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

[alxjhnsn]

Whether or not RL is a genius, a thief, or both, any museum (or really any gallery) showing his comic based work really should acknowledge the source of the material.

 

It adds to the educational value to know the artist's sources and it acknowledges the work of the original artist.

 

At least, that's the way I feel about it and I'd feel that way if it were a Michelangelo or Da Vinci piece. It's good to know the inspiration or source.

[comix4fun]

Whether or not RL is a genius, a thief, or both, any museum (or really any gallery) showing his comic based work really should acknowledge the source of the material.

 

It adds to the educational value to know the artist's sources and it acknowledges the work of the original artist.

 

At least, that's the way I feel about it and I'd feel that way if it were a Michelangelo or Da Vinci piece. It's good to know the inspiration or source.

 

 

Especially in a circumstance such as these comic panels where the source is so closely tied to what he painted.

 

Excluding it makes the motive for doing so seem sinister.

 

What reason could they have for NOT including that attribution?

 

Are they worried it lessens the "genius" or diminishes the "masterpiece" if people knew how much these look like the original pieces, and in some cases, how SUPERIOR artistically the original pieces are to what RL came up with when he did decide to change a few things?

 

If this is truly about "transformation" and creating something special out of something mundane, and if I am supposed to believe all of the marketing-speak about how this is a commentary on something simple that, pulled out of context, means something more, then why not show what it was transformed from?

 

Give the person attempting to appreciate the artwork an honest and full disclosure of where the piece came from and let them make up their own mind of what it says to them, how it speaks to them.

 

There's nothing worse, more pretentious, more elitist than a gallery or critic thinking they know exactly what a piece of art means to everyone or what the "proper" meaning of a piece of art is to the point they will attempt to exclude potential alternative meanings. Art can mean a million different things to a million different people.

 

There's no reason to hide where a piece came from simply to shepherd them into carefully constructed holding pens of art appreciation, unless the reasons are monetary in nature.

[tth2]

...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!".

Beats the hell out of THIS conversation:

 

"Well gollee, Leroy, I just got me one of them there dogs playin` poker posters. It shore is purty!"

 

"What did ya`ll just say, Cletus? I can`t hear a danged thing you`re sayin` over the sound of them Nascars!"

[comix4fun]

...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!".

Beats the hell out of THIS conversation:

 

"Well gollee, Leroy, I just got me one of them there dogs playin` poker posters. It shore is purty!"

 

"What did ya`ll just say, Cletus? I can`t hear a danged thing you`re sayin` over the sound of them Nascars!"

 

 

Did you happen to see what the "dogs playing poker" original painting sold for at auction?

 

This conversation is happening across the income strata.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

I was speaking strictly from the point of view of whether it was art or not.

 

I do agree that if he borrowed heavily (and I personally agree that he did) that there should be some form of recognition and compensation...but it's very difficult to look back 4 decades and keep things in perspective.

 

As Aman said, he was taking images that were basically being thrown in the trash (literally) at the time and making "high art" out of them.

 

It's one thing to be there at the time and another to look back 5 decades now that comics are at the forefront of pop culture and analyze it...ironic considering RL was likely at the very least a small cog in making comics become an accepted art form.

 

Had his art been unsuccessful and comics all been destroyed and forgotten, would people still be having this argument?

 

Yes, he'd still have "copied" the original artists but with no $$ to speak of would people be as outraged?

 

It's a great discussion, and I love this thread.

 

Just wondering if it would be here if RL was nobody and comics were forgotten.

[VintageComics]

Whether or not RL is a genius, a thief, or both, any museum (or really any gallery) showing his comic based work really should acknowledge the source of the material.

 

It adds to the educational value to know the artist's sources and it acknowledges the work of the original artist.

 

At least, that's the way I feel about it and I'd feel that way if it were a Michelangelo or Da Vinci piece. It's good to know the inspiration or source.

 

 

Especially in a circumstance such as these comic panels where the source is so closely tied to what he painted.

 

Excluding it makes the motive for doing so seem sinister.

 

For the record, I'm agreeing with you guys.

 

(thumbs u

[comix4fun]

 

Just wondering if it would be here if RL was nobody and comics were forgotten.

 

 

 

Check out CBR's "Swipe File", it's discussed all the time.

 

In today's world, with image warehouses online, acute awareness of rights, and instant information transfer people don't get away with this stuff of more than 10 minutes.

