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

[comix4fun]

Oh, , it's also very possible that some of the panels that Lichtenstein used were in the public domain, which would mean that that were free to use by anyone--legally. It man be an explanation for why he was never sued for copyright.

 

 

 

 

The copyrights were valid for 28 years from the time of first publication for any piece produced prior to 1978. Those pieces were eligible for a renewal of another 28 years as well. In 1978 copyright law was changed to allow for an additional 67 years instead of 28. So the potential length of copyright on these images is most likely still in effect.

 

However, we don't even have to dig that deeply.

 

The piece that started this thread: "I CAN SEE THE WHOLE ROOM AND THERE'S NOBODY IN IT ! " as produced in 1961.....it was lifted from a Steve Roper Sunday Strip published in August 1961.

 

 

 

I don't think that piece was in the public domain, being that the ink on the Sunday strip wasn't even dry when it was ...dun dun dun... "Transformed" .

Ah, but 1963 is a magic year in terms of copyright. So unless those images published prior to 1963 were renewed 28 years later, they are in the public domain. Also, to receive copyright production prior to 1963, simply having the art published wasn't enough. You actually had to have the notation copyright (or the c with the circle around it) 19xx. I didn't say all the stuff the Lichtenstein used was in the public domain, but some of it may have been, especially the romance stuff.

 

 

That's true, but we are also talking about Publisher's Newspaper Syndicate. These were not rubes. I don't think there's any way they let their copyrights fall after a year or two. The publishing world had notice of the changes coming.

 

Although it would be an interesting tangent to the story if these pieces were mostly created/ released after 1963...kind of a predatory strafing run on comics after the changeover.

[AKA Rick]

I guess it's all subject to intrepretation.

 

 

 

When does the inspired copy...

 

(Vanilla Ice)

 

...become more popular, or a greater commercials success than the orignial:

 

(Queen)

 

 

AND

 

...and when does use of the original material...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir7-R8WdtcM (Supertramp)

 

...have enough elements borrowed for a composition that it becomes a new creation that is different enough to stand on it's own at a certain level:

 

(Gym Class Heroes)

 

 

 

OR

 

(Notorious BIG)

 

VS

 

(Isley Bros)

 

 

 

OR

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPpE_BrX0FM (Puffy Daddy)

 

VS

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_qrCzILxjk (Diana Ross)

 

 

 

...so I think the difference is in the music industry now, credit is given where credit is due, and payment is made where clearly influence, creative elements and participation is borrowed or sampled.

 

It's about creative integrity and respect, so when an artist clearly "remixes" another artists work without any acknowlegment, putting the financial aspects aside, whether that acknowlegment is to the original artist or to the public audience and art community, many feel emotionally and intellectually insulted by the new work.

 

I see artists today in comic books clearly give that respect when they "reimagine" certain cover layouts with comments next to their signature such as putting "after (artists name)" or another note which clearly acknowledged they're paying homage to another artist. That's credit. Some may negativley call it a swipe, others positively, a tribute, so that debate can go on, but at least the original creator is credited.

 

Did Lichtenstein in interviews or articles even ever give credit, whether an in passing comment about the influence or an outright statement of inspiration, to the comic books or artists he sampled off of? I'm not sure nor familiar with the man behind the work and whether he had that integrity and honor.

 

[comix4fun]

I guess it's all subject to intrepretation.

 

 

 

When does the inspired copy...

 

(Vanilla Ice)

 

...become more popular, or a greater commercials success than the orignial:

 

(Queen)

 

 

AND

 

...and when does use of the original material...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir7-R8WdtcM (Supertramp)

 

...have enough elements borrowed for a composition that it becomes a new creation that is different enough to stand on it's own at a certain level:

 

(Gym Class Heroes)

 

 

 

OR

 

(Notorious BIG)

 

VS

 

(Isley Bros)

 

 

 

OR

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPpE_BrX0FM (Puffy Daddy)

 

VS

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_qrCzILxjk (Diana Ross)

 

 

 

...so I think the difference is in the music industry now, credit is given where credit is due, and payment is made where clearly influence, creative elements and participation is borrowed or sampled.

 

It's about creative integrity and respect, so when an artist clearly "remixes" another artists work without any acknowlegment, putting the financial aspects aside, whether that acknowlegment is to the original artist or to the public audience and art community, many feel emotionally and intellectually insulted by the new work.

