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

[comix4fun]

Just on artistic merit alone, with bragging rights and monetary value removed from the equation, I'd still rather own one of Lichtenstein's romance comic paintings over ANY piece of actual comic book art (just as I'd rather own a Warhol over the actual production art for the Campbell's Tomato Soup can label ). Oh yeah, I said it.

 

 

 

I'd agree if it was ONLY about bragging rights and monetary value.

 

I don't blame you. If Damien Hirst has admirers then I can see how anything is an artistic achievement by comparison.

 

Personally, if you took out monetary value and bragging rights there are over a dozen Frazetta oils that would make their way onto my wall before almost anything else.

 

The heart wants what the heart wants.

[Speedy-D]

I'd get Rembrandts and an Odd Nerdrum or two...oo, and some sweet Fra Angelico frescoes. Maybe a Bosch if there's any wall space left. Or I could let my folks hang onto it until I get a bigger place. Yeah, I think that's what I'll do.

 

I love Frazetta, but his stuff would be very far down my list. I'd go for a bunch of Lichtensteins over him.

 

 

 

And the Tondo Doni.

 

 

 

 

, I need Grünewald's Isenheim Triptych too, but I think that's free standing, so I should still be okay.

[suspense39]

I know people can get a little touchy around here on this subject, but Lichtenstein only really "borrowed" directly for a short period. What he really did was take the language and aspects of comics and mass production printing and expand it into something else. I love the later domestic interiors, they really change a space. That's great you got to see that show....awesome!

[drdroom]

Went to Washington, D.C. yesterday to catch the last weekend of the Roy Lichtenstein retrospective before it moves to London. It was astoundingly good, and I'm not just saying that to antagonize Chris, Terry, et. al. My non-comic fan friends who also saw the show were hugely impressed as well - "I never knew that he had such a broad range of work" was probably what most people thought - the "Chinese landscapes" he did late in his career were amazing. If he had never done a single comic book painting, he would have been known for his other work (especially his pre-comic Pop Art, his mid-60s landscapes and his '70s artist homages) and would still retain his place in the pantheon of great Modern artists. The comic paintings were spectacular; the audio guide played clips of Lichtenstein praising the source material in lectures/interviews, but, frankly, trying to frame the source material as being "the real artists" like Barsalou does while in the presence of Lichtenstein's genius just struck me as more than faintly ludicrous. Just on artistic merit alone, with bragging rights and monetary value removed from the equation, I'd still rather own one of Lichtenstein's romance comic paintings over ANY piece of actual comic book art (just as I'd rather own a Warhol over the actual production art for the Campbell's Tomato Soup can label ). Oh yeah, I said it.

 

[comix4fun]

 

I love Frazetta, but his stuff would be very far down my list. I'd go for a bunch of Lichtensteins over him.

 

.

 

 

 

Well if you got a bunch of Lichtenstein's you'll have a bunch of comic artists anyway. So 6 of one half dozen of the other.

[Speedy-D]

Double win for me!!

[Speedy-D]

...and more Frazettas for you.

[Koa]

When talking purely aesthetics I can think of 100 comic book artists hose work I'd rather have.

[Aman619]

here we go....

[Terry Doyle]

Whatever floats your boat . . .

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

For what it's worth, one of my dogs seems to like Lichtenstein . . .

 

[buttock]

For what it's worth, one of my dogs seems to like Lichtenstein . . .

 

 

My dog likes to Licherself.

[Terry Doyle]

For what it's worth, one of my dogs seems to like Lichtenstein . . .

 

 

My dog likes to Licherself.

 

[Bronty]

I'll never have any great appreciation for Roy's comic canvasses, the swipes are far too blatant, but I can appreciate that he might have done other nice work (I am not familiar enough with the rest of his work). I can imagine that it must look odd to outsiders the (rightful) esteem with which we hold jack kirby. The uninitiated would consider it terrible work (crude at first glance) and wonder how he ever got his rep as the best comics has to offer. I am not saying that is or is not the case with Roy but putting the shoe on the other makes me wonder

[comix4fun]

I'll never have any great appreciation for Roy's comic canvasses, the swipes are far too blatant, but I can appreciate that he might have done other nice work

 

 

 

+1

 

It's just this particular era of his work that draws ire from me.

 

 

[delekkerste]

I'll never have any great appreciation for Roy's comic canvasses, the swipes are far too blatant, but I can appreciate that he might have done other nice work (I am not familiar enough with the rest of his work). I can imagine that it must look odd to outsiders the (rightful) esteem with which we hold jack kirby. The uninitiated would consider it terrible work (crude at first glance) and wonder how he ever got his rep as the best comics has to offer. I am not saying that is or is not the case with Roy but putting the shoe on the other makes me wonder

 

I think where my opinion differs from yours and Chris' is that I don't believe that all comic art rises up to the level of Kirby, Ditko, Eisner, Miller, etc., a.k.a. the true artistes of the genre. I mean, this is not Erro ripping off Bolland's image and well-known style of a trademarked and established character, this was taking single non-descript panels from generic, disposable war and romance comics where the artists had already signed all their rights away to D.C. and were often not even credited by D.C. - I'm not sure Lichtenstein could have credited the artists by name even if he wanted to (and he did, in fact, pay tribute to the original creators and the difficulties of working in the comics medium - all available on the audio guide of the retrospective). You know why the artists didn't sue Lichtenstein? It's because they had no rights to the artwork, and D.C. was undoubtedly very happy by the attention that Lichtenstein brought to their publications.

