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

[comicartcom]

PS: the third kind, are those who are in the middle and have misgivings on both sides of the equation and appreciation as well.

[Rip]

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.

 

Lets put it this way.

Here is what Marcel Duchamp said when he first saw Lichtenstein’s work.

 

“That’s what I meant”

[comix4fun]

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.

 

 

 

Is there a 4th kind...the ones who are upset he took one out of three panels of a newspaper strip?

[comix4fun]

 

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.

 

 

There's that condescension again. It's palpable. Let's not exaggerate and perhaps stick to details and facts.

 

Take Russ Heath's piece that was used to make WHAMMM!

 

It was a full 1/3rd of a page of a 6 page story.

 

Again, it's the need to degrade, marginalize and put down these artists and their work to lift RL up that really grinds the gears on most reasonable people.

[comicartcom]

 

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.

 

There's that condescension again. It's palpable. Let's not exaggerate and perhaps stick to details and facts.

 

Take Russ Heath's piece that was used to make WHAMMM!

 

It was a full 1/3rd of a page of a 6 page story.

 

Again, it's the need to degrade, marginalize and put down these artists and their work to lift RL up that really grinds the gears on most reasonable people.

 

there is nothing condescending about defining what art is. It may be something different to you than it is to me, but here is the difference between myself and some others in this thread - I understand that whether I can appreciate the artform practiced by any particular artist, whether I like it or not, does not diminish the artist, his talent or his works.

 

Concerning describing comic art as "lowbrow art".. hey.. that's what it is. Comic books are not designed to be thought provoking bibles, they are cheap entertainment made for the masses be they intellectual or stupid and meant to be thrown in the garbage. It is cheap reading matter meant to illustrate a story and for the most part, no single panels are meant to stand out more than another, because it's the story that is important to the literature.

 

I love comic art as well as the next guy, but I don't have to consider it to be something it isn't for me to enjoy it or because my ego will be diminished if I come to realize I'm reading something not meant for intellectual posterity.

 

I never thought I was dealing in Guttenberg Bibles when I was selling comics or art.

[comicartcom]

Take Russ Heath's piece that was used to make WHAMMM!

 

It was a full 1/3rd of a page of a 6 page story.

 

1/18th of the whole.

 

wow..

 

[Rip]

Maybe this will help guide some people to the progression of gamesmanship and running dialog at hand within the found object, popular culture, and banality.

 

Wikipedia actually does a decent job here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_objects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_%28artist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony. It is also associated with the artists' use of mechanical means of reproduction or rendering techniques."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons

[comix4fun]

Take Russ Heath's piece that was used to make WHAMMM!

 

It was a full 1/3rd of a page of a 6 page story.

 

1/18th of the whole.

 

wow..

 

 

Not one panel out of 32 pages is it? You repeated the "one panel in a 32 page book " thing a few times so it seemed important to you. In Overgard's case it's a third of the entire work.

 

All those influences you to about in nature ( rocks trees etc. ) aren't copyrighted images either are they?

 

That's the crux of the position you are trying to pigeonhole people into. I can separate my personal like or dislike of a piece from the clear fact it's taken from a piece that was protected the moment it was created.

 

Everything an artist sees is not fair game to be taken and used just because it influences him. It's a concept several hundred years old. I am not making this up.

[delekkerste]

1/18th of the whole.

 

wow..

 

 

...that is barely remembered even with RL's appropriation, without which virtually nobody would know or care about it. If RL had never existed, how much would that original page of OA be worth today? A few hundred bucks? Even in our current reality (not an alternate universe where RL didn't exist), the "I Can See The Whole Room..." original sold for $431 on eBay last year. Not even comic art aficionados seem to value the actual art very highly - apparently the inspiration for a RL painting is worth about 2-3% of a so-so Mark Bagley ASM cover in the marketplace - except that it's priceless to those who insist that no comic art should be considered "low art" and who will defend any and all comic art to the end against any beret-wearing gallery zombie who might deign to look askance at it.

 

BTW, "I Can See the Whole Room..." was sold by Lichtenstein's gallery for $450 in 1961. I don't know how much Whaam! cost the Tate when they bought it in 1966, but we've already established that it was nowhere near the $4 million Heath claims. It's entirely possible that it sold for less than 1% of that amount, maybe 0.1%, of which Leo Castelli would have probably taken close to half. Just to set the record straight.

 

 

[comicartcom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony. It is also associated with the artists' use of mechanical means of reproduction or rendering techniques."

 

that is a perfect representational description of Roy's use of comic panels as iconography, as well as Warhol's soup & other labels

[comicartcom]

Take Russ Heath's piece that was used to make WHAMMM!

 

It was a full 1/3rd of a page of a 6 page story.

 

1/18th of the whole.

 

wow..

