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

[CollectingFool]

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

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

 

And for those that didn't feel like reading, this is the best part of the article for me, the link to the side by side comparisons.

 

http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html

 

 

 

[alxjhnsn]

I never thought about the fact that David Baraslou didn't cite the source works - Title and Page or show the entire page. That would be nice.

[delekkerste]

Indeed, substantially changed...

 

As if blowing up the one and shrinking the other to the same size on an HTML page is the best way to compare the two. Nobody is denying for a millisecond that Roy didn't appropriate the examples on the left, and that's all that this bogus comparison "proves".

 

 

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?

 

No need for anyone to present their credentials at the door, but it's clear that many people here are speaking from the position of an aggrieved comic fan, as a lot of the statements against Lichtenstein don't make any sense in light of even the most basic facts that are known about the artist and his motivations.

 

 

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

 

I've seen dozens (and not just the comic work) in museums around the world and I have been impressed, as have millions of other people, many of whom are comic book fans and actually think it's cool that the subject matter can and is taken seriously by a lot of people. Some will bemoan that it shouldn't take a Lichtenstein for this material to be taken seriously, but that just speaks to their own opinions, insecurities and axes to grind. Which, I reiterate, would probably be a hell of a lot less had Roy been a nice guy who doled out credit and made friends with the artists of the day (again, if no one else was up in arms about what happened, would anyone here really be either?) It doesn't make the work any less important or meaningful, though, and even most of the appropriated artists seem to have gotten over the fact more than the indignant people on this Board.

[Lebowski]

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, not to try to spurn any ill will (I appreciate scholarly debate from all perspectives), but have you ever taken an art studio class or actively engaged in producing art? Can you speak intelligently on being in a darkroom until 2 am finishing a series of photos? Or spending hours making a sand mold, only to be left praying that, as you pour molten iron fresh out of the cupola, that it doesn't burst at the seams? Or ripping through sheets of thumbnails trying to nail down your composition before starting a large watercolor painting?

 

Again, my point is not to stir up any sort of class warfare type of situation, but it seems to me that until you've literally sweated and bled into a piece of art, then you lack a critical piece of this complicated issue: the feelings of the artist.

[comicartcom]

Lebowski, I haven't done all of that, but I have done some of that. However I do not believe that someone who has done none of it must have less of an appreciation or less of an insight than people who do. There are people on both sides of your equation who do and don't have the ability to critique, so it's another poor example.

 

In Gene's defense.. I believe he was once or still is on the art approporiating panel of the Guggenheim Museum in NYC. KNowing his appreciation of art, and this little tidbit I think makes him eminently skilled to make the observations and comments he has made throughout this thread and the others relating to this subject.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2012 by comicartcom

[delekkerste]

Thanks, Rich. I agree - a lot of art historians, dealers/gallerists, critics, collectors, curators, etc. probably haven't done a lot of those things either, so I'm not really sure what the relevance is. I can tell you that my girlfriend of many years is a trained and practicing artist who comes from a very modest background and who has shed blood, sweet, tears and more for her craft, so I'm not far removed from the feelings and emotions that a struggling artist experiences.

 

And, yes, I have been actively involved at the Guggenheim Museum for many years, including sitting on one of their acquisitions committees. I could cite a long list of relevant education and experiences to go on top of that, but my point is not to toot my own horn but rather to show that I've actually studied all sides of the issue at hand while many of the comments in these threads show that some clearly have not (some have even been rather unapologetic about that fact). It's not like I don't recognize where a lot of people here are coming from, because I felt similarly at one point - that is, before I actually educated myself on the topic. My opinion changed when I studied the facts with an open mind - perhaps some of yours would do likewise.

[Lebowski]

My intention was neither to disparage or diminish, but rather to expound upon the fact that differing experiences and backgrounds create differing perspectives. As is the case in most debates, though, people are only becoming more entrenched in their own viewpoints. And, as I clearly do not have the breeding required to speak on such topics, I will take my leave.

