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

[comix4fun]

I still find it puzzling how people can push past the intellectually insulting (IMO) nature of his work.

 

It's only intellectually insulting if you think that (a) comic book art in general is too low-brow to be considered fine art, even transformed by someone like Lichtenstein or (b) you make no distinction between the original and Lichtenstein's version, viewing the latter as just a stolen copy. Obviously, the anti-RL people here fall into the latter camp, though you can't help but wonder if there is some insecurity about the former that causes them to adamantly argue, if implicitly, that all comic book art should be considered worthy of being fine art.

 

Lichtenstein took panels from disposable, throwaway entertainment and gave them a voice of their own blown-up in his trademarked style, cropped and with slight alterations, displayed in a gallery (and later museums). Those panels in their original form served only to advance a readily forgettable storyline aimed at gung-ho teenage boys and hormonal teenage girls. In the gallery, they served to highlight the horrors of war and women's issues in a heavily male-dominated society in the 1960s. They affected the entire cultural landscape - and that's to say nothing of the Pop Art revolution in general, advancing the language of art with new subjects and techniques. To equate that impact and worth with the original is preposterous. Fine, give credit where it's due regarding the original inspiration, but let's give Lichtenstein his due as well instead of marginalizing him and insulting the entire mainstream art world as being a bunch of beret-sporting, cigarillo-smoking, black turtleneck-wearing dupes. :doh:

 

 

 

Hey!!

That's not true.

 

I never said they smoked cigarillos!!

 

[Lebowski]

ACTING!

 

[chrisco37]

I still find it puzzling how people can push past the intellectually insulting (IMO) nature of his work.

 

It's only intellectually insulting if you think that (a) comic book art in general is too low-brow to be considered fine art, even transformed by someone like Lichtenstein or (b) you make no distinction between the original and Lichtenstein's version, viewing the latter as just a stolen copy. Obviously, the anti-RL people here fall into the latter camp, though you can't help but wonder if there is some insecurity about the former that causes them to adamantly argue, if implicitly, that all comic book art should be considered worthy of being fine art.

 

Lichtenstein took panels from disposable, throwaway entertainment and gave them a voice of their own blown-up in his trademarked style, cropped and with slight alterations, displayed in a gallery (and later museums). Those panels in their original form served only to advance a readily forgettable storyline aimed at gung-ho teenage boys and hormonal teenage girls. In the gallery, they served to highlight the horrors of war and women's issues in a heavily male-dominated society in the 1960s. They affected the entire cultural landscape - and that's to say nothing of the Pop Art revolution in general, advancing the language of art with new subjects and techniques. To equate that impact and worth with the original is preposterous. Fine, give credit where it's due regarding the original inspiration, but let's give Lichtenstein his due as well instead of marginalizing him and insulting the entire mainstream art world as being a bunch of beret-sporting, cigarillo-smoking, black turtleneck-wearing dupes. :doh:

 

 

 

Hey!!

That's not true.

 

I never said they smoked cigarillos!!

 

 

Gene should take a picture of himself dressed that way and post it up. Would be classic.

 

I'm not going to get into the debate here. I said it at the beginning of this thread (it may have been another RL thread), I've always liked his stuff. I still do. It always connected with me. When I first saw his stuff, the comic book connection was obvious (duh). I didn't know he swiped actual books. Now that I know that, guess what? It doesn't bother me in the least. I still like it. Would it have been nice of him to credit the source material? I suppose.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that it makes an impression on me. I like Pop Art. I don't particularly find anything remarkable about Rembrandt. I haven't studied either (or any art history for that matter). I see something and I either like it or I don't.

[Aman619]

you reminded me of another aspect of this we havent thrown into the mix. The question of why the artists never sued for their rights is explained by the fact that as work for hire, they couldnt do the suing.

 

but why didnt the publishers sue? Well, Stan Lee, jumped on the bandwagon of the the sudden stardom and interest in comic book imagery by re-tagging his entire line of comics "Pop Art Productions!" He and later DC with the gogo checks rather than sue for rights to worthless images sought to capitalize of a lucky break in the media!