 

I see artists today in comic books clearly give that respect when they "reimagine" certain cover layouts with comments next to their signature such as putting "after (artists name)" or another note which clearly acknowledged they're paying homage to another artist. That's credit. Some may negativley call it a swipe, others positively, a tribute, so that debate can go on, but at least the original creator is credited.

 

Did Lichtenstein in interviews or articles even ever give credit, whether an in passing comment about the influence or an outright statement of inspiration, to the comic books or artists he sampled off of? I'm not sure nor familiar with the man behind the work and whether he had that integrity and honor.

 

There may have been others. It seems pretty subjective what was credited and what wasn't.

 

The only time I can think of was the May 1963 Life magazine article where the piece that started this thread was displayed along with an interview with Roy.

 

It was, supposedly ( I don't have a copy of the article), published along side the Steve Roper panel it was taken from. Most likely this was because it wasn't simply a panel hidden inside a book that had 20,000 copies printed. It was lifted from the last panel to a wildly popular comic strip, a Sunday strip no less with a viewing public well into the millions across the country and that eventually would run for roughly 60 years.

 

 

 

[micmack]

I always bring this up, sorry..

 

Richard Prince (aka Prince of Thieves)

and his Runaway Nurse Series

 

And the original by James Avati (Prince just blew up the paperback novel photographically and painted over a few things)

 

 

No mention of Avati by Prince when he scored millions for his work

Edited October 25, 2011 by micmack

[comix4fun]

I always bring this up, sorry..

 

Richard Prince (aka Prince of Thieves)

and his Runaway Nurse Series

 

And the original by James Avati (Prince just blew up the paperback novel photographically and painted over a few things)

 

 

No mention of Avati by Prince when he scored millions for his work

 

 

Now that is hackwork...yikes.

 

It's the same down to the hands, the folds on the skirt...and the things he did change are horrible.

 

The nurse's mask...it looks like one of those colorforms sets we all played with as kids. An incredible lack of skill.

[Terry Doyle]

Figurative representation, taken to the extreme by the hyper-realists, is not the height of artistic expression. Would the art world really have been better served if it had never branched off into abstraction and people were still only doing portraits and still-lifes and landscapes?

 

I hear you, Gene.

 

 

 

[delekkerste]

They were always art. Always. Painted on the side of a building, or tucked away inside "Forbidden Romance #127" they are all art. The creators all deserve to be appreciated and attributed. Nothing about what was done to these panels, no divine hand of God touching them, happened or would ever warrant deletion of their actual creators from existence.

 

OK, it was art, but it was low art, and not because it was comic book art and not gallery fine art, but because all of these were generic drawings of no-name characters from no-name 10 cent magazines often done by no-name artists who themselves probably had no illusions about what they were doing for a living. If Lichtenstein committed a crime, it was a misdemeanor, not a felony (in the moral sense, not the legal sense). Maybe he was a jerk, but he was a brilliant jerk. It seems as though everyone who believes he was a jerk also believes his art sucks because he was a jerk.

 

Which gets me to my points about anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism, because clearly a lot of people are following this kind of logic:

 

1. Lichtenstein didn't properly credit the source material, hence he is a jerk.

 

2. Because he is a jerk, I think he's a plagiarizing copier and his art sucks.

 

3. And because the fine art world embraces this plagiarizing copier, the collectors must be fools and the dealers and critics and museums must be pulling a fast one over everyone.

 

4. Hence, I'm also against art world snobs and studied art critics because they've clearly drunk the Kool-Aid while I can see with my own two eyes that this guy is a plagiarizing copier and a jerk of a human being.

 

That's a little facetitious, but I don't think it's that far off the mark. And, clearly some of the comments made lead me to believe that people are, by and large, unaware about the vast majority of Lichtenstein's other work, which has nothing to do with the comic panels he worked on for only a few years in the early and mid 1960s, and yet they feel justified in condemning the man's entire career. I also see very little mentioned about the ideas he had, the techniques he used, how iconic the images are now because of him, how many critics railed against him initially (i.e., making him a star wasn't some kind of organized conspiracy by the Establishment), the impact he has had on generations of artists that followed, etc.

 

I mean, let's face it - love him or hate him, he's an important figure in art history. Maybe he was a jerk, maybe he wasn't the best draftsman, maybe he benefited from the right representation - say what you will, he still matters, in the positive sense of the word.

[delekkerste]

Now that is hackwork...yikes.

 

It's the same down to the hands, the folds on the skirt...and the things he did change are horrible.

 

The nurse's mask...it looks like one of those colorforms sets we all played with as kids. An incredible lack of skill.