 

I think you have to do what Chris C. said earlier in this thread - go take a look at one of these paintings in person. In fact, while you're at it, bring a copy of the original comic book with you. The connection is interesting from an iconographic standpoint, but, otherwise, is there really that much similarity? One is an anonymous, non-descript, generic, 4-color, tiny piece of a long-forgotten periodical published on newsprint while the other is art. It is the size of art. It presents like art. It is a complete whole. It has been painted and various treatments like his signature dots have been carefully applied. It tells its own story not being just a piece of a larger whole. Not only that, but Lichtenstein never claimed that these images were 100% original, even if many viewers may have initially assumed as much. All of his pre-comic Pop Art were copies too - of objects, advertisements, etc. But, he did make changes to every single piece - the inside of a car becomes the inside of an atelier, various angles and pieces are changed/omitted in "Whaam!" from the original to make a bigger impact as a standalone piece, etc. I think it's ridiculous for Barsalou to place identically-sized images side by side and point a finger when, in person, the two objects look only superficially alike.

 

I suspect that none of this will change your minds, but I think Lichtenstein's work is brilliant, whereas the original source material is not. Aside from the connection to Lichtenstein, none of us here would stoop to collect this OA, so I say let's stop pretending this stuff is something other than what it really is. And, I think it's also fairly evident that Lichtenstein helped elevate comics as an art form. I know some people will resent that it took a non-comic artist to do that, while others will vehemently deny that he had any influence at all (I think Spiegelman said he did about as much for comics as Warhol did for soup cans), but I think the reality is that he's had a net positive impact that I, for one, would rather acknowledge and be grateful for than resentful.

[comix4fun]

I'll never have any great appreciation for Roy's comic canvasses, the swipes are far too blatant, but I can appreciate that he might have done other nice work (I am not familiar enough with the rest of his work). I can imagine that it must look odd to outsiders the (rightful) esteem with which we hold jack kirby. The uninitiated would consider it terrible work (crude at first glance) and wonder how he ever got his rep as the best comics has to offer. I am not saying that is or is not the case with Roy but putting the shoe on the other makes me wonder

 

I think where my opinion differs from yours and Chris' is that I don't believe that all comic art rises up to the level of Kirby, Ditko, Eisner, Miller, etc., a.k.a. the true artistes of the genre.

 

 

 

To me the distinction of from whom the image was originally lifted is irrelevant.

An artist's stature or reputation or fame doesn't make them more or less worthy of protection of their work, their credit and their compensation.

 

None of these publishers or artists were given their due compensation or credit as the source material for these pieces. How many times have these images been reproduced on posters, prints, and other licensing items? Where's the royalty payment?

 

I don't care if it's Frank Frazetta or Frank Robbins, all creators deserve protection, appreciation, credit and compensation. I think that true artwork can be appreciated in the bright light of day and not suffer for it's origins if it is truly great.

 

It's great that Roy never hid that these pieces were used as his starting points, now where's the check?

[Pete Marino]

Not to stoke the flames (yet again on this one) but....

 

I get the sentiment of somehow he got famous from "our stuff".

 

But would anyone care about those panels if he hadn't taken the image? Wasn't one of the originals on ebay last year, and it went for like $600??

 

I think anything that brings positive attention and discussion about what we love should not be shunned.

 

As was said above, he never claimed the images to be his own. Then again, maybe I am missing the boat on this one.

 

And to the other point, the only check that would be written would be to DC comics! They owned the images not the original artist.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Pete Marino

[delekkerste]

Not to stoke the flames (yet again on this one) but....

 

I get the sentiment of somehow he got famous from "our stuff".

 

But would anyone care about those panels if he hadn't taken the image? Wasn't one of the originals on ebay last year, and it went for like $600??

 

I think anything that brings positive attention and discussion about what we love should not be shunned.

 

As was said above, he never claimed the images to be his own. Then again, maybe I am missing the boat on this one.

 

And to the other point, the only check that would be written would be to DC comics! They owned the images not the original artist.

 

No one would care about the originals if he hadn't borrowed the image. In a world where Lichtenstein never existed, that $600 eBay sale would be lucky to fetch $60. And, you're right - if anyone is due any royalties, it's DC Comics.

 

I'll give Chris that it would be nice if the original creators got more acknowledgement than they have, but, in a world without Lichtenstein, they wouldn't have gotten any credit at all. It's not like Lichtenstein copied anyone's distinct style or characters (you'd be hard-pressed to even identify who the original artists were if someone hadn't gone back and identified the original panels and the books they came from). I understand the need to protect creators' rights, but I feel that this is much closer to copying a Campbell's soup can label than anything that Frank Frazetta or even Frank Robbins ever did.

[comix4fun]

 

And to the other point, the only check that would be written would be to DC comics! They owned the images not the original artist.

 

 

Which is what I said. Credit to the artist, compensation to the copyright holder. (thumbs u

 

It doesn't matter what people would have remembered or forgotten or cared about or ignored but for the divine hand of the "art illuminati" raising them out of their gutter-slums.

 

Not too many people cared about "Under Pressure" by Queen, but that doesn't mean Vanilla Ice got to take it and use it and not compensate the rights holder for it.

 

You take it, you use it, you profit from it, you pay for it.