 

There have been books pulled from the shelves for this kind of thing, etc.

 

What flew in the darkness of pre-internet age, doesn't fly in the bright light of day.

[VintageComics]

 

Just wondering if it would be here if RL was nobody and comics were forgotten.

 

 

 

Check out CBR's "Swipe File", it's discussed all the time.

 

In today's world, with image warehouses online, acute awareness of rights, and instant information transfer people don't get away with this stuff of more than 10 minutes.

 

There have been books pulled from the shelves for this kind of thing, etc.

 

What flew in the darkness of pre-internet age, doesn't fly in the bright light of day.

 

...that's sort of what I was getting at...I'm not saying it's OK but copyright and reproduction law evolves as society evolves. If I draw a stick man do I have to attribute it to a cave drawing?

 

I know stealing is stealing, I'm not arguing that it isn't.

 

I am curious as to what plagiarism (and similar) laws were like 40 or 50 years ago and have they changed over time to include things that at one time were not included?

 

I know people hate to hear this but it really can be a relative argument with a lot of grey area and it's when big money is involved that the grey areas become less grey and more black and white.

[comix4fun]

 

Just wondering if it would be here if RL was nobody and comics were forgotten.

 

 

 

Check out CBR's "Swipe File", it's discussed all the time.

 

In today's world, with image warehouses online, acute awareness of rights, and instant information transfer people don't get away with this stuff of more than 10 minutes.

 

There have been books pulled from the shelves for this kind of thing, etc.

 

What flew in the darkness of pre-internet age, doesn't fly in the bright light of day.

 

...that's sort of what I was getting at...I'm not saying it's OK but copyright and reproduction law evolves as society evolves. If I draw a stick man do I have to attribute it to a cave drawing?

 

I know stealing is stealing, I'm not arguing that it isn't.

 

I am curious as to what plagiarism (and similar) laws were like 40 or 50 years ago and have they changed over time to include things that at one time were not included?

 

I know people hate to hear this but it really can be a relative argument with a lot of grey area and it's when big money is involved that the grey areas become less grey and more black and white.

 

 

 

Some would lead you to believe the laws are drastically different, but they really aren't.

 

Perhaps they are easier to enforce, and easier to enforce internationally, and easier to renew rights overall however, those changes are the ones that have led to rights holders pursuing infringement.

 

The real change is in awareness. Awareness of what can be lost and what those rights are really potentially worth. Awareness of the downside of letting someone take what's yours without compensation has become abundantly clear.

 

The vigilance of protection of IP is what's really changed. Instead of sloughing off a potential infringement only to later see the infringing party make millions on your creation, rights holders come down hard and fast now to protect what's theirs.

[Romain]

It seems there must anti vs pro RL but IMHO we should be able to consider him as an artist who got a serious impact but who in the end should have credited his sources !!

 

I can understand the idea or concept of taking panels of these "meaningless comicbook" at the time ( I believe it was a great idea ! ) but why not simply accept comic book artists as artists and give them credits ??

[delekkerste]

Eddie Campbell (artist on From Hell) on Lichtenstein:

 

in 1968 there was an exhibition of comics at the Louvre, with lots of panels by caniff etc, blown up to canvas size. Horn and Couperie put together the book that went with it and you can still find that. I posit that this is an example of comics being taken seriously on the heels of the Pop art movement.

 

and yes, I'd agree that wasn't Lichtenstein's purpose. he was just looking at junk culture and questioning what's the difference between high and low. and as for the comics he picked, he was deliberately picking the lowest, not caniff or Rip Kirby or any 'name' stuff.

 

and as to which was 'drawn better', i think that's beside the point. There are levels of art. at a certain level it's about how well made the thing is, at a higher level it's about ideas, and the dialogue a society is having with itself. And at that level it is quite irrelevant to talk about skill i think. But yes, a lot of the anonymous stuff is probably more skilful.

 

This sounds to me like what Charles Rosen was warning against in the quote. It's easy to express that high moral attitude now, after comic book artists have fought for their rights over many years, and in the field of music the owners of songs have asserted their rights, and the credit lines at the ends of movies go on for ten minutes.

 

by all means establish legislation that protects intellectual property, but it (all intellectual property... there was a time remember when the concept didn't exist, and in the intervening time it advanced through shades of grey) ... only came to be regarded as such after many years of debate, and it could also be argued that 'High Art's recognition of comics as art, per se (hi, Percy)... contributed to the good. Lichtenstein always asserted that comic book art was art. That's all history. To make heroes and villains out of it is like comic book morality.

