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

[CollectingFool]

I think that sometimes in art (whether fine or comic, neither has a monopoly on this) a sort of reverse logic is used to substantiate the worth of something that is priced at high levels. "Well of course its beautiful, do you know how much its worth?"

 

Here's another good example:

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/09/rothkos-orange-red-yellow-nets-record-86-9-million-at-auction/

 

 

[delekkerste]

I respect your opinions but you sound like you've drunk a little too much of the fine art Kool-Aid on this one! I understand that I am looking at a small jpg but find it to be neither beautiful nor moving nor poignant.

 

I think that sometimes in art (whether fine or comic, neither has a monopoly on this) a sort of reverse logic is used to substantiate the worth of something that is priced at high levels. "Well of course its beautiful, do you know how much its worth?"

 

And that sounds to me like its the case here. I understand his place in history and all that and if someone wants to buy it for $45 m because they feel he was an important creator, great. But let's call a spade a spade and a turd a turd. An important turd is still a turd.

 

But, maybe that's my value-neutrality talking

 

 

Well, I would say this:

 

1. If you don't think it is beautiful/poignant/moving, why not? Is it because it looks too much like a throwaway, disposable no-name comic book panel? Because I'd like to believe that this panel of comic art, while being nothing special in its original context, has been made to be beautiful, mysterious, poignant and enchanting in the way Lichtenstein has transformed it and put it into a different context. That it manages to evoke the kinds of thoughts and feelings that it does says something positive both about the artist and the potential of the comic book medium - it's not just lowbrow kiddie stuff.

 

2. There's no doubt that money does skew perception, but it's not just the money, but what it represents - its historical importance (innovation, breaking new ground, capturing the zeitgeist of the time, becoming iconic, etc.), the cachet/reputation of the artist, etc. My girlfriend makes some really cool art, but obviously I'm going to look at it in a different way than a $45 million Lichtenstein. That's just a case of it is what it is. And, as you said, it's not like this is something unique to the fine art market.

 

3. I can understand that this painting might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I suspect that most people who like fine art but who don't like the painting probably think less of it precisely because it is comic book-related and thus too simple/ordinary/low brow for their tastes. That a bunch of comic book fans think that this is "a turd" just tells me that there are perceived slights to the comic book medium by the artist not crediting the source material that is clouding people's opinions. If Lichtenstein had attributed all his sources and all those creators became huge fans of his and the feeling in the comic book community was that he did a great service in helping comic books be taken seriously, I bet there would be a lot of fans here instead of critics. I can understand if people think the artist is a turd of a person, but, putting that aside, the art is beautiful, important, iconic and reflects positively on the comic book medium (regardless of the artist's own views). I like good art, and if it's good comic-themed art, so much the better.

 

Like a lot of you guys, I was not a big fan of contemporary art at first (and, I remain much more of an Old Masters kind of guy). But, I have to say that Modern/Contemporary has really grown on me the more I've learned about and studied it, and am able to appreciate how the history of art has progressed over the past century. To call that drinking the Kool-Aid I think is pretty unfair - I think before condemning the art world based on preconceived notions, one should actively study and participate in it with an intellectually honest, open mind first (which is exactly what I've done). That's not to say that a lot of the criticisms aren't valid - I'm currently reading the book Con Art - Why You Ought to Sell Your Damien Hirsts While You Can (like I said, I'm keeping an open mind) which does a good job of pointing out some of the more egregious examples - but to paint the entire contemporary art world with a broad brush, armed with criticisms that could just as easily be applied to comic OA or any number of other collecting disciplines, strikes me to be a bit unfair.

[Bronty]

I respect your opinions but you sound like you've drunk a little too much of the fine art Kool-Aid on this one! I understand that I am looking at a small jpg but find it to be neither beautiful nor moving nor poignant.

 

I think that sometimes in art (whether fine or comic, neither has a monopoly on this) a sort of reverse logic is used to substantiate the worth of something that is priced at high levels. "Well of course its beautiful, do you know how much its worth?"

 

And that sounds to me like its the case here. I understand his place in history and all that and if someone wants to buy it for $45 m because they feel he was an important creator, great. But let's call a spade a spade and a turd a turd. An important turd is still a turd.

 

But, maybe that's my value-neutrality talking

 

 

Well, I would say this:

 

1. If you don't think it is beautiful/poignant/moving, why not? Is it because it looks too much like a throwaway, disposable no-name comic book panel? Because I'd like to believe that this panel of comic art, while being nothing special in its original context, has been made to be beautiful, mysterious, poignant and enchanting in the way Lichtenstein has transformed it and put it into a different context. That it manages to evoke the kinds of thoughts and feelings that it does says something positive both about the artist and the potential of the comic book medium - it's not just lowbrow kiddie stuff.