 

Which further cements the reality us oldtimers remember well (but kids living with todays comics etc dont "feel") that comics were a guilty pleasure and a throwaway entertainment form having little more value than the ten cents plunked down for the latest indistinguishable installment created by men lucky to be making a living during very hard times in publishing.

[comix4fun]

I still find it puzzling how people can push past the intellectually insulting (IMO) nature of his work.

 

It's only intellectually insulting if you think that (a) comic book art in general is too low-brow to be considered fine art, even transformed by someone like Lichtenstein or (b) you make no distinction between the original and Lichtenstein's version, viewing the latter as just a stolen copy. Obviously, the anti-RL people here fall into the latter camp, though you can't help but wonder if there is some insecurity about the former that causes them to adamantly argue, if implicitly, that all comic book art should be considered worthy of being fine art.

 

Lichtenstein took panels from disposable, throwaway entertainment and gave them a voice of their own blown-up in his trademarked style, cropped and with slight alterations, displayed in a gallery (and later museums). Those panels in their original form served only to advance a readily forgettable storyline aimed at gung-ho teenage boys and hormonal teenage girls. In the gallery, they served to highlight the horrors of war and women's issues in a heavily male-dominated society in the 1960s. They affected the entire cultural landscape - and that's to say nothing of the Pop Art revolution in general, advancing the language of art with new subjects and techniques. To equate that impact and worth with the original is preposterous. Fine, give credit where it's due regarding the original inspiration, but let's give Lichtenstein his due as well instead of marginalizing him and insulting the entire mainstream art world as being a bunch of beret-sporting, cigarillo-smoking, black turtleneck-wearing dupes. :doh:

 

 

 

Hey!!

That's not true.

 

I never said they smoked cigarillos!!

 

 

Gene should take a picture of himself dressed that way and post it up. Would be classic.

 

I'm not going to get into the debate here. I said it at the beginning of this thread (it may have been another RL thread), I've always liked his stuff. I still do. It always connected with me. When I first saw his stuff, the comic book connection was obvious (duh). I didn't know he swiped actual books. Now that I know that, guess what? It doesn't bother me in the least. I still like it. Would it have been nice of him to credit the source material? I suppose.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that it makes an impression on me. I like Pop Art. I don't particularly find anything remarkable about Rembrandt. I haven't studied either (or any art history for that matter). I see something and I either like it or I don't.

 

 

I'd probably feel the same was that you do if I didn't have people telling me over and over what garbage the original art was in attempts to protect the legitimacy of the brand.

 

I think there's room to appreciate the artists that were used to create these pieces and to appreciate Lichtenstein for what he was trying to say.

 

[VintageComics]

I don't understand the need to prop up RL by stomping down these other artists and their works.

 

If RL's work is that good, that meaningful, and that powerful, then perhaps it will still be so without all the disrespect heaped on these artists.

 

If someone can't raise themselves up without diminishing others they didn't raise themselves up at all.

 

This seems to be at the crux of what the argument is circling around.

 

Nobody is stomping down or diminishing other artists. Anybody that appears to be diminishing another artist's work is simply trying to portray them in the light that they were appreciated in when they were first published. Let's face it we all love Russ Heath and his work but it wasn't fawned upon by the average person. It's not a question of talent, it's exposure and marketing. Steranko broke out of comics and Neal Adams did too, to an extant. Crumb as well. Most didn't.

 

Gene is echoing my feelings (and that is rare).

 

The panels were basically forgotten and invisible and they were taken and thrust into the face of society and became representative of social issues at the time.

 

They did not even represent their original intended purposes.

 

Again, it's important to note that had these panels not been borrowed and become famous, we may not even have a culture with comics at the forefront. They may have stayed forgotten.

 

[delekkerste]

Chris:

 

1. It doesn't take a lawyer to predict how a lawyer would defend Lichtenstein, because you can look how other copyright infringement cases are defended. I'm not disagreeing with you on the specific points of law, but how it all comes out in the mix is nowhere nearly as one-sided as you're making it out to be. If it was, then O.J. would have been locked up far sooner than he was.