 

As Sam Elliot once spoke so eloquently, "Sometimes you eat the b'ar, and sometimes, well, he eats you."

[AtlasFan]

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.

 

That sure sounds like a lot of that thar "long-hair" artsy-fartsy talk. I guess if you say it enough to yourself, and you are in a group of like-minded goatee-bearded, beret-wearing folks who are saying the same thing - I guess you start to believe it.

 

Where I comes from, we have a saying...no matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.

 

 

[delekkerste]

That sure sounds like a lot of that thar "long-hair" artsy-fartsy talk. I guess if you say it enough to yourself, and you are in a group of like-minded goatee-bearded, beret-wearing folks who are saying the same thing - I guess you start to believe it.

 

Preserved for posterity.

[comix4fun]

That sure sounds like a lot of that thar "long-hair" artsy-fartsy talk. I guess if you say it enough to yourself, and you are in a group of like-minded goatee-bearded, beret-wearing folks who are saying the same thing - I guess you start to believe it.

 

Preserved for posterity.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's embarrassing, he completely forgot about the long cigarette holders.

 

 

 

 

 

People get on me for lawyer-speak all the time in casual situations, so I feel your pain.

 

[Rip]

That sure sounds like a lot of that thar "long-hair" artsy-fartsy talk. I guess if you say it enough to yourself, and you are in a group of like-minded goatee-bearded, beret-wearing folks who are saying the same thing - I guess you start to believe it.

 

Preserved for posterity.

 

 

 

Yeah, that's embarrassing, he completely forgot about the long cigarette holders.

 

 

 

 

 

People get on me for lawyer-speak all the time in casual situations, so I feel your pain.

 

This would be a fun debate to jump into, but I think I need to shave and get a hair cut first.

 

One thing is for sure that crying girl sure has a hot

[comicartcom]

That sure sounds like a lot of that thar "long-hair" artsy-fartsy talk. I guess if you say it enough to yourself, and you are in a group of like-minded goatee-bearded, beret-wearing folks who are saying the same thing - I guess you start to believe it.

 

Preserved for posterity.

 

I'm glad you got here before me...

 

[Aman619]

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, not to try to spurn any ill will (I appreciate scholarly debate from all perspectives), but have you ever taken an art studio class or actively engaged in producing art? Can you speak intelligently on being in a darkroom until 2 am finishing a series of photos? Or spending hours making a sand mold, only to be left praying that, as you pour molten iron fresh out of the cupola, that it doesn't burst at the seams? Or ripping through sheets of thumbnails trying to nail down your composition before starting a large watercolor painting?

 

Again, my point is not to stir up any sort of class warfare type of situation, but it seems to me that until you've literally sweated and bled into a piece of art, then you lack a critical piece of this complicated issue: the feelings of the artist.

 

It's interesting that you state your artistic experiences as giving you the insights and opinions you stated about Lichty. I have been reading this thread and gotten frustrated that all the anti Lichty people are clearly NOT artists, and come across as just comics fans bemoaning the theft of a few meaningless panels in long forgotten funny books issues.

 

But as an artist, I'm baffled that you aren't on Lichtensteins side! As an artist I'd think you'd celebrate Roy's creative rethinking of the comics medium. I do. I'm an artist and view these paintings as great successes. More and more over the years. To come up with an idea, and spend the hours and hours (as you do) perfecting my craft in making these canvases, is something we all dream about. Most of us all make a living or a great living as commercial artists never daring to take the main stage of ART. Lichtenstein did, and he came with a daring creative and bold approach that tied in low art and high art.

 

I'd think you'd appreciate the larger theme and creativity of that and not the work for hire paid by the hour artistic reality of the type you mention, that 98% of all artists like us deal with every day.

 

He took something throwaway, forced society to look at it with new eyes, and made people think differently about it! THey said back in art school that painting was dead. This was a way of saying that art was now about ideas, not brushstrokes. Lichtenstein was a player in the efforts that made that kind of thinking a reality.

