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

[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!"

 

 

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

 

This conversation is happening across the income strata.

Good point. I probably should've used a black velvet Elvis instead.

[tth2]

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.

I would boil it down even further and say that this entire thread has become the equivalent of "Tastes great!" and "Less filling!" with a few fringe participants who say they simply don't like the beer, not because of any of the qualities of the beer itself, but because they think that the Miller Lite label infringed on some copyright.

[Terry Doyle]

Is it shown beside every piece, at every museum I doubt it. But I suspect very little lack the understanding in the art community that the original came from a comic book.

 

Dammit, said I wasn't going to comment again, but... this knowledge and understanding that people keep alluding to... that everyone knew Roy was using specific panels from already-created comics is not a widespread phenomenon, in my mind. In my art classes, the sources for Lichtenstein's paintings were never mentioned. I don't recall them being cited in my art history books. I don't recall seeing them cited at the show I went to of some of his pieces. Indeed, I would argue that VERY FEW people knew (and even, given recent articles I've seen, know NOW) that Roy lifted his panels directly from other works. It wasn't something I was made aware of until closer to the end of my collegiate career.

 

And guess what? That "knowledge" completely changed my opinion of his work. Believe it or not, I used to be an "I like Lichtenstein" kind of guy in my earlier years. But I changed my mind on him. Preposterously baffling to some here, I'm sure.

 

Earlier in this thread, I pretty much echoed your sentiments.

 

I remember discovering Lichtenstein's comic-art panels in the 1960s and thinking they were cool at the time (helping,as I then believed, to promote comic-book drawings as a legitimate art form).

 

Years later, when I discovered that Lichtenstein (as far as my eyes could tell me) merely (yes, merely) copied panels of published strip-cartoons (even if the source material was obscure and produced for a throwaway commodity), my appreciation for his 'artistic efforts' rapidly diminished (replacing my initial reaction of 'innovative' with one of 'poverty of invention').

 

This thread continues to entertain (and appall) me, in equal measures, even if my sentiments lean towards Chris Caira's sense of fair-play.

 

Normally, when taking a retropspective view of an entertainment form, influences are one of the first things to be discussed in the development of a body of work. Far as I can ascertain, Lichtenstein's 'sources of inspiration' have not been too prominently promoted, if at all?

 

Yes, it's now (conveniently) mentioned that no-one seemed to object to Lichtenstein's methods at time he was . . . creating (?) those comic-book panels . . . but it's perhaps (even more conveniently) forgotten that we didn't have a network of comic-book experts on hand with internet facilities, at that moment in time, to quickly nip this kind of thing in the bud (as was the case with the recent attempts to plagiarize Bolland).

 

I find it stretching credulity a bit, when one poster displays a romantic throway-type of (published) panel alongside a Lichtenstein 'copy' (when one is virtually indistinguishable from the other). . . and then expects us to believe that Roy (somehow) manages to transcend something so . . . mundane . . . and making it into something so . . . so truly moving and poignant.

 

Back to the pseudo-intellectuals (on how we should keep an open mind, and educate ourselves, like they have done, etc, etc, ad nauseum ) . . ?

 

 

 

[CollectingFool]

Yes, it's now (conveniently) mentioned that no-one seemed to object to Lichtenstein's methods at time he was . . . creating (?) those comic-book panels . . . but it's perhaps (even more conveniently) forgotten that we didn't have a network of comic-book experts on hand with internet facilities, at that moment in time, to quickly nip this in the bud (as was the case with the recent attempts to plagiarize Bolland).

 

Funny thing is even with the current "network of comic-book experts" around today it was Bolland himself that discovered it. Scroll down to the entry of 5/18/2010

 

http://www.brianbolland.net/news.html

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Yes, it's now (conveniently) mentioned that no-one seemed to object to Lichtenstein's methods at time he was . . . creating (?) those comic-book panels . . . but it's perhaps (even more conveniently) forgotten that we didn't have a network of comic-book experts on hand with internet facilities, at that moment in time, to quickly nip this in the bud (as was the case with the recent attempts to plagiarize Bolland).