 

2. I wasn't around in the early 1960s, but I've done enough reading and am smart enough to make logical assumptions to be able to discern what the environment was like back in the day. Most people here seem to be making no effort at all to place Lichtenstein in the context of his day. Would you guys condemn the racist aspects of "Blazing Saddles" and "Sixteen Candles" from a 2012 viewpoint as well, or would you still respect/enjoy those films and recognize them for being the product of their times as they are?

 

3. You keep trying to insinuate some kind of sinister effort to keep the original artists down to "preserve the legitimacy of the brand", and trying to make us believe that everything would have been so much better for them had RL only given them their proper due. I just don't think this is reflective of reality. The more likely explanation and outcome is that RL and those that followed didn't bother citing them because few would really have cared (see Chrisco's post above). That may offend you as an OA fan, but it's really just apathy and indifference at work, not a sinister plot.

 

4. 3 seconds of Under Pressure...repeated many times. Plus, the song hit #1 in 3 countries (including the UK) and was a top-10 hit in a dozen countries.

[comix4fun]

3. You keep trying to insinuate some kind of sinister effort to keep the original artists down, and trying to make us believe that everything would have been so much better for them had RL only given them their proper due. I just don't think these are reflective of reality. The more likely explanation and outcome is that RL didn't bother citing them because nobody would really have cared. That may offend you as an OA fan, but it's really just apathy and indifference at work, not a sinister plot.

 

 

There was a lot of money to be made very very early into the origin of these RL pieces. A lot of that is salesmanship, marketing, and perception. I think there were thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and then ultimately MILLIONS of reasons to prop up one artist and hide another artist. When that artist could not be hidden any more he was degraded and marginalized.

 

This didn't happen by the artist but it happened and still happens.

 

I think RL was out of the decision making process on that relative soon, maybe before he ever saw a piece sold in a gallery since his first few paintings were sold before being shown. I don't necessarily blame him for what happened at the outset. When it became a monster, and that monster started buying its handlers yachts, houses, and luxury cars with the proceeds no one was going to show the chinks in the monster's armor.

 

I think it's naive to not look at the economics and the vested interests of the people that chose and continue to choose what information we was released on these pieces and their origins. You can't think that was an accident.

 

Speaking of the beginnings of the RL market, why would any gallery owner, or auction house working on a commission, voluntarily point out that this image is NOT entirely original, in fact, that it looks strikingly like a panel from a *GASP* comic book? Common sense tells us that their reasons for not making full and clear disclosure was, most likely, NOT because people would care too little, but that they might care too much.

 

With this much money at stake, and in ever increasing amounts from gavel to gavel, there was always a motive to make these works "genius" and "masterpieces" and leave no room for debate on the origins and potential faults.

 

One of the first things my Grandfather taught me as a young boy was, "Never believe how great something is from the person who's selling it to you." People with something to gain and something to lose tend to have their opinions match their bottom line.

 

It's what I like to call a universal truth.

 

 

 

4. 3 seconds of Under Pressure...repeated many times. Plus, the song hit #1 in 3 countries (including the UK) and was a top-10 hit in a dozen countries.

 

 

 

 

Argentina? Netherlands? Really? Seriously? I hear Dokken is still on top of the charts there.

[VintageComics]

Argentina? Netherlands? Really? Seriously? I hear Dokken is still on top of the charts there.

I want a piece for using the word Dokken before you did today.

 

[comix4fun]

Argentina? Netherlands? Really? Seriously? I hear Dokken is still on top of the charts there.

I want a piece for using the word Dokken before you did today.

 

 

 

I repurposed it and used it in a transformative way, for purposes of parody. Gene says I am Teflon on this one.

[Rip]

3. You keep trying to insinuate some kind of sinister effort to keep the original artists down, and trying to make us believe that everything would have been so much better for them had RL only given them their proper due. I just don't think these are reflective of reality. The more likely explanation and outcome is that RL didn't bother citing them because nobody would really have cared. That may offend you as an OA fan, but it's really just apathy and indifference at work, not a sinister plot.