 

And I thought I was done with this subject.

 

 

As for Delly, sure he's an academic that discusses art, studies art, buys art and appreciates it but doesn't make art. But he gets it! Why don't you toiling in the trenches? Do you identify so much with the comics guys who "got ripped off?" over the guy who took it to a whole new level? Russ Heath is one of my favorites. He's an amazing draughtsman. But his dreams were small. Different men. Different goals. I don't think he lost sleep over some fancy pants artists who showed him a new way to look at his long forgotten panels he banged out at midnight many years ago for a lousy paycheck. I hunk he said to friends at parties! Gee why didn't I think of that? And laughed.

 

THen cried a bit when things were slow, but took pride in his talents that afforded him a good living.

Edited May 16, 2012 by aman619

[CollectingFool]

He took something throwaway, forced society to look at it with new eyes, and made people think differently about it!

 

I am not an artist but for me it's statements like this that make me automatically want to attack "Lichty's" art. You just said you couldn't understand how artists don't "get it". Well, as an artist, how can you call someone else's work throw away? IMO most pop art is not great or even good art. It's 99% hype. It was a novel idea and had one or two examples been created to make a point it would have been an interesting footnote. I'm sure most people here that object to the adulation and millions heaped upon Lichty wouldn't be as upset if the community that embraces him wasn't so dismissive of the source material.

 

How would the art world react to a photographer going to an artist's show (someone the art world elite embraces), photographing the artwork (in a specialized, artistic style) then published the prints? Yes, they are visually different but obviously derived from someone else's work. Would the gallery be happy about it? Would the artist be? How would fans of the artist react if the photographer said "the source material was throw away, I'm the real artist by forcing society to see it with new eyes."

 

This is a circular argument that will never end. I wanted to avoid contributing to the thread but I found it... funny?... to see an artist calling out other artists for not getting Lichty in one breath and calling comic artist's work "throw away" with another.

 

 

[Sharkey]

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, not to try to spurn any ill will (I appreciate scholarly debate from all perspectives), but have you ever taken an art studio class or actively engaged in producing art? Can you speak intelligently on being in a darkroom until 2 am finishing a series of photos? Or spending hours making a sand mold, only to be left praying that, as you pour molten iron fresh out of the cupola, that it doesn't burst at the seams? Or ripping through sheets of thumbnails trying to nail down your composition before starting a large watercolor painting?

 

Again, my point is not to stir up any sort of class warfare type of situation, but it seems to me that until you've literally sweated and bled into a piece of art, then you lack a critical piece of this complicated issue: the feelings of the artist.

 

It's interesting that you state your artistic experiences as giving you the insights and opinions you stated about Lichty. I have been reading this thread and gotten frustrated that all the anti Lichty people are clearly NOT artists, and come across as just comics fans bemoaning the theft of a few meaningless panels in long forgotten funny books issues.

 

But as an artist, I'm baffled that you aren't on Lichtensteins side! As an artist I'd think you'd celebrate Roy's creative rethinking of the comics medium. I do. I'm an artist and view these paintings as great successes. More and more over the years. To come up with an idea, and spend the hours and hours (as you do) perfecting my craft in making these canvases, is something we all dream about. Most of us all make a living or a great living as commercial artists never daring to take the main stage of ART. Lichtenstein did, and he came with a daring creative and bold approach that tied in low art and high art.

 

I'd think you'd appreciate the larger theme and creativity of that and not the work for hire paid by the hour artistic reality of the type you mention, that 98% of all artists like us deal with every day.

 

He took something throwaway, forced society to look at it with new eyes, and made people think differently about it! THey said back in art school that painting was dead. This was a way of saying that art was now about ideas, not brushstrokes. Lichtenstein was a player in the efforts that made that kind of thinking a reality.

 

And I thought I was done with this subject.