 

To do it now is unnacceptable (see the Hughes article linked above) because the goal posts have been shifted, but you can't go retroactively applying that.

 

I was thinking about another moving of goal posts. Today you can't play another person's song in a public performance without dutifully coughing up. But a hundred years ago the income was all derived from sheet music so the owner of the song wanted it to be publically performed by as many stars as possible so ordinary people would want to play it at home on the piano. Nowadays nobody buys sheet music, so the whole game has to work differently. Micropayments for every performance.

 

With RL it's really about quotation. He's lifting one panel out of a whole comic and 'performing' it in a completely different way. It might be like the London Philharmonic doing an disc of adaptations of popular tunes in new arrangements. Okay , so they pay the royalty. but it wasn't always so.

 

As for crediting the original artist. Don't forget that the owner of the art, DC comics mostly, didn't give credit either. Another example of the goal posts moving. Does that change the value of the panel. We probably can't know because we can't go back to 1959 (or whenever he made the first one).

 

There's evidence that William Overgard was pissed, but he was a syndicated strip artist who signed all his work. But this seems terribly small minded to me.

[Sharkey]

I'm digging this topic (Lichtentstein) and this thread for a number of reasons:

It's controversial, it's getting people fired up and excited, and regardless of how you feel about Lichetenstein and what he did, he is ALL OVER the news and bringing attention to the comic art world (and market).

 

I like his work. I liked it the first time I saw it in the 1980s in an art store in Iowa City, Iowa (when I wasn't going to tractor pulls and NASCAR with my cousins Cletus and Skeeter )

 

I'd like to see the artists he used get credit for what was used.

 

Whether you like it or not, the reality is that not long ago, comic art was not thought of very highly other than a very small group of collectors who decided they thought this stuff was pretty darned cool, intresting, and deserved the respect of owning it AND DISPLAYING IT.

 

And that's a point I'm going to harp on. How many of the people commenting in this thread actually display the art they own, vs keeping it in portfolios in a closet or under your bed? TAKE IT OUT, GET IT FRAMED, AND LOOK AT IT! APPRECIATE IT! It's art, fer cryin' out loud.

 

Sorry to shout, but I'm passionate about this. One of the reasons I started buying art in the 1990s was because I was sick of owning a bunch of comic books that I was afraid to read and page through for fear of bending a corner and "ruining" them. They sat in boxes in a closet, and I bought trade paperbacks and Masterworks so I could READ them. How ridiculous. So I started selling them off and buying art, and I framed that art and hung it all over my house so I can look at it and appreciate it every day. I love the conversations it starts when someone comes to my office at work and sees one of my Marvel's Greatest Comics production covers on the wall and I can educate them about comic art. Everybody who sees that stuff thinks it's cool but they are typically ignorant of the fact that it was actually hand-drawn by very talented people who, up until recently, got very little respect for the craft they labored in.

 

Whether or not you think Lichtenstein stole other people's work, the fact that what he did is considered "high art" is helping to put this art form into the mainstream. It's helping this medium get respect.

 

Because the truth is, decades ago very few people thought of comic art as a respectable art form. And dammit, I'm thrilled to see all the press Lichtenstein is getting, both for his work in and of itself, the attention it's bringing to those artists that he took from, and the controversies surrounding it.

 

Did you see the article today in the WSJ on Kirby? FANTASTIC!! The guy is getting credit in the mainstream media! IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!!

I'm starting a new thread about this:

Kirby gets some credit in the WSJ!

 

[VintageComics]

Eddie Campbell (artist on From Hell) on Lichtenstein:

 

in 1968 there was an exhibition of comics at the Louvre, with lots of panels by caniff etc, blown up to canvas size. Horn and Couperie put together the book that went with it and you can still find that. I posit that this is an example of comics being taken seriously on the heels of the Pop art movement.

 

and yes, I'd agree that wasn't Lichtenstein's purpose. he was just looking at junk culture and questioning what's the difference between high and low. and as for the comics he picked, he was deliberately picking the lowest, not caniff or Rip Kirby or any 'name' stuff.

 

and as to which was 'drawn better', i think that's beside the point. There are levels of art. at a certain level it's about how well made the thing is, at a higher level it's about ideas, and the dialogue a society is having with itself. And at that level it is quite irrelevant to talk about skill i think. But yes, a lot of the anonymous stuff is probably more skilful.