 

 

There was a lot of money to be made very very early into the origin of these RL pieces. A lot of that is salesmanship, marketing, and perception. I think there were thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and then ultimately MILLIONS of reasons to prop up one artist and hide another artist. When that artist could not be hidden any more he was degraded and marginalized.

 

This didn't happen by the artist but it happened and still happens.

 

I think RL was out of the decision making process on that relative soon, maybe before he ever saw a piece sold in a gallery since his first few paintings were sold before being shown. I don't necessarily blame him for what happened at the outset. When it became a monster, and that monster started buying its handlers yachts, houses, and luxury cars with the proceeds no one was going to show the chinks in the monster's armor.

 

I think it's naive to not look at the economics and the vested interests of the people that chose and continue to choose what information we was released on these pieces and their origins. You can't think that was an accident.

 

Speaking of the beginnings of the RL market, why would any gallery owner, or auction house working on a commission, voluntarily point out that this image is NOT entirely original, in fact, that it looks strikingly like a panel from a *GASP* comic book? Common sense tells us that their reasons for not making full and clear disclosure was, most likely, NOT because people would care too little, but that they might care too much.

 

With this much money at stake, and in ever increasing amounts from gavel to gavel, there was always a motive to make these works "genius" and "masterpieces" and leave no room for debate on the origins and potential faults.

 

One of the first things my Grandfather taught me as a young boy was, "Never believe how great something is from the person who's selling it to you." People with something to gain and something to lose tend to have their opinions match their bottom line.

 

It's what I like to call a universal truth.

Gene is very correct. You really need to understand the history and the zeitgeist of appropriation starting with Duchamp.

This isn't anymore sinister and offensive than the many other pieces and artists working within the field of found artwork.

Think about the logo designers, newspaper layout artists, pipe makers, plumbers, broom makers, that came before within the context of "low art".

This isn't a slight whatsoever but a question of what is art? What can be art? Where can we draw upon our ideas? Its apart of an ongoing intelligent dialog during the time.

It's liberating and expanding upon the field of fine art, breaking down what was before. You really need to see what else was out there from the 1900's to the 60's

 

The very idea of working in the medium of found artwork is the gamesmanship of using commonplace type objects, challenging the distinction between what was considered (at the time) art and not artwork.

 

 

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rip

[LastRaven]

I just want to add to the discussion this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9105364/Shepard-Fairey-creator-of-Barack-Obama-Hope-poster-admits-destroying-evidence.html

 

 

Basically, I would put this on the same level as Litch's work. I mean... In essence isn't it very similar?

 

I wish Shepard hadn't done what he did with the evidence and lying though since he's done similar manipulation in the past (Andre the Giant / Obey), which makes it seem like even today this issue is not clearly understood by artists at the very least. Fair use seemed to be muddled about I suppose for legal reasons beyond me. Why the AP got upset is beyond me as well. But you know it's very similar in that the original artist seemed to "work for hire" and the AP decided to sue.

 

Even though the suit was dropped, I'm curious as to how it would have actually turned out.

Edited May 16, 2012 by LastRaven

[comix4fun]

3. You keep trying to insinuate some kind of sinister effort to keep the original artists down, and trying to make us believe that everything would have been so much better for them had RL only given them their proper due. I just don't think these are reflective of reality. The more likely explanation and outcome is that RL didn't bother citing them because nobody would really have cared. That may offend you as an OA fan, but it's really just apathy and indifference at work, not a sinister plot.

 

 

There was a lot of money to be made very very early into the origin of these RL pieces. A lot of that is salesmanship, marketing, and perception. I think there were thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and then ultimately MILLIONS of reasons to prop up one artist and hide another artist. When that artist could not be hidden any more he was degraded and marginalized.

 

This didn't happen by the artist but it happened and still happens.

 

I think RL was out of the decision making process on that relative soon, maybe before he ever saw a piece sold in a gallery since his first few paintings were sold before being shown. I don't necessarily blame him for what happened at the outset. When it became a monster, and that monster started buying its handlers yachts, houses, and luxury cars with the proceeds no one was going to show the chinks in the monster's armor.