 

 

As for Delly, sure he's an academic that discusses art, studies art, buys art and appreciates it but doesn't make art. But he gets it! Why don't you toiling in the trenches? Do you identify so much with the comics guys who "got ripped off?" over the guy who took it to a whole new level? Russ Heath is one of my favorites. He's an amazing draughtsman. But his dreams were small. Different men. Different goals. I don't think he lost sleep over some fancy pants artists who showed him a new way to look at his long forgotten panels he banged out at midnight many years ago for a lousy paycheck. I hunk he said to friends at parties! Gee why didn't I think of that? And laughed.

 

THen cried a bit when things were slow, but took pride in his talents that afforded him a good living.

 

+1

 

 

[AtlasFan]

...Lichtenstein did, and he came with a daring creative and bold approach that tied in low art and high art.

 

This is the kind of high-brow talk that really gets my goat...in this day and age, where does someone get off calling comic book art "low"? I can hear them now saying: "I say, ol' boy that Lichtenstein is a genius! He took lemons and made not lemonade, but champagne!".

 

Even if RL had created a panel of his very own (and had not lifted it from the lowly comic book artist) its just one image frozen in time. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to really get out of it other than an image of a really big panel from a comic book?

 

A good comic book artist has a "director's eye" and is able to put together a series of images to tell a story - something RL had never done.

 

Frazetta (who was scoffed at by the high brow art community) said that he found it much easier to create a painting with a single image than to create an entire comic book story.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

He took something throwaway, forced society to look at it with new eyes, and made people think differently about it!

 

I am not an artist but for me it's statements like this that make me automatically want to attack "Lichty's" art. You just said you couldn't understand how artists don't "get it". Well, as an artist, how can you call someone else's work throw away? IMO most pop art is not great or even good art. It's 99% hype. It was a novel idea and had one or two examples been created to make a point it would have been an interesting footnote. I'm sure most people here that object to the adulation and millions heaped upon Lichty wouldn't be as upset if the community that embraces him wasn't so dismissive of the source material.

 

How would the art world react to a photographer going to an artist's show (someone the art world elite embraces), photographing the artwork (in a specialized, artistic style) then published the prints? Yes, they are visually different but obviously derived from someone else's work. Would the gallery be happy about it? Would the artist be? How would fans of the artist react if the photographer said "the source material was throw away, I'm the real artist by forcing society to see it with new eyes."

 

This is a circular argument that will never end. I wanted to avoid contributing to the thread but I found it... funny?... to see an artist calling out other artists for not getting Lichty in one breath and calling comic artist's work "throw away" with another.

 

 

I think there are 2 points that are worth addressing in your post.

 

1) All work is derivative. Nothing is truly original. Each generation is inspired by the previous one. So at what point do you draw a line and say derivative is now a copy?

 

2) I believe what Aman meant by "throw away" was that the art was published in children's comic magazines that were indeed throw way. They were read, traded, drawn in, rolled up and thrown away. I don't think he was talking about the art itself, he was talking about the delivery medium (a throw away comic book) that was preserved in a way that it could not be thrown away (a studio wall).

 

I wrote this in another thread but I think it's worth repeating: a successful artist is one who has a talent AND the ability to find a target market and touch it. It's more than just good art, it's bringing to the forefront something that society either wants or needs to see at that point in time.

 

While Lichenstein did borrow heavily, he also took something that was for the most part forgotten (a panel from a comic that had over 1MIL issues published, let's say) and put it into the forefront of the art world.

 

The original artists didn't do that. They couldn't do that. Otherwise they would have done it.

 

Love it or hate it, successful art is a combination of talent and marketing and RL had both.

[VintageComics]

...Lichtenstein did, and he came with a daring creative and bold approach that tied in low art and high art.

 

This is the kind of high-brow talk that really gets my goat...in this day and age, where does someone get off calling comic book art "low"? I can hear them now saying: "I say, ol' boy that Lichtenstein is a genius! He took lemons and made not lemonade, but champagne!".

