition and style from someone else and he/his estate profiteers greatly from it.

 

If an artist in this day and age attempted to do what Lichtenstein did - they'd be sued. Just because the laws were lax 50 years ago does not make what he did acceptable. Regardless of "personal expression".

 

This argument could go on forever, and probably will. Such a shame - I'd rather die a complete unknown artist that had a modicum of integrity, than die knowing that a large portion of the art community thought I was nothing more than a copy artist in a turtleneck.

Lets find the original image Lich swiped from, license it and sell the shirts for $50

That`s a pretty clever idea, actually.

 

How about this one?

 

 

The linework and attention to detail is easily on a par with Lichtenstein or Ramos's superhero work . . and I'm sure it carries some deep, inner meaning that, right now, I'm darned if I can figure out . . .

 

Cool, eh?

 

You`re totally missing the point.

[tth2]

How does Lichtenstein differ from Rob Granito? Given the page rates that the artists who RL swiped from were on isn't he actually more of a dbag than Granito?

Because Lichtenstein did it first, and the pieces that he created were a combination of irony and kitsch, while also bringing out the art aspect in something that was otherwise everyday background noise.

 

Granito`s is just badly painted superheroes that are neither innovative, ironic, clever or anything else. I would put them on par with those horrific Snoopy paintings that were inflicted on us earlier in this thread.

[SC in SC]

Unlike the poster above me, I won't try to make a hero out of a thief. To answer your question, there is absolutely ZERO difference between Lichtenstein and Rob Granito. Both profited by stealing images created and drawn by other artists and claiming they created them. Doing it first only means you paved the way for the rest of the thieves. Getting away with it just means you got to keep all of your money you made by stealing. It's no different than someone robbing your house and getting away with it. They stole your stuff and no one caught them. They got to keep your stuff.

 

Wait, there IS a difference. No one ever CONGRATULATED a house thief and said they were a freaking genius for breaking into houses and stealing property. I guess it's ok if you steal art though. At least some people here think it is. I guess Rob Granito wasn't doing anything wrong in their eyes either. Now we know where they stand.

 

How does Lichtenstein differ from Rob Granito? Given the page rates that the artists who RL swiped from were on isn't he actually more of a dbag than Granito?

[pinupcartoonguy]

Assuming these guys are stealing, have any of them been successfully sued, and if not, why not?

[Terry Doyle]

How does Lichtenstein differ from Rob Granito? Given the page rates that the artists who RL swiped from were on isn't he actually more of a dbag than Granito?

Because Lichtenstein did it first, and the pieces that he created were a combination of irony and kitsch, while also bringing out the art aspect in something that was otherwise everyday background noise.

 

 

He swiped the images . . . he didn't create them.

 

I don't know how it works for you, but for me, personally, creativity and originality go hand-in-hand.

 

For years I admired Lichtenstein's comic panel artwork , mistakingly believing that he had been inspired to create his own images based on the source material (comic-books) he had studied.

 

I'm afraid that when I discovered that he merely copied published works . . . and copied them badly . . . my respect for his work quickly faded.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

This "dress" featuring Roy Lichtenstein?

 

 

It costs $2000. And there are only 99 available. Go buy one for the wife.

 

This is the stuff I have a problem with. Not so much that he licenses it to m0rons who put a $8 silkscreen on a $10 garment and charge idi0ts $2000 for it. But because he swiped the image, composition and style from someone else and he/his estate profiteers greatly from it.

 

If an artist in this day and age attempted to do what Lichtenstein did - they'd be sued. Just because the laws were lax 50 years ago does not make what he did acceptable. Regardless of "personal expression".

 

This argument could go on forever, and probably will. Such a shame - I'd rather die a complete unknown artist that had a modicum of integrity, than die knowing that a large portion of the art community thought I was nothing more than a copy artist in a turtleneck.

Lets find the original image Lich swiped from, license it and sell the shirts for $50

That`s a pretty clever idea, actually.

 

How about this one?

 

 

The linework and attention to detail is easily on a par with Lichtenstein or Ramos's superhero work . . and I'm sure it carries some deep, inner meaning that, right now, I'm darned if I can figure out . . .

 

Cool, eh?

 

You`re totally missing the point.

 

And it probably escapes you that my post was intended as a bit of fun, to (hopefully) bring a bit of much-needed levity to a thread that's taken itself far too seriously and meandered on for w-a-a-a-y too long.

[comix4fun]

How does Lichtenstein differ from Rob Granito?

 

 

 

 

Marketing for the most part.

[Whizzer]

Assuming these guys are stealing, have any of them been successfully sued, and if not, why not?

 

According to John Romita in the huge 75 years of DC book by Paul Levitz there was serious consideration given to starting a class action against RL. Don't know why it didn't happen

[tth2]

Unlike the poster above me, I won't try to make a hero out of a thief. To answer your question, there is absolutely ZERO difference between Lichtenstein and Rob Granito. Both profited by stealing images created and drawn by other artists and claiming they created them. Doing it first only means you paved the way for the rest of the thieves. Getting away with it just means you got to keep all of your money you made by stealing. It's no different than someone robbing your house and getting away with it. They stole your stuff and no one caught them. They got to keep your stuff.

 

Wait, there IS a difference. No one ever CONGRATULATED a house thief and said they were a freaking genius for breaking into houses and stealing property. I guess it's ok if you steal art though. At least some people here think it is. I guess Rob Granito wasn't doing anything wrong in their eyes either. Now we know where they stand.

 

How does Lichtenstein differ from Rob Granito? Given the page rates that the artists who RL swiped from were on isn't he actually more of a dbag than Granito?