 

I think it's naive to not look at the economics and the vested interests of the people that chose and continue to choose what information we was released on these pieces and their origins. You can't think that was an accident.

 

Speaking of the beginnings of the RL market, why would any gallery owner, or auction house working on a commission, voluntarily point out that this image is NOT entirely original, in fact, that it looks strikingly like a panel from a *GASP* comic book? Common sense tells us that their reasons for not making full and clear disclosure was, most likely, NOT because people would care too little, but that they might care too much.

 

With this much money at stake, and in ever increasing amounts from gavel to gavel, there was always a motive to make these works "genius" and "masterpieces" and leave no room for debate on the origins and potential faults.

 

One of the first things my Grandfather taught me as a young boy was, "Never believe how great something is from the person who's selling it to you." People with something to gain and something to lose tend to have their opinions match their bottom line.

 

It's what I like to call a universal truth.

Gene is very correct. You really need to understand the history and the zeitgeist of appropriation starting with Duchamp.

This isn't anymore sinister and offensive than the many other pieces and artists working within the field of found artwork.

Think about the logo designers, newspaper layout artists, pipe makers, plumbers, broom makers, that came before within the context of "low art".

This isn't a slight whatsoever but a question of what is art? What can be art? Where can we draw upon our ideas? Its apart of an ongoing intelligent dialog during the time.

It's liberating and expanding upon the field of fine art, breaking down what was before. You really need to see what else was out there from the 1900's to the 60's

 

The very idea of working in the medium of found artwork is the gamesmanship of using commonplace type objects, challenging the distinction between what was considered (at the time) art and not artwork.

 

 

 

All that may be true, but if you notice I am not talking about the artists, or even the people who simply appreciate the work. I am talking about the people who've been making money off of this stuff from the get go. All those folks on commission, all with a vested interest in it going for as much as possible from sale to sale, gavel to gavel.

 

A market for RL's work was created out of thin air, when no one knew who he was. Pieces sold before the gallery show, and then were sold again at the gallery show with pieces trading hands amongst many of the same people according to written accounts of the time.

 

It's not the artwork, it's the marketing of the artwork and what was used and what was excluded from use in the selling of the artwork and the creating of the market for his artwork.

 

Why would anyone trust the word of someone who is trying to make something on the deal?

 

[Rip]

3. You keep trying to insinuate some kind of sinister effort to keep the original artists down, and trying to make us believe that everything would have been so much better for them had RL only given them their proper due. I just don't think these are reflective of reality. The more likely explanation and outcome is that RL didn't bother citing them because nobody would really have cared. That may offend you as an OA fan, but it's really just apathy and indifference at work, not a sinister plot.

 

 

There was a lot of money to be made very very early into the origin of these RL pieces. A lot of that is salesmanship, marketing, and perception. I think there were thousands, then hundreds of thousands, and then ultimately MILLIONS of reasons to prop up one artist and hide another artist. When that artist could not be hidden any more he was degraded and marginalized.

 

This didn't happen by the artist but it happened and still happens.

 

I think RL was out of the decision making process on that relative soon, maybe before he ever saw a piece sold in a gallery since his first few paintings were sold before being shown. I don't necessarily blame him for what happened at the outset. When it became a monster, and that monster started buying its handlers yachts, houses, and luxury cars with the proceeds no one was going to show the chinks in the monster's armor.

 

I think it's naive to not look at the economics and the vested interests of the people that chose and continue to choose what information we was released on these pieces and their origins. You can't think that was an accident.

 

Speaking of the beginnings of the RL market, why would any gallery owner, or auction house working on a commission, voluntarily point out that this image is NOT entirely original, in fact, that it looks strikingly like a panel from a *GASP* comic book? Common sense tells us that their reasons for not making full and clear disclosure was, most likely, NOT because people would care too little, but that they might care too much.

 

With this much money at stake, and in ever increasing amounts from gavel to gavel, there was always a motive to make these works "genius" and "masterpieces" and leave no room for debate on the origins and potential faults.