 

But comics were considered "low art" at one time. They were looked down upon, thrown out (thank god for moms throwing out kids comics making your books all the more valuable today), smudged with food and donated for pulp.

 

They were made to be throw away magazines, never to be remembered. The fact that they started to be collected and remain as a part of pop culture was very much evolutionary and not intended.

 

 

Like it or hate it, Lichenstein also had a part in planting comics as a part of pop culture just as much as the comics themselves did.

[comix4fun]

He took something throwaway, forced society to look at it with new eyes, and made people think differently about it!

 

I am not an artist but for me it's statements like this that make me automatically want to attack "Lichty's" art. You just said you couldn't understand how artists don't "get it". Well, as an artist, how can you call someone else's work throw away? IMO most pop art is not great or even good art. It's 99% hype. It was a novel idea and had one or two examples been created to make a point it would have been an interesting footnote. I'm sure most people here that object to the adulation and millions heaped upon Lichty wouldn't be as upset if the community that embraces him wasn't so dismissive of the source material.

 

How would the art world react to a photographer going to an artist's show (someone the art world elite embraces), photographing the artwork (in a specialized, artistic style) then published the prints? Yes, they are visually different but obviously derived from someone else's work. Would the gallery be happy about it? Would the artist be? How would fans of the artist react if the photographer said "the source material was throw away, I'm the real artist by forcing society to see it with new eyes."

 

This is a circular argument that will never end. I wanted to avoid contributing to the thread but I found it... funny?... to see an artist calling out other artists for not getting Lichty in one breath and calling comic artist's work "throw away" with another.

 

 

I think there are 2 points that are worth addressing in your post.

 

1) All work is derivative. Nothing is truly original. Each generation is inspired by the previous one. So at what point do you draw a line and say derivative is now a copy?

 

2) I believe what Aman meant by "throw away" was that the art was published in children's comic magazines that were indeed throw way. They were read, traded, drawn in, rolled up and thrown away. I don't think he was talking about the art itself, he was talking about the delivery medium (a throw away comic book) that was preserved in a way that it could not be thrown away (a studio wall).

 

I wrote this in another thread but I think it's worth repeating: a successful artist is one who has a talent AND the ability to find a target market and touch it. It's more than just good art, it's bringing to the forefront something that society either wants or needs to see at that point in time.

 

While Lichenstein did borrow heavily, he also took something that was for the most part forgotten (a panel from a comic that had over 1MIL issues published, let's say) and put it into the forefront of the art world.

 

The original artists didn't do that. They couldn't do that. Otherwise they would have done it.

 

Love it or hate it, successful art is a combination of talent and marketing and RL had both.

 

 

None of which makes any of it less an infringement of intellectual property rights (whomever those rights holders may be). Successful marketing doesn't equate or negate actual creation of the source material, without which there would be nothing to "transform."

 

These original creators deserve more than being thrown away along with credit for what they created. The hubris of "well it's high art now" and the dismissive attitude some have that it wasn't a creation before, worthy of attribution, is extraordinarily distasteful.

 

As for the notion that all artists should appreciate what RL did, I wonder how the writer of a manuscript that saw limited publication (maybe in a throw away high school publication) should feel about that same story altered very slightly, perhaps changing character names or adding DOTS all over the place, being made into a best selling novel without attribution, credit, or compensation.

 

Infringement is infringement regardless of advertising/marketing speak, most of which is perpetuated by those with something to gain from the sale of such pieces and something to lose if common sense and knowledge of global copyright law were to seep into the collective thought process.

 

I understand the gallery owners, auction houses, and critics holding these views. They have jobs to protect. Everyone else that drinks this koolaid and buys this analysis carefully crafted to perpetuate a multimillion dollar art market built on the backs of other artist's work? Well, Freddie Mercury can't stop laughing from the beyond.

[CollectingFool]

I had a long response written and trashed it. It's a waste of time, we'll never see eye to eye. I understand your point, just really don't agree. No need for me to keep rehashing the same point looking for different ways to word it.