 

This sounds to me like what Charles Rosen was warning against in the quote. It's easy to express that high moral attitude now, after comic book artists have fought for their rights over many years, and in the field of music the owners of songs have asserted their rights, and the credit lines at the ends of movies go on for ten minutes.

 

by all means establish legislation that protects intellectual property, but it (all intellectual property... there was a time remember when the concept didn't exist, and in the intervening time it advanced through shades of grey) ... only came to be regarded as such after many years of debate, and it could also be argued that 'High Art's recognition of comics as art, per se (hi, Percy)... contributed to the good. Lichtenstein always asserted that comic book art was art. That's all history. To make heroes and villains out of it is like comic book morality.

 

To do it now is unnacceptable (see the Hughes article linked above) because the goal posts have been shifted, but you can't go retroactively applying that.

 

I was thinking about another moving of goal posts. Today you can't play another person's song in a public performance without dutifully coughing up. But a hundred years ago the income was all derived from sheet music so the owner of the song wanted it to be publically performed by as many stars as possible so ordinary people would want to play it at home on the piano. Nowadays nobody buys sheet music, so the whole game has to work differently. Micropayments for every performance.

 

With RL it's really about quotation. He's lifting one panel out of a whole comic and 'performing' it in a completely different way. It might be like the London Philharmonic doing an disc of adaptations of popular tunes in new arrangements. Okay , so they pay the royalty. but it wasn't always so.

 

As for crediting the original artist. Don't forget that the owner of the art, DC comics mostly, didn't give credit either. Another example of the goal posts moving. Does that change the value of the panel. We probably can't know because we can't go back to 1959 (or whenever he made the first one).

 

There's evidence that William Overgard was pissed, but he was a syndicated strip artist who signed all his work. But this seems terribly small minded to me.

 

Exactly what I was trying to say. It's tough to perceive was the 1960's were like unless this topic was broached in that time period.

 

(thumbs u

[Rip]

Whether or not RL is a genius, a thief, or both, any museum (or really any gallery) showing his comic based work really should acknowledge the source of the material.

 

It adds to the educational value to know the artist's sources and it acknowledges the work of the original artist.

 

At least, that's the way I feel about it and I'd feel that way if it were a Michelangelo or Da Vinci piece. It's good to know the inspiration or source.

 

I know many galleries,text books, and classes do give the sources.

At least from what I remember in the early 90's.

If I remember correctly the SFMOMA certainly does give context when I saw his work there.

 

I remember looking through my Art History book tracking down the original books.

 

I don't find anything sinister in the slightest. Anymore than AW's soup cans.

 

I can't image how the conversation would be if a stickier subject like Jeff Koons was brought into the debate. (Who I also like as an artist)

 

EDIT: Well except for some of his later stuff. I think he was a little too much into his wife to think straight.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rip

[comix4fun]

Eddie Campbell (artist on From Hell) on Lichtenstein:

 

 

 

by all means establish legislation that protects intellectual property, but it (all intellectual property... there was a time remember when the concept didn't exist, and in the intervening time it advanced through shades of grey) ... only came to be regarded as such after many years of debate, and it could also be argued that 'High Art's recognition of comics as art, per se (hi, Percy)... contributed to the good. Lichtenstein always asserted that comic book art was art. That's all history. To make heroes and villains out of it is like comic book morality.

 

To do it now is unnacceptable (see the Hughes article linked above) because the goal posts have been shifted, but you can't go retroactively applying that.

 

 

Eddie's not saying copyright law didn't exist in the sixties is he?

 

 

 

With RL it's really about quotation. He's lifting one panel out of a whole comic and 'performing' it in a completely different way.

 

Completely Different Way?

 

To quote a great philosopher " I don't think 'Completely Different', means what you think it means."

 

 

 

 

As for crediting the original artist. Don't forget that the owner of the art, DC comics mostly, didn't give credit either. Another example of the goal posts moving. Does that change the value of the panel. We probably can't know because we can't go back to 1959 (or whenever he made the first one).

 

So because it wasn't necessarily clear in 1959 (but for the record was crystal clear within a year or two of that time) who the artist was on an appropriated piece that makes it ok, FOR ALL TIME, to ignore attribution when it was clear that there was a human being that created a piece of art that you are stepping over to get to your goal?