 

 

Not one panel out of 32 pages is it? You repeated the "one panel in a 32 page book " thing a few times so it seemed important to you. In Overgard's case it's a third of the entire work.

 

All those influences you to about in nature ( rocks trees etc. ) aren't copyrighted images either are they?

 

That's the crux of the position you are trying to pigeonhole people into. I can separate my personal like or dislike of a piece from the clear fact it's taken from a piece that was protected the moment it was created.

 

Everything an artist sees is not fair game to be taken and used just because it influences him. It's a concept several hundred years old. I am not making this up.

 

well earlier you alluded to Lichtenstein taking by your estimation 1% of something, so I was only bouncing off yur comment. But it still is one panel (or in the specific case of your Heath item, one row) of a 32 page book. But that sub-argument is nothing more than a distraction to the subject - it is going sideways to the discussion.

 

I tell ya, debating this with some of you is like Trekkies having a serious discussion about whether Kirk or Picard was a better Captain.

 

There are reasons that when you see comic fans in movies and TV shows, like the Big Bang Theory, that they are portrayed as geeks and weirdos. Stewart as the comic shop owner is a particularly well mirrored character for more than a few people I have known in this business

[Rip]

1/18th of the whole.

 

wow..

 

 

...that is barely remembered even with RL's appropriation, without which virtually nobody would know or care about it. If RL had never existed, how much would that original page of OA be worth today? A few hundred bucks? Even in our current reality (not an alternate universe where RL didn't exist), the "I Can See The Whole Room..." original sold for $431 on eBay last year. Not even comic art aficionados seem to value the actual art very highly - apparently the inspiration for a RL painting is worth about 2-3% of a so-so Mark Bagley ASM cover in the marketplace - except that it's priceless to those who insist that no comic art should be considered "low art" and who will defend any and all comic art to the end against any beret-wearing gallery zombie who might deign to look askance at it.

 

BTW, "I Can See the Whole Room..." was sold by Lichtenstein's gallery for $450 in 1961. I don't know how much Whaam! cost the Tate when they bought it in 1966, but we've already established that it was nowhere near the $4 million Heath claims. It's entirely possible that it sold for less than 1% of that amount, maybe 0.1%, of which Leo Castelli would have probably taken close to half. Just to set the record straight.

 

 

Here is what RL said about Whaam at the Tate write up

That sneaky SOB's Got the comic wrong, didn't keep good records.

 

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-whaam-t00897/text-catalogue-entry'>http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-whaam-t00897/text-catalogue-entry

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-whaam-t00897

 

 

The artist wrote (10 July 1967): 'I remember being concerned with the idea of doing two almost separate paintings having little hint of compositional connection, and each having slightly separate stylistic character. Of course there is the humorous connection of one panel shooting the other. I know that I got the idea of doing separate panels while working on Tex, so that Tex and Whaam are very closely related, and probably come from the same magazine - possibly from the same story. I think that the comic was "Armed Forces at War". I don't keep any records and I think I may have gotten the above information from your letter to me.

 

'Whaam relates in feeling to the many war paintings I did during 1962-63, including a five panel sequence entitled Live Ammowhich has since unfortunately been resold and divided among four separate owners, the three paneled painting, As I Opened Fire, owned by the Stedelijk [Amsterdam] (which I think is the most recent war painting) and O.K. Hot Shot, owned by The Hague, as well as many smaller works. All of these portray emotionally charged subject matter as it might be reported in the dispassionate style of group decisions, as well as picturing modern methods of exporting economic and social philosophy.'

 

 

Edited May 16, 2012 by Rip

[comicartcom]

That's the crux of the position you are trying to pigeonhole people into. I can separate my personal like or dislike of a piece from the clear fact it's taken from a piece that was protected the moment it was created.

 

this is not true for the time frame prior to the 1978 revision of copyright law. Today this is correct. The moment I write or draw something now, that is true. in 1961, it was not only NOT true, but what is the truth is that any fixed idea in 1961 had to be patented or copyrighted by the filing of paperwork with the US Patent Office, or the Library Of Congress copyright library.

 

But again, this is sideways to the discussion as the comic book was under copyright AND what goes on today is not applicable to what went on in 1961. We cannot "revise" history to suit ourselves

 

But.....

 

DC was aware at that time of Lichtenstein's work... and they did nothing. Zip. Nada. Bupkiss.

Why?? Probably because they were well aware of the fair use doctrine, probably they looked at Lichtenstein's iconization of comics both fun and potentially good for business, and also probably because they felt that there wasn't any financial benefit anyway. As Gene stated, all Lichtenstein got for "I Can See the Whole Room..." was $450. I'll bet he got pretty much something in the sale ballpark for the particular Heath iconograph. So do you think maybe the Lichtenstein should send Russ 10% of the $450 annuated since 1961.. Should be about $300 now

[comicartcom]

Here is what RL said about Whaam at the Tate write up

That sneaky SOB's Got the comic wrong, didn't keep good records.