 

One of the first things my Grandfather taught me as a young boy was, "Never believe how great something is from the person who's selling it to you." People with something to gain and something to lose tend to have their opinions match their bottom line.

 

It's what I like to call a universal truth.

Gene is very correct. You really need to understand the history and the zeitgeist of appropriation starting with Duchamp.

This isn't anymore sinister and offensive than the many other pieces and artists working within the field of found artwork.

Think about the logo designers, newspaper layout artists, pipe makers, plumbers, broom makers, that came before within the context of "low art".

This isn't a slight whatsoever but a question of what is art? What can be art? Where can we draw upon our ideas? Its apart of an ongoing intelligent dialog during the time.

It's liberating and expanding upon the field of fine art, breaking down what was before. You really need to see what else was out there from the 1900's to the 60's

 

The very idea of working in the medium of found artwork is the gamesmanship of using commonplace type objects, challenging the distinction between what was considered (at the time) art and not artwork.

 

 

 

All that may be true, but if you notice I am not talking about the artists, or even the people who simply appreciate the work. I am talking about the people who've been making money off of this stuff from the get go. All those folks on commission, all with a vested interest in it going for as much as possible from sale to sale, gavel to gavel.

 

A market for RL's work was created out of thin air, when no one knew who he was. Pieces sold before the gallery show, and then were sold again at the gallery show with pieces trading hands amongst many of the same people according to written accounts of the time.

 

It's not the artwork, it's the marketing of the artwork and what was used and what was excluded from use in the selling of the artwork and the creating of the market for his artwork.

 

Why would anyone trust the word of someone who is trying to make something on the deal?

 

Honestly I can't speak as to the intimacy of some of these transactions. Nor how he exactly became a smash hit as opposed to others working in that field. But I suspect given the context of other sales during the time and other working artists who appeared out of thin air, any possible exclusion really didn't matter much to the patron.

 

His iconic imagery is now embedded in our cultural history. For better or worse. Dollar signs and all. If you see outrage at his stuff you had better sit down cause there are a lot worse "offenders".

[Aman619]

I just want to add to the discussion this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9105364/Shepard-Fairey-creator-of-Barack-Obama-Hope-poster-admits-destroying-evidence.html

 

 

Basically, I would put this on the same level as Litch's work. I mean... In essence isn't it very similar?

 

I wish Shepard hadn't done what he did with the evidence and lying though since he's done similar manipulation in the past (Andre the Giant / Obey), which makes it seem like even today this issue is not clearly understood by artists at the very least. Fair use seemed to be muddled about I suppose for legal reasons beyond me. Why the AP got upset is beyond me as well. But you know it's very similar in that the original artist seemed to "work for hire" and the AP decided to sue.

 

Even though the suit was dropped, I'm curious as to how it would have actually turned out.

 

well, if you are painting a likeness of a famous person, you have two choices: invite him over to sit for you, or, 2) begin with a photograph.

 

obviously Shepard F had to go with option 2 since he wasnt even commissioned by Obama, was he?

 

His problem was that this has been challenged before and photographers (especially AP photos ) are very good at protecting their property. Fairey should have known to get permission, but they may have quoted him 10-20K if they knew how widespread the image would be used (thats how they quote their fees). SO essentially Fairey was left with the choice to just use it and worry about repercussions later.

 

I seem to recall his biggest mistake was lying about using it when caught. For THAT he got nailed hardest.

[comix4fun]

I just want to add to the discussion this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9105364/Shepard-Fairey-creator-of-Barack-Obama-Hope-poster-admits-destroying-evidence.html

 

 

Basically, I would put this on the same level as Litch's work. I mean... In essence isn't it very similar?

 

I wish Shepard hadn't done what he did with the evidence and lying though since he's done similar manipulation in the past (Andre the Giant / Obey), which makes it seem like even today this issue is not clearly understood by artists at the very least. Fair use seemed to be muddled about I suppose for legal reasons beyond me. Why the AP got upset is beyond me as well. But you know it's very similar in that the original artist seemed to "work for hire" and the AP decided to sue.