 

It's an incredible lack of skill if he was going for realism instead of the lurid, melodramatic parody he intended, with the garish colors and backgrounds, and all the nurses in the series wearing surgical masks that were intended exactly as you said it - to look as if they were added post facto. Is it great art? Maybe, maybe not. But, the series certainly did capture the imagination of a great deal of people.

 

Let's face it - few people would want the tattered originals of those paperback covers hanging in their Greenwich, Connecticut mansions, which is why they sell for $800 in Heritage's Illustration Art auctions to people like us. But, when a respected artist gets the idea to blow up copies to huge sizes (you have to see these in person) and then paint over them to create the desired effect of something impactful and interesting that would look great in a 15,000 square foot mansion or Park Avenue penthouse, yeah, then a lot of people start to take notice.

 

What is a bikini except a bra and panties set cut from different fabric and a gentlemen's agreement that it is acceptable to wear one in certain public places? Well, maybe some feel that there's not much more difference between an $800 original nurse paperback cover and a $3 million Richard Prince nurse painting (I would argue otherwise), but there's a gentlemen's agreement that says the latter is "worthy" and the former is not. You can call that art world snobbery, but, the reality is that there is just a different set of values. The latter may be derivative, but the art world values the idea, the inspiration, the technique, the impact, the presentability and the rarity of it. It does not value as highly the original, which is just a literal representation of a scene from a long-forgotten third-rate novel done by an artist who was assigned the job and told what to do. And, while the monetary difference is admittedly obscene, I don't think the art world is wrong to value the idea higher than the drafting skill shown in the final products, as the latter is really much, much, much more common than most comic book fans seem to realize.

[Terry Doyle]

Came across this on the internet . . .

 

The celebrated American artist Richard Prince has been ordered to destroy works worth tens of millions of dollars after a court ruled that the paintings, which reworked a series of photographs by the French photographer Patrick Cariou, had breached copyright.

 

A New York federal court has ruled that Prince and his gallery infringed Cariou's copyright when he produced a series of works in a 2008 show using 35 pictures from the book Yes, Rasta, published by Cariou in 2000, "in their entirety, or nearly so".

 

Prince adapted the Cariou works by adding, in one instance, an electric guitar and some splodges for eyes.

 

The ruling, which may lead to an appeal, stands to cost Prince and the Gagosian, one of the world's leading contemporary galleries, with outlets in London and New York, potentially huge sums. Eight of the works from the exhibition, which was entitled Canal Zone, have together sold for more than $10m (£6m). Seven others have been exchanged for other works of art for between $6m and $8m.

 

Prince has often made a virtue of his appropriation art. His images are sometimes taken from old advertisements in magazines. He told Art Forum magazine in 2003: "I had limited technical skills regarding the camera. Actually, I had no skills … I used a cheap commercial laboratory to blow up the pictures … I never went in a darkroom."

 

Prince's lawyers had told Deborah Batts, a federal judge sitting in Manhattan, that Cariou's photographs of Rastafarians, taken over six years, were "mere compilations of facts … arranged with minimum creativity … [and were] therefore not protectable" by copyright law. Of the electric guitar he added to one of the photographs, Prince testified: "He plays the guitar now. It looks like he's always played the guitar, that's what my message was." The lawyers claimed "fair use" of the images.

 

But the artist admitted that he used the photographs as raw materials and intended to sell the images. He and the gallery were found to have acted in bad faith by not asking permission to use Cariou's photographs or withdrawing them from sale when the photographer sent them notice.

 

The judge ruled that rather than simply adding elements to an original work, a new piece should create something "plainly different from the original purposes for which it was created". He cited a landmark case in which the American artist Jeff Koons created an exaggerated sculpture based on a postcard of a couple with their arms full of puppies. Koons lost that case.

 

The judgment stated: "In a number of his paintings, Prince appropriated entire photos, and in the majority of his paintings Prince appropriated the central figures depicted in portraits taken by Cariou."

 

Another New York gallery owner, Christiane Celle, cancelled a Cariou show, saying she did not want to exhibit work already shown at another gallery.

 

Ahead of a ruling on damages on 6 May, Prince and the Gagosian have been ordered to destroy all the paintings and exhibition catalogues that they hold and to tell buyers that the paintings were not lawfully made and cannot lawfully be displayed.

 

The ruling stated: "It is clear that the market for Cariou's photos was usurped by [Prince and Gagosian] … the court finds that Prince has unfairly damaged both the actual and potential markets for Cariou's original work and the potential market for derivative-use licences for Cariou's original work."