 

Funny thing is even with the current "network of comic-book experts" around today it was Bolland himself that discovered it. Scroll down to the entry of 5/18/2010

 

http://www.brianbolland.net/news.html

 

 

Yeah, I know about that, Ruben.

 

Several decades too late for the Heaths and Kuberts (etc.) of this world . . .

[delekkerste]

I visited the Yale University Art Gallery for the first time a few months ago, which has an impressive collection of Impressionist & Modern Art. Even if Modern Art is not your thing, it's really something to walk into the gallery and see all of these instantly recognizable, iconic works by many of the biggest names - Picasso, Miro, Mondrian, Pollock, Warhol, Lichtenstein, Twombly, Rothko, Richter, Basquiat, etc. Like it or not, these are the artists that shaped the way we look at art over the past century and their work has been seared into the public consciousness.

 

Anyone who genuinely loves art I think would enjoy seeing this amazing collection online if you haven't seen it already:

 

Yale University Art Gallery Online (with titles & curator's comments)

 

Yale University Art Gallery Online (enlarged photos only)

[comix4fun]

Was it Basquiat that lived with some friends for a while and painted their refrigeration door as a gift?

 

I can't remember if it was him.

[delekkerste]

Was it Basquiat that lived with some friends for a while and painted their refrigeration door as a gift?

 

I can't remember if it was him.

 

Sounds about right. I don't remember a refrigerator door in particular, but he did paint a number of regular doors. An article in New York magazine last year reported on the controversy regarding one such alleged "Basquiat" painting on a bodega door. The bodega had some connection to to Basquiat's drug dealer and there was some speculation that Basquiat's father, who ran the now-closed Basquiat authentication committee, refused to authenticate it because of that reason. I'm not sure where things stand now regarding the art.

 

In any case, I love Basquiat's work - his retrospective at the Brooklyn Museum in 2005 was one of my all-time favorites. Similarly, I'd recommend that anyone interested in 1980s NYC art go see the excellent Keith Haring exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum before it goes away.

 

A Basquiat drawing did not meet reserve in this month's Modern & Contemporary Art sale at Heritage. It has a $122,500 BIN price now, though, unfortunately there's not much to it:

 

Basquiat at Heritage

[tth2]

I visited the Yale University Art Gallery for the first time a few months ago, which has an impressive collection of Impressionist & Modern Art. Even if Modern Art is not your thing, it's really something to walk into the gallery and see all of these instantly recognizable, iconic works by many of the biggest names - Picasso, Miro, Mondrian, Pollock, Warhol, Lichtenstein, Twombly, Rothko, Richter, Basquiat, etc. Like it or not, these are the artists that shaped the way we look at art over the past century and their work has been seared into the public consciousness.

 

Anyone who genuinely loves art I think would enjoy seeing this amazing collection online if you haven't seen it already:

 

Yale University Art Gallery Online (with titles & curator's comments)

 

Yale University Art Gallery Online (enlarged photos only)

I swear you make these posts just to rile the local members of the Flat Earth Society!

[Bronty]

. I don't think not appreciating Lichtenstein makes you a member of that society. I used to like him before I realized quite how closely he copied things - just doesn't seem so artistic anymore. I know lots of artists use reference, but.... knowing what I know of him now made his stock drop in my eyes.

 

I can still appreciate a lot of those others. Picasso in particular was ridiculous if you sit back and think about the fact that he worked in no less than six styles any one of which would have made him an important painter on its own. To use comic book vernacular he's the Jack Kirby of modern art - stands far above anyone else, at least IMO.

 

thanks for the link Gene

 

 

[Bronty]

I guess that makes Damien Hirst Rob Liefeld, btw

[Terry Doyle]

. I don't think not appreciating Lichtenstein makes you a member of that society. I used to like him before I realized quite how closely he copied things - just doesn't seem so artistic anymore. I know lots of artists use reference, but.... knowing what I know of him now made his stock drop in my eyes.