 

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-whaam-t00897/text-catalogue-entry'>http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-whaam-t00897/text-catalogue-entry

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lichtenstein-whaam-t00897

 

 

The artist wrote (10 July 1967): 'I remember being concerned with the idea of doing two almost separate paintings having little hint of compositional connection, and each having slightly separate stylistic character. Of course there is the humorous connection of one panel shooting the other. I know that I got the idea of doing separate panels while working on Tex, so that Tex and Whaam are very closely related, and probably come from the same magazine - possibly from the same story. I think that the comic was "Armed Forces at War". I don't keep any records and I think I may have gotten the above information from your letter to me.

 

'Whaam relates in feeling to the many war paintings I did during 1962-63, including a five panel sequence entitled Live Ammowhich has since unfortunately been resold and divided among four separate owners, the three paneled painting, As I Opened Fire, owned by the Stedelijk [Amsterdam] (which I think is the most recent war painting) and O.K. Hot Shot, owned by The Hague, as well as many smaller works. All of these portray emotionally charged subject matter as it might be reported in the dispassionate style of group decisions, as well as picturing modern methods of exporting economic and social philosophy.'

 

 

that's good stuff Rip.

Edited May 16, 2012 by comicartcom

[comicartcom]

I tell ya, debating this with some of you is like Trekkies having a serious discussion about whether Kirk or Picard was a better Captain.

 

I forgot to add.. we all know that Captain James T Kirk was the better Enterprise Captain

[comix4fun]

That's the crux of the position you are trying to pigeonhole people into. I can separate my personal like or dislike of a piece from the clear fact it's taken from a piece that was protected the moment it was created.

 

this is not true for the time frame prior to the 1978 revision of copyright law. Today this is correct. The moment I write or draw something now, that is true. in 1961, it was not only NOT true, but what is the truth is that any fixed idea in 1961 had to be patented or copyrighted by the filing of paperwork with the US Patent Office, or the Library Of Congress copyright library.

 

 

I should have clarified and said "from the moment it was PUBLISHED" which is what I was referring to in my statement.

 

It's not correct to claim that in 1961 a rights holder had to register a copyright to have any rights. The 1909 law provided automatic protection to the rights holder once the item was published and gave them exclusive rights for a period of years.

 

Registering the copyright was used to strengthen the claim if a piece was not published or published tenuously. Case law from the time of the 1909 act forward established automatic exclusive rights from the moment of publication and did not require registration as proof of claim only additional evidence.

 

Those cases and those precedents were worked into the 1976 act which then preempted and replaced the 1909 Act and all the case law modifications that followed.

 

Automatic protection for published works far far predates the 1976 act. Sorry if my "creation" comment was unclear.

 

 

[lb jefferies]

Wow, awful lot of blows being traded . It feels, at least to me, unnecessary (although who am I to get in the way of a nice healthy debate).

 

To me, Lichtenstein's work is art. Art that's thoroughly deserving of its place in pop art history. But did he steal from other creators? Of course he did. He made a statement using others work, but he definitely used others work. In the art field it was HE who made the statement, so he received those accolades but in the legal world there's no way that what he did couldn't be construed as a massive violation of copyright. (If not the work-for-hire creator's copyright, then most certainly the publishers).

 

So yeah, appreciate the pop art of RL (which I do), but acknowledge that he lifted whole images out the wazoo (which I duly acknowledge).

 

This way Gene can still correctly argue the merits of the work and Chris can correctly argue the outright theft. Win win. Hug it out.

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

Wow, awful lot of blows being traded . It feels, at least to me, unnecessary (although who am I to get in the way of a nice healthy debate).

 

To me, Lichtenstein's work is art. Art that's thoroughly deserving of its place in pop art history. But did he steal from other creators? Of course he did. He made a statement using others work, but he definitely used others work. In the art field it was HE who made the statement, so he received those accolades but in the legal world there's no way that what he did couldn't be construed as a massive violation of copyright. (If not the work-for-hire creator's copyright, then most certainly the publishers).

 

So yeah, appreciate the pop art of RL (which I do), but acknowledge that he lifted whole images out the wazoo (which I duly acknowledge).

 

This way Gene can still correctly argue the merits of the work and Chris can correctly argue the outright theft. Win win. Hug it out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gene's my buddy.

 

When we exchanged gifts at Festivus I got him a new beret with matching black turtleneck and he refilled my Valium prescription.

 

[lb jefferies]

 

 

 

Gene's my buddy.

 

When we exchanged gifts at Festivus I got him a new beret with matching black turtleneck and he refilled my Valium prescription.

 

 

[comix4fun]

Besides I have to jump off this argument anyway and onto another one.

 

I hear that Sketchers is paying off millions for false claims that their shoes trimmed and toned people who wore them.

 

I KNEW my wasn't feeling any firmer.