 

Even though the suit was dropped, I'm curious as to how it would have actually turned out.

 

well, if you are painting a likeness of a famous person, you have two choices: invite him over to sit for you, or, 2) begin with a photograph.

 

obviously Shepard F had to go with option 2 since he wasnt even commissioned by Obama, was he?

 

His problem was that this has been challenged before and photographers (especially AP photos ) are very good at protecting their property. Fairey should have known to get permission, but they may have quoted him 10-20K if they knew how widespread the image would be used (thats how they quote their fees). SO essentially Fairey was left with the choice to just use it and worry about repercussions later.

 

I seem to recall his biggest mistake was lying about using it when caught. For THAT he got nailed hardest.

 

 

You're right, it was not coming clean immediately that was the larger problem for him. That spoke to him knowing what he was doing and doing it intentionally than any kind of honest mistake.

[CollectingFool]

Pieces sold before the gallery show, and then were sold again at the gallery show with pieces trading hands amongst many of the same people according to written accounts of the time.

 

It's not the artwork, it's the marketing of the artwork and what was used and what was excluded from use in the selling of the artwork and the creating of the market for his artwork.

 

Why would anyone trust the word of someone who is trying to make something on the deal?

 

Paraphrase this a little and it could be said about a lot of comic art these days.

 

 

[comix4fun]

Pieces sold before the gallery show, and then were sold again at the gallery show with pieces trading hands amongst many of the same people according to written accounts of the time.

 

It's not the artwork, it's the marketing of the artwork and what was used and what was excluded from use in the selling of the artwork and the creating of the market for his artwork.

 

Why would anyone trust the word of someone who is trying to make something on the deal?

 

Paraphrase this a little and it could be said about a lot of comic art these days.

 

 

 

A point not lost on me. Even more incentive to make up one's own mind about artwork and not put too much stock into sales prices, estimates, and evaluations of "experts" who have skin in the game themselves.

[alxjhnsn]

There was an interesting comment "up there" to the effect that RL was exploring the differences between "low" and "high" art and that his panel based pieces demonstrated that there is no difference.

 

If that really was his thinking, it makes this entire thread pretty funny.

 

I wonder if that was his point.

[comicartcom]

I'm going to boil this whole thread down to two simple explanations.

 

There are two kind of people in this thread, although a third kind ocassionaly stick their head up

 

FIRST KIND: art fans who have a big tent philosophy that recognize art is a representation of things people see in the society they live in. It can be as small a child's drawing in kindergarten, or as large as a boulder displayed on a transom in front of a museum. There are no particular rules other than it is a fixed idea that people can see and if possible (and allowed) even touch.

 

It can draw influences from a variety of subjects, both literary, artistic and cultural.

 

These people are FOR LICHTENSTEIN

 

SECOND KIND: people who believe that Lichtenstein was a thief (which is untrue) because he was influenced by a small drawing that made up a single panel in a 32-page comic book. Because this was in a comic book first, Lichtenstein isa crook and all other aspects of his artictic talents therefore, null and void because all of them come after his iconography of comic artists.

 

these people are AGAINST LICHTENSTEIN

 

one is an open-minded philosophy that understand that all forms of art do not live in a vacuum and are all co-influence by each various form of art that contributes to the betterment of a cultural society.

 

the second is a closed-mided approach that refuses to accept the realities of art as object and art as intellectual and emotional fodder.

 

------------------------------

 

by defining characteristics, comic art is a totally lowbrow art form. It was never meant to appeal to Harvard intellectuals, it was created to appeal to the main population of everyone else, right down to and particularly focused on the children. That does not mean there are not highbrow artists workig in comics or that comics are not a popular art form. It is just a matter of definition. Comic art done by the overwhelming majority of comic artists is not & never will be more than lowbrow.

 

Roy Lichtenstein took a piece of lowbrow culture (a single panel of a 32 page comic) and turned it into a highbrow form of art that is emotional and intellectual, which really means that Lichtenstein imbued intellect into the lowbrow artform that was his influence. It was a brilliant concept, even if he did do the first one as a total gag.