 

I can still appreciate a lot of those others. Picasso in particular was ridiculous if you sit back and think about the fact that he worked in no less than six styles any one of which would have made him an important painter on its own. To use comic book vernacular he's the Jack Kirby of modern art - stands far above anyone else, at least IMO.

 

thanks for the link Gene

 

 

I think the real problem here is that some of the self-styled 'Art Connoisseurs' on these forums are so insecure in their beliefs that they feel the need to scorn those of us that prefer something a little more traditional.

 

If Lichtenstein, etc, is your bag, great, I'm very happy for you.

 

No denying that type of stuff ranks high in the marketplace.

 

And, no, I don't live on a flat earth. I just know what I like and what I don't like.

 

It all down to opinion anyway . . .

[Rip]

I didn't know they had Duchamp's Tu m'. Great piece.

 

Not to get to far off track, but just curious, who would you champion as more influential, Duchamp or Picasso?

 

We need a fine art thread.

 

[Rip]

You don't have to like Modern Art, but it does help to understand it a little.

We don't like it all either. I happen to not like de Kooning.

 

But I kind of like this piece Which I have seen in person

http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/multimedia/interactive_features/78

[comix4fun]

It all down to opinion anyway . . .

 

 

And marketing...don't forget the all powerful influence of effective marketing.

 

 

I can and do enjoy the work of several of the artists in the exhibit. I take particular pride in making up my own mind about what I enjoy and what I don't.

 

Being told that something is great art and enjoying something as great art should be two entirely different things. It is one and the same for a lot of people.

 

Resisting a marketing ploy is a GOOD things. New Coke, Pogs, Rob Granito, Facebook Beacon, Ayds diet candy, Qwikster....it's ok to ride against the tide.

 

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

You don't have to like Modern Art, but it does help to understand it a little.

We don't like it all either. I happen to not like de Kooning.

 

But I kind of like this piece Which I have seen in person

http://www.sfmoma.org/explore/multimedia/interactive_features/78

 

Nothing against modern art. I grew up in a city which housed a major Art Gallery exhibiting such works.

 

Some of it I liked (and still do).

 

Having an 'understanding' doesn't necessarily help you appreciate something that doesn't strike an emotional chord with you.

 

You can appreciate the idea behind the work, if not the execution.

 

This thread was about an artist whose comic-book panels were direct lifts from published (comic-book) works.

 

It's relevant to this forum.

 

I'm sure there are fine art forums, elsewhere, where you can dazzle one another with your knowledge and taste for such things.

 

On a fine art forum, would you want to bring attention (to your peers) your collection of G.I. Joe comic-strip originals?

 

 

[Bronty]

totally agree. Part of appreciating art with an open mind is being able to make your own judgements. Otherwise, what does it boil down to? Nothing more than liking what you're told to like or what you're told was important. We need to be able to listen to that with an open mind but also to be able to cast that aside when we don't agree.

[Terry Doyle]

It all down to opinion anyway . . .

 

 

And marketing...don't forget the all powerful influence of effective marketing.

 

 

Yep . . . maybe some of the used-car-salesmen moved in to the fine art business?

[Terry Doyle]

 

Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool, UK

 

Visited this place most weekends well in to my late teens.

 

I spent many, may hours studying near-enough EVERYTHING.

 

Please don't tell me how I should educate myself, etc, etc, ad nauseum . . .

[comix4fun]

It all down to opinion anyway . . .

 

 

And marketing...don't forget the all powerful influence of effective marketing.

 

 

Yep . . . maybe some of the used-car-salesmen moved in to the fine art business?

 

 

 

What was the old line about Leo Castelli? "He could sell 2 Beer Cans if he wanted to"

 

Then Jasper Johns made a sculpture of 2 beer cans, called Painted Broze (Ale Cans), and sure enough...Castelli sold it.