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

[AtlasFan]

would Roy have been considered such a "genius" if people had known from the beginning that his pieces were just rips of other artists' works?

 

the works weren't "ripped off". they were used as icons, which is a fair use practice.. I can appreciate that you think Roy was stealing from your sacred cows, but it just isn't really the case.. If you want to claim about thefts and credits.. or more to the point "influences", then you must know that it was only 25 years or more after Tec 27 that Bob Kane said (in conversations with Steranko for his History of Comics) that he was influenced by and copied the Shadow, the movie the Bat from 1929 and most specifically the Black Bat from Black Bat pulps in 1933 which has an uncanny visual comparison to Batman. I do not believe that Kane gave one ounce of credit to the creators, nor did he pass any of the millions he made from Batman to the authors.

 

Same goes for Shuster, who readily mentioned that Phillip Wylie's book "Gladiator" was a major influence in 1933 for him to create the fanzines which led to Superman.

 

For out-and-out swipes, how many comic artists have swiped Michaelangelos "Pieta" without notation, starting with Jim Starlin.

 

the comics business is rife with outright theft from other mediums without any credits what-so-ever to the original creators.

 

Lichtenstein didn't "steal" anything. He sourced images that he changed into canvasses, which has been the way of art for hundreds of years. You can't impose the mores of today's society on life of the past as the "rules" have changed, and this is what it means to be a historian.

 

Big difference between an influence (Black Bat & The Shadow for Kane and Gladiator and John Carter for Shuster) and taking another artist's work LINE FOR LINE and calling it your own.

[Solar]

The Starlin Pieta homage is the 'Death of Captain Marvel' cover.

 

It's also clearly referencing the Pieta, rather than ripping it; hoping the viewer will make the visual connection between that classic piece and the newer work to establish Captain Marvel as a Christ-figure. IMO anyway.

[Lebowski]

the works weren't "ripped off". they were used as icons, which is a fair use practice..

 

Dude, I wish I could sell an "icon" for 20 times my annual salary. I'd be making hella icons.

 

I can appreciate that you think Roy was stealing from your sacred cows, but it just isn't really the case..

 

No sacred cows here. I expect everyone to play on the same ball field.

 

I do not believe that Kane gave one ounce of credit to the creators, nor did he pass any of the millions he made from Batman to the authors.

 

Which side is this point for? Not trying to be cute, more wondering if this doesn't just make Kane the Lichtenstein of the comic world.

 

Same goes for Shuster, who readily mentioned that Phillip Wylie's book "Gladiator" was a major influence in 1933 for him to create the fanzines which led to Superman.

 

Readily mentioned, you say? I definitely wouldn't say Roy ever readily mentioned anything as to his "influences."

 

For out-and-out swipes, how many comic artists have swiped Michaelangelos "Pieta" without notation, starting with Jim Starlin.

 

You mean the sculpture that's one of the most famous in all of art history? Versus, say, a small panel from a random war comic?

 

the comics business is rife with outright theft from other mediums without any credits what-so-ever to the original creators.

 

And who says any of those swipes/rips/thefts are not to also be scrutinized as wrong?

 

You can't impose the mores of today's society on life of the past as the "rules" have changed, and this is what it means to be a historian.

 

I used to watch History Channel, but then they gave Larry the Cable Guy a show on there. So I stopped watching the History Channel.

[comicartcom]

another artist's work LINE FOR LINE and calling it your own.

 

I suggest you put the comic panels next to photos of the paintings and look at them closely, or even project one image over the other.. They do look to the untrained eye as if they are exact copies, but they are not and again, Lichtenstein wasn't copying, he used the iconography of the comic panels to achieve an emotional and intellectual response, which was to elevate the contextual imagery to a status it did not otherwise have.