 

2. There's no doubt that money does skew perception, but it's not just the money, but what it represents - its historical importance (innovation, breaking new ground, capturing the zeitgeist of the time, becoming iconic, etc.), the cachet/reputation of the artist, etc. My girlfriend makes some really cool art, but obviously I'm going to look at it in a different way than a $45 million Lichtenstein. That's just a case of it is what it is. And, as you said, it's not like this is something unique to the fine art market.

 

3. I can understand that this painting might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I think most people (generally speaking) who don't like the painting probably think less of it because it is comic book-related and thus too simple/ordinary/low brow for their tastes. That a bunch of comic book fans think that this is "a turd" just tells me that there are perceived slights to the comic book medium by the artist by not crediting the source material that is clouding people's opinions. If Lichtenstein had attributed all his sources and all those creators became huge fans of his and the feeling in the comic book community was that he did a great service in helping comic books be taken seriously, I bet there would be a lot of fans here instead of critics. I can understand if people think the artist is a turd, but, putting that aside, the art is beautiful and reflects positively on the comic book medium. I like good art, and if it's good comic-themed art, so much the better.

 

Like a lot of you guys, I was not a big fan of contemporary art at first (and, I remain much more of an Old Masters kind of guy). But, I have to say that Modern/Contemporary has really grown on me the more I've learned about and studied it, and am able to appreciate how the history of art has progressed over the past century. To call that drinking the Kool-Aid I think is pretty unfair - I think before condemning the art world based on preconceived notions, one should actively study and participate in it with an intellectually honest, open mind first. That's not to say that a lot of the criticisms aren't valid - I'm currently reading the book Con Art - Why You Ought to Sell Your Damien Hirst While You Can which does a good job of pointing out some of the more egregious examples - but to paint the entire contemporary art world with a broad brush, armed with criticisms that could just as easily be applied to comic OA or any number of other collecting disciplines, strikes me to be a bit unfair.

 

1. Its just not a particularily moving scene. It does nothing for me. A sleeping girl is good subject matter for evoking some of the feelings you are talking about but I find none evoked here.

 

2. Well that was exactly my point. Its important to art history, turd or no

 

3. No, I am not saying anything along those lines whatsoever. I'm simply saying that I find the image difficult to appreciate - and value is part of that too, in a reverse sense. If it was worth $1500 I might call it an interesting painting. At $45m I call it a turd.

 

Oh I am fully aware that I have little real experience in fine art and I don't pretend to be any particular scholar on it either. But you'd probably be surprised at the number of books on fine art I've read. I always had an interest in imagery growing up that extended way beyond comic books.

 

I'm not stupid and I'm not attacking fine art, per se. At the end of the day collecting art is like collecting anything else, and owning a Lichtenstein is a little bit like owning a Batman 1 on these boards. An art collector would have the same sense of the item's importance and history (only on a grander scale) and would appreciate it for those reasons.

 

But a comic collector trying to read batman 1 without caring about the history might well call it a turd. I've never read an original but have a reprint somewhere and while its been quite some time, I remember it being a slog to get through. Some may disagree.

[Bronty]

I.e. some books you own to read, some books you own purely for collecting.

 

An original batman 1 is for collecting purposes only. There are better comic books to read (and/or reprints).

 

And I would venture an original Lichtenstein at the end of the day is for collecting &/or investing purposes only too. There are better images to view (and/or prints).

 

And I would argue that is the fundamental cause of the attitude towards modern art on these boards. Most of us here purchase art for one of two reasons:

 

- we like it as a collectible

- we find the picture 'pretty'

 

Unless someone is keenly interested in the history of fine art, this Lichtenstein (or any number of others) won't hit on either account.

 

So, through these eyes, it looks a turd. All the while I understand that it may look a gem through another's eyes who appreciates the history aspect.

 

You say that I'm not intellectually open, I disagree, I simply don't like the picture nor particularily care for its history. From an image POV, its not impressive.

[Bronty]

- but to paint the entire contemporary art world with a broad brush, armed with criticisms....

 

I really didn't do that if you reread my post. You're reading something that isn't there. I spoke only about this particular piece of artwork.

 

FWIW, I've enjoyed some of the lively banter about modern art the last couple years here. Its forced me to have a better understanding of why I do or don't care for certain pictures.

[delekkerste]

- but to paint the entire contemporary art world with a broad brush, armed with criticisms....

 

I really didn't do that if you reread my post. You're reading something that isn't there. I spoke only about this particular piece of artwork.

 

FWIW, I've enjoyed some of the lively banter about modern art the last couple years here. Its forced me to have a better understanding of why I do or don't care for certain pictures.

 

Regarding this and the other points, I was talking about the general tenor of the debate here over the past few months and not just singling out your last few posts.

[Bronty]

Fair enough, good sir (thumbs u

[comicartcom]

I haven't read all of these recent posts to this thread, which I have been reading since it began, but what strikes me most is how people who call themselves "art fans" can't get outside their small box and open up their minds to art of all kinds..