 

If it was common in 1959 for one publisher to not necessarily publish the artist's name, that means he didn't create the work? That means you can pass off a piece as your own, without any source quoted, forever? At no time it becomes the right thing to do to include a source so closely linked to a particular piece?

 

 

There's evidence that William Overgard was pissed, but he was a syndicated strip artist who signed all his work. But this seems terribly small minded to me.[/i]

 

Is he calling William Overgard small minded? For what possible reason?

 

Who in the hell is going to roll over and be pleased that someone took his work, called it their own, and never gave a shred of credit voluntarily?

 

What kind of artist is HAPPY about having their work taken without compensation or credit? Small minded? What?

 

 

[Rip]

Yes it's a completely different way.

It's vastly different, about as much as a real pipe and a painting of a pipe.

Each has a different use and each tells a far different story.

 

Many here seem unwilling to understand its new context.

 

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rip

[metropoliscomics]

This whole thread is a lesson in the value of marketing. The attempt to understand and analyze the talent of one artist vs. another artist is moot.

 

Clearly it boils down to the marketing and packaging of Lichtenstein vs. any given comic book artist from the same period. No comparison. in the 60's, Lichtenstein was marketed to a very influential crowd while Kirby served a demographic comprised of kids and young adults.

 

I knew Lichtenstein and sold him comic books on a few occasions. He was no better artist than a Ditko or Romita. But at the end of the day, it does not really matter.

 

Stephen

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

Yes it's a completely different way.

It's vastly different, about as much as a real pipe and a painting of a pipe.

Each has a different use and each tells a far different story.

 

Many here seem unwilling to understand its new context.

 

 

 

The real pipe, painting of a pipe is a faulty analogy when we are talking about dual artistic renderings of an image that are rather similar.

 

This isn't a "real girl' and the "drawing of a girl."

 

It's a "drawing of a girl" and a "drawing of a girl."

 

It's the same format of visual media, it's a two dimensional artistic rendering, in cartoon form.

 

It's not a tangible, 3 dimensional item that is now a painting.

 

Many are unwilling to admit, even on the most basic level, how very very similar many of these images are. As if, the admission of the source material, and how intangible these purported changes are will somehow undermine this carefully crafted marketing "house of cards."

 

Making it larger, and hanging it in a gallery does not change the basic essence of the image you are looking at, certainly not enough to call it "Completely Different".

 

 

[Rip]

Yes it's a completely different way.

It's vastly different, about as much as a real pipe and a painting of a pipe.

Each has a different use and each tells a far different story.

 

Many here seem unwilling to understand its new context.

 

 

 

The real pipe, painting of a pipe is a faulty analogy when we are talking about dual artistic renderings of an image that are rather similar.

 

This isn't a "real girl' and the "drawing of a girl."

 

It's a "drawing of a girl" and a "drawing of a girl."

 

It's the same format of visual media, it's a two dimensional artistic rendering, in cartoon form.

 

It's not a tangible, 3 dimensional item that is now a painting.

 

Many are unwilling to admit, even on the most basic level, how very very similar many of these images are. As if, the admission of the source material, and how intangible these purported changes are will somehow undermine this carefully crafted marketing "house of cards."

 

Making it larger, and hanging it in a gallery does not change the basic essence of the image you are looking at, certainly not enough to call it "Completely Different".

 

The problem is 2D vs 3D doesn't really matter. The uses for a pipe and a painting of a pipe are completely different. As different as the use of the frame to tell a romance story in a comic book vs a frame blown up taken out of its context to be apart of a greater dialog about modern artwork. (Among other things)

 

An admission of the source material can be glorified if one wants but detracts nothing from the piece.

 

I used René Magritte because it IS a simple example of a much greater art dialog that is missing in the understanding of the context of the piece under discussion.

 

[VintageComics]

This whole thread is a lesson in the value of marketing. The attempt to understand and analyze the talent of one artist vs. another artist is moot.

 

Clearly it boils down to the marketing and packaging of Lichtenstein vs. any given comic book artist from the same period. No comparison. in the 60's, Lichtenstein was marketed to a very influential crowd while Kirby served a demographic comprised of kids and young adults.

 

I knew Lichtenstein and sold him comic books on a few occasions. He was no better artist than a Ditko or Romita. But at the end of the day, it does not really matter.

 

Stephen

 

 

 

 

That is what I've been saying all along.

 

Marketing (and it's perception) is just as important as talent in the world of art.