 

Comix4fun.. there are dozens of "adaptations" of the Pieta and they vary from near-exact to influenced by. Using a single image from the lower end of the scale doesn't prove your point and it also completely misses my point, which is that for people to complain that someone made money from a potentially comic book "derivative", but to be 180 degrees away from that when it is comics being derivitive, are totally off-base. I also made the point that what goes in 1961 is not what goes in 2012 and vice-versa. This is a contextual aspect of the argument that is missing from a number of posts anti-Lichtenstein

[comix4fun]

The Starlin Pieta homage is the 'Death of Captain Marvel' cover.

 

It's also clearly referencing the Pieta, rather than ripping it; hoping the viewer will make the visual connection between that classic piece and the newer work to establish Captain Marvel as a Christ-figure. IMO anyway.

 

 

That's the closest reference in comics, for sure. Still not a swipe, given that a swipe is a line for line copy.

 

Also has it happened much beyond that cover? The one that's been done over and over again is the Crisis 7 pose not the Pieta one on the Death of CM cover, right?

[comicartcom]

The Starlin Pieta homage is the 'Death of Captain Marvel' cover.

 

It's also clearly referencing the Pieta, rather than ripping it; hoping the viewer will make the visual connection between that classic piece and the newer work to establish Captain Marvel as a Christ-figure. IMO anyway.

 

considering that only a small percentage of the population would even know what the Pieta is, by the same argument that Lichtenstein should have credited Heath and others, Starlin should have credited the Pieta. That's my point. You can't argue one way when it goes for you, and the other way when it goes against. That's like an attorney taking two sides to a criminal case in two separate trials with 2 killers who are co-defendents in a third trail for the murder they did together.

[comix4fun]

another artist's work LINE FOR LINE and calling it your own.

 

I suggest you put the comic panels next to photos of the paintings and look at them closely, or even project one image over the other.. They do look to the untrained eye as if they are exact copies, but they are not and again, Lichtenstein wasn't copying, he used the iconography of the comic panels to achieve an emotional and intellectual response, which was to elevate the contextual imagery to a status it did not otherwise have.

 

Comix4fun.. there are dozens of "adaptations" of the Pieta and they vary from near-exact to influenced by. Using a single image from the lower end of the scale doesn't prove your point and it also completely misses my point, which is that for people to complain that someone made money from a potentially comic book "derivative", but to be 180 degrees away from that when it is comics being derivitive, are totally off-base. I also made the point that what goes in 1961 is not what goes in 2012 and vice-versa. This is a contextual aspect of the argument that is missing from a number of posts anti-Lichtenstein

 

 

"I can see the whole room.."

 

Look at them both, point out the material differences.

 

[Lebowski]

This is still my favorite Lichtenstein news articles of all time:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100507/0231219332.shtml

[Solar]

The Starlin Pieta homage is the 'Death of Captain Marvel' cover.

 

It's also clearly referencing the Pieta, rather than ripping it; hoping the viewer will make the visual connection between that classic piece and the newer work to establish Captain Marvel as a Christ-figure. IMO anyway.

 

considering that only a small percentage of the population would even know what the Pieta is, by the same argument that Lichtenstein should have credited Heath and others, Starlin should have credited the Pieta. That's my point. You can't argue one way when it goes for you, and the other way when it goes against. That's like an attorney taking two sides to a criminal case in two separate trials with 2 killers who are co-defendents in a third trail for the murder they did together.

 

I actually agree with you on Liechtenstein in general.

 

I don't agree with this particular point though. Anyone with any sort of art education or knowledge should recognize the Pieta. It's such an iconic work that crediting it would almost be insulting to the viewer.

 

Next to no one will recognize a random Russ Heath comic panel. Crediting it would simply be informing the viewer of something that there's no way they'd know otherwise.

 

Of course, giving credit wouldn't make sense in the context of Liechtenstein's work, but that's not the argument I'm trying to get into here.

[comix4fun]

The Starlin Pieta homage is the 'Death of Captain Marvel' cover.