 

I recall going to a gallery show once where one of the three showcased artists was changing his alignment from painted works to conceptual art. He asked me what did I think of his new work and I told him that it doesn't do anything for me.. But I never said nor would I have said that what he was doing was not artistic. Art takes many forms.

 

Lichtenstein was an artist and his artwork is artistic. Whether singular individuals can or cannot see his talent does not change the fact that what he did was a novel concept and a prescient adaptation of something that at that time (comic books) was not viewed as anything more than "trash media" (note this is different than comic strips which depending on what strip it was, was viewed as high art, like Caniff's Terry, Foster's Valiant or Raymond's Flash). Lichtenstein iconized something that for more than a generation was routinely discarded into the garbage.

 

Concerning those that wish to excoriate Lichtenstein for using comic book images and saying he had no originality - comic books for it's entire history is amongst the most derivative of all popular culture artifacts and today's comic books are more derivative than ever, in large part because they have become a burlesque of 1960s-70s comics and today's comics (for the most part) have the originality of a Starving Artists sale at the Ramada Hotel. Superman, Batman, the Fantastic Four et al are all derivative of something that came well before.

 

Art is a concept of very large proportions and attempting to reduce it because you can't grasp it is not the sign of intelligent thinking.

 

Gene - of all people here - is amongst the most intelligent art critics here and I agree with most if not all of what he says when he describes Lichtenstein.

Edited May 10, 2012 by comicartcom

[comicartcom]

I.e. some books you own to read, some books you own purely for collecting.

 

An original batman 1 is for collecting purposes only. There are better comic books to read (and/or reprints).

 

Bronty.. I'll take the literary value of Batman #1 over 99% of the comics produced in the last 20 years anyday..

 

on Lichtenstein.. Go to a museum that has several large canvases exhibited and you will almost certainly change your mind about his work.. Same goes for Rothko, Pollack and the rest of the modernists

[stinkininkin]

Nice to see you posting again Rich!

 

Scott Williams

[comix4fun]

Lichtenstein was an artist and his artwork is artistic.

 

 

Nice to see you posting again Rich.

 

Also, I nominate this sentence for CGC Forum Sentence of the Year!

[comicartcom]

thanks for the welcome fellers, and I'm sure there were better lines than that on this forum

 

[AKA Rick]

Here's a great article in support of Comic Book artists by Forbes.

 

It's entitled

 

"Forget Lichtenstein's $45 Million Sale: Why You Should Buy Comic Book Art from Living Artists"

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/05/10/forget-lichtensteins-45-million-sale-why-you-should-buy-comic-book-art-from-living-artists/

 

 

[comicartcom]

Here's a great article in support of Comic Book artists by Forbes.

 

It's entitled

 

"Forget Lichtenstein's $45 Million Sale: Why You Should Buy Comic Book Art from Living Artists"

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/05/10/forget-lichtensteins-45-million-sale-why-you-should-buy-comic-book-art-from-living-artists/

 

 

 

and???

 

[Sharkey]

Chicago Tribune article about the Lichtenstein exhibit at the Art Institute digs into the controversy of his "borrowing" others' images, and the lack of the names of those artists is evident. Here's a link

 

Roy Lichtenstein Retrospective at Art Institute story

[alxjhnsn]

I would like to see the artists of the works he borrowed (stole?) from listed in the exhibit descriptions.

I agree. Credit should be given in the cases where the artists are known. They should also show a reproduction of the original panel.

 

Even if Roy is a great artist, it's appropriate to show his muse.

[Sharkey]

I would like to see the artists of the works he borrowed (stole?) from listed in the exhibit descriptions.

I agree. Credit should be given in the cases where the artists are known. They should also show a reproduction of the original panel.

 

Even if Roy is a great artist, it's appropriate to show his muse.

 

(thumbs u

[Lebowski]

Here's a great article in support of Comic Book artists by Forbes.

 

It's entitled

 

"Forget Lichtenstein's $45 Million Sale: Why You Should Buy Comic Book Art from Living Artists"

 

Here's the link:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/05/10/forget-lichtensteins-45-million-sale-why-you-should-buy-comic-book-art-from-living-artists/

 

 

Reads more like "Buying Comic Art for 5 Year Olds". There's nothing really insightful there, IMO, though I appreciate the final message of the article: support comic artists and artistry.

 

This quote from the article, however, is such a piece of tripe:

"Yes, some comic artists aren’t as good as others, and only a few are as good as Lichtenstein."

[jeBailey]

A link to this was posted on facebook. Just another reminder how many different artist's work this guy has taken.

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/assets/images/preview/d47f736i12368/prv12368_pg1.jpg

[Terry Doyle]

A link to this was posted on facebook. Just another reminder how many different artist's work this guy has taken.

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/assets/images/preview/d47f736i12368/prv12368_pg1.jpg

 

Good link, speaks volumes.

 

Hope Russ doesn't get hit for copyright infringement.