 

It's also clearly referencing the Pieta, rather than ripping it; hoping the viewer will make the visual connection between that classic piece and the newer work to establish Captain Marvel as a Christ-figure. IMO anyway.

 

considering that only a small percentage of the population would even know what the Pieta is, by the same argument that Lichtenstein should have credited Heath and others, Starlin should have credited the Pieta. That's my point. You can't argue one way when it goes for you, and the other way when it goes against. That's like an attorney taking two sides to a criminal case in two separate trials with 2 killers who are co-defendents in a third trail for the murder they did together.

 

 

So there are people out there that don't know the Mona Lisa either?

 

You are comparing actual Icons of the art world with an image taken from a comic without attribution and calling them Icons on the same scale as the Pieta? Really?

 

The Pieta is the embodiment of "helplessness in the face of death".

 

The Death of Captain Marvel cover actually places DEATH in the place of Mary, and CM in the place of Jesus. Intentionally and overtly using an image of one of the most famous images on the planet. Not hiding it, intentionally using it to forward the specific narrative of that story. He only used that image BECAUSE it was the MOST FAMOUS image on the topic of death known to mankind.

 

No one is going to mistake Captain Marvel for Jesus, or the Skull face of Death for Mary.

 

There's a difference between using something globally known as a reference point in line with the story you are telling and taking something obscure and passing it off as your own, and not sharing the credit lest it diminish the "genius" of the work.

 

Again, put a Lichtenstein next to its source material and put The Pieta next to all the "swipes" as you call them. Which ones are alike and which ones differ from the source material the most. Which ones intentionally use the "icons" of the art world to forward their narrative.

[comicartcom]

another artist's work LINE FOR LINE and calling it your own.

 

I suggest you put the comic panels next to photos of the paintings and look at them closely, or even project one image over the other.. They do look to the untrained eye as if they are exact copies, but they are not and again, Lichtenstein wasn't copying, he used the iconography of the comic panels to achieve an emotional and intellectual response, which was to elevate the contextual imagery to a status it did not otherwise have.

 

Comix4fun.. there are dozens of "adaptations" of the Pieta and they vary from near-exact to influenced by. Using a single image from the lower end of the scale doesn't prove your point and it also completely misses my point, which is that for people to complain that someone made money from a potentially comic book "derivative", but to be 180 degrees away from that when it is comics being derivitive, are totally off-base. I also made the point that what goes in 1961 is not what goes in 2012 and vice-versa. This is a contextual aspect of the argument that is missing from a number of posts anti-Lichtenstein

 

 

"I can see the whole room.."

 

Look at them both, point out the material differences.

 

they are absolutely not line for line. take both images & impose one on the other. There are differences from missing lines to added lines to lines in the wrong place to not even exactly the same shape. They were not meant to be exact copies of anything. Moreover, these pieces are meant to be seen IN PERSON, not as small postcard sized pictures.

 

Look, I love comic art as much as the next guy. I didn't sell it for years as my major focus for nothing. But the facts are that I am not a "comic art fan", I am an "art fan" and that includes art of all kinds, from small drawings, to paintings, to street art, to architecture, sculpture, literature, film and on and on. I am also a historian of popular culture and this all means that I like to look at everything for it's individual attributes to it's cultural attributes. It's a whole package ideal.

 

Lichtenstein used something for iconography that at that time was looked at as complete garbage by 99% of the population. Comic books were throw-away products for children and this was the belief of the vast majority of people working on them. The fact that later the comic have become a major cultural artifact does not change the philosophical temperament of the day and that is a major aspect of a discussion of Lichtenstein and his source material

[comicartcom]

I don't agree with this particular point though. Anyone with any sort of art education or knowledge should recognize the Pieta.

 

only a small % of the population are art fans and regular comic book readers of the past and probably still today, are no different. That's the pont.. you have to take the entire post into account when you read any one line to get the real meaning of my statements..

[comicartcom]

Again, put a Lichtenstein next to its source material and put The Pieta next to all the "swipes" as you call them. Which ones are alike and which ones differ from the source material the most. Which ones intentionally use the "icons" of the art world to forward their narrative.

 

this is a ridiculous argument.. The point is and I have said this plainly.. Comic Books as a whole from it's inception in 1933 and right up until today is just as derivative of all other culture as all other culture are of comic books. Comic books have swiped, stolen, imitated and even copied directly material from other people since the beginning. It won't stop today, and we don't live in a vacuum..

 

I gotta run

[Nexus]

The one that's been done over and over again is the Crisis 7 pose not the Pieta one on the Death of CM cover, right?

 

Actually...the X-MEN #136 pose...

 

[comix4fun]

My problem is, Lichtenstein gets all the leeway and the stuff he used was "garbage" anyway (a favorite argument of infringers, btw) when his images most closely mimic, ape, copy, and swipe comic panels and you are saying that comic artists have no standing to complain because they use art influences and include them in their work?

 

There's a difference between being "influenced by" and creating something new and "appropriating" with minimal changes.

 

That's our disconnect. Common sense tells you how little Lichtenstein changed the items he appropriated and no amount of euphemistic, art school, doublespeak (repurpose, sourced, etc) can change how closely the images he used match the images on his canvases.

 

Just use your two eyes. It's easier than all these machinations and contortions people run through to justify and disprove what their eyes are showing them in clear and convincing ways.

 

Curators, Auction houses, and just about anyone else on a commission or with art holdings would argue to the contrary, but I never listen to anyone with a vested interest in making sure that the position they take matches their financial interest. That's what I hear from a lot of the art "professionals" when speaking on this topic.

 

Never listen to how great the used car is from the guy selling it to you.

[Solar]

I don't agree with this particular point though. Anyone with any sort of art education or knowledge should recognize the Pieta.

 

only a small % of the population are art fans and regular comic book readers of the past and probably still today, are no different. That's the pont.. you have to take the entire post into account when you read any one line to get the real meaning of my statements..

 

No. I get the real meaning of your statements...I just disagree.

[LastRaven]

The one that's been done over and over again is the Crisis 7 pose not the Pieta one on the Death of CM cover, right?

 

Actually...the X-MEN #136 pose...

 

 

I submit from here (

http://lcomics.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html#863502456873888967

Don't want to misappropriate, haha... funny)

 

 

Someone actually went through the trouble to collect quite a few here:

 

http://www.comicvine.com/homage-covers/12-43734/uncanny-x-men-136crisis-on-infinite-earths7/108-6977/

Edited May 14, 2012 by LastRaven

[malvin]

I don't like line by line rip offs, but I think some of these swipes are a stretch

 

How many ways can you show someone carrying a lifeless body?

 

How many ways can you show spidey swinging through buildings? After countless issues of spidey, I'm sure for a large majority of Spidey panels, someone can find something similar in an older comic, but it doesn't mean it was a swipe.

 

Malvin

 

 

[delekkerste]

Who knows that Russ Heath was the artist, exactly? 'Cause, apparently, even columnists quoted in the various Lichtenstein threads don't know that.

 

On the contrary, Russ Heath and other artists have been mentioned by name in many articles, even if a few freelancers who don't know anything about art may have indicated otherwise. It's not like the originals were such a revelation that even if Roy had titled his work "WHAAM! - based on an original comic art panel by Russ Heath" that people would have been busting Russ' door down, anymore than Andy Warhol made millionaires of the guys who designed Campbell Soup Cans and Brillo boxes. Rich is absolutely right - nobody, not even the artists or publishers themselves thought highly enough of these no-name, no-character panels to even challenge Lichtenstein legally at the time.

 

I also don't see why some people think riffing off the well-known "Pieta" is somehow better than riffing off a no-character, no-name comic panel. Lichtenstein appropriated so little of the whole and substantially changed what he borrowed in both form and purpose that I'm not sure even in today's litigious society (let alone the early 1960s) that a good lawyer wouldn't clear Roy of any charges regarding violation of Fair Use under the 1976 Copyright Act (Chris may disagree, but you can find legal opinions online that would support my assertion - at worst it's debatable and unclear). In fact, I wrote a whole paper about a similar case for a class in art law at NYU a couple of months ago - yes, I actually go to these lengths to study the legal/ethical aspects of art, as well as its aesthetics, history and cultural importance so I have all the facts from both sides and can speak intelligently to them instead of just from the heart or off the cuff.

 

 

Also, what about the counterpoint to the "Russ Heath would've been richer" argument: namely, would Roy have been considered such a "genius" if people had known from the beginning that his pieces were just rips of other artists' works?

 

You make it sound like it was some sort of deep, dark secret that Lichtenstein appropriated these images when, in fact, it was well known and well documented. People just didn't care because this art was considered to be disposable and would have just been lost to the dustbin of history (or so it was thought at the time) had Lichtenstein not done something with them. Furthermore, Lichtenstein riffed on numerous other artists than Russ Heath - Monet, Picasso, Mondrian, etc. But, as with the comic art, he did it his way to evoke a different aesthetic and point, just as he did with the comic strips.

 

To call these straight copies or bad copies also totally misses the point. You need to examine Lichtenstein in the context of the Pop Art movement and that period of art history - it may seem to some slighted comic fans as larceny in 2012, but, at the time, he helped break new ground and his importance and enduring influence on the art world and popular culture remains strong and undeniable. Regarding his early 1960s paintings, Lichtenstein broke ground with new ideas (the transformation of commercial objects and images - including everyday objects and advertisements, not just comic art), new techniques (utilizing Benday dots and other techniques to mimic industrial/commercial printing processes - some of you guys criticizing the alleged poor technique clearly need to do some research to at least find out what Lichtenstein's most basic motivations were!) and new contexts (e.g., focusing on women's issues or war issues outside of a romance or war comic book recontextualizes the image and sends out a very different message).

 

I can assure you that standing in front of a Lichtenstein painting evokes a very different set of thoughts and feelings than, say, reading a copy of "Secret Hearts" or "Our Army At War". To say that is just copying lines out of a comic book panel belies either real ignorance or an axe to grind on the part of the speaker, as is the implied notion that one cannot be a fan of both Lichtenstein and comic art because the former somehow slighted and condescended to the latter. I appreciate good artwork in whatever form it may take, and if it's good comic-themed artwork, so much the better. Would we even be having this conversation if Roy had credited all his sources and all the great '60s comic artists loved him for the attention he brought to the medium? It seems like most people here just hate everything he did because he seemed to be a bit of a jerk who didn't drink the comic art Kool-Aid but benefited tremendously from it (which, deeper study shows, is not wholly correct).

[Lebowski]

I also don't see why some people think riffing off the well-known "Pieta" is somehow better than riffing off a no-character, no-name comic panel.

 

Because there is no intent behind the riff on the Pieta to pass it off as one's own vision.

 

Lichtenstein appropriated so little of the whole and substantially changed what he borrowed...

 

Indeed, substantially changed...

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, I wrote a whole paper about a similar case for a class in art law at NYU a couple of months ago - yes, I actually go to these lengths to study the legal/ethical aspects of art, as well as its aesthetics, history and cultural importance so I have all the facts from both sides and can speak intelligently to them instead of just from the heart or off the cuff.

 

I didn't know we were supposed to submit our resumes at the door. Well, I have a BFA in photography, took many semesters of all kinds of art history classes ranging from ancient Greek to modern/contemporary, and have worked as an active professional in the graphic design field for over six years now. Am I qualified to speak intelligently on the matter?

 

I can assure you that standing in front of a Lichtenstein painting evokes a very different set of thoughts and feelings than, say, reading a copy of "Secret Hearts" or "Our Army At War".

 

Seen some at a show in Atlanta. Wasn't that impressed.