[Dick Pontoon]

They were always art. Always. Painted on the side of a building, or tucked away inside "Forbidden Romance #127" they are all art. The creators all deserve to be appreciated and attributed. Nothing about what was done to these panels, no divine hand of God touching them, happened or would ever warrant deletion of their actual creators from existence.

 

OK, it was art, but it was low art, and not because it was comic book art and not gallery fine art, but because all of these were generic drawings of no-name characters from no-name 10 cent magazines often done by no-name artists who themselves probably had no illusions about what they were doing for a living. If Lichtenstein committed a crime, it was a misdemeanor, not a felony (in the moral sense, not the legal sense). Maybe he was a jerk, but he was a brilliant jerk. It seems as though everyone who believes he was a jerk also believes his art sucks because he was a jerk.

 

 

Gene –

 

You made a lot of good points that I mostly agree with, but this one is a bit of a stretch.

 

The pinched panels came from a disposable form of entertainment, but they were far from generic in many, many cases. Russ Heath? Joe Kubert? Jack Kirby? Stan Goldberg might not be a household name, but he received credit on countless Marvel splash pages. Lichtenstein was no fool; he knew what he was doing by not citing the original work, and even when using an uncredited source knew a human being was behind the art, but downplaying their work was essential to the success of his own.

 

If it makes a difference, I have a BFA from MassArt with a dual major in painting and filmmaking, so your semi-facetious anti-intellectualism scenario doesn’t apply across the board.

 

[Aman619]

thats convoluted. IF he "knew what he was doing" he wouldnt have used "famous" comic artists panels. Truth is hard to take that ALL comics were considered worthless at that time. Even the best names, who founded the huge collectible industry we love today, ALL of them were just hacks back then.

 

Stan Lee was embarrassed all the time at parties when asked what he did for a living back then. He dreaded the question. Said hed rahter have been "in ladies underwear" like ythe other guys at the parties. THAT would have been a better answer than "I write funny books for a living. No, not Batman, No not Superman. No not Archie. No you never heard of my characters."

 

I dont even think he muttered as they walked away" But you WILL someday! heh heh heh..."

 

[Aman619]

that shoulda been "bwah, hah hah"

[comix4fun]

that shoulda been "bwah, hah hah"

 

 

I pictured it more sinister...more.. "Mwuah, ha, ha"

[Aman619]

youre right. thats better, Mwah haha... thanx!

[The Troll King]

Ok Gene, let's talk something we both know. Pin-up art.

 

Just because I like Earl Moran and Fritz Willis better than Elvgren doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about with the subject. Art is personal preference above anything. I could elaborate on why I prefer Moran and Willis over Elvgren but that is not what's at issue. This issue is that because more people know who Elvgren was and are familiar with his work they will blindly claim him as a favorite.

 

I feel this comparison is frequently made with the abstract painters as well. Picasso is a household name and I feel that his paintings only command the prices that they do, not for the subject matter but for the name recognition. Same with Pollock and even Warhol. These people became celebrities not just in their own circled but worldwide and to say it's simply because of the art they produced is truly elitist.

 

As I mentioned above, Picasso hated the art community and found it riddled with hypocrisy. Once he had the critic following and the public following he did everything he could to get rid of it. He mocked everyone including his own work. To some this would seem more like the modest hero of the art world but he would have detested that title too.

 

We can read all the history and critical review of these "pop" artists all we want. When I read them I see a lot of attempts at justification of because of celebrity.

 

We all agree now that Britney Spears is mostly but there was a moment when she was at the top of the world. Someone cared and it wasn't just 'Tweens buying CDs. I feel like the only reason the art world hasn't finally come out and admitted that Pollock, Lichtenstein, etc are is because it's now become value protection to the owners and to the future commission earners. No one wants to suffer a loss and it's become a badge of honor with bragging rights to own a piece by them.

 

Thomas Kinkade is and people finally came to their senses over that, why not these other artists?

I guess the foundation question really should be... Is it the art that's worthy or the artist and why?

If it's simply the artist and everyone across the board accepted that I could accept that too. Unfortunately that won't be the case.

 

[pinupcartoonguy]

Ok Gene, let's talk something we both know. Pin-up art.

 

Just because I like Earl Moran and Fritz Willis better than Elvgren doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about with the subject. Art is personal preference above anything. I could elaborate on why I prefer Moran and Willis over Elvgren but that is not what's at issue. This issue is that because more people know who Elvgren was and are familiar with his work they will blindly claim him as a favorite.

 

I feel this comparison is frequently made with the abstract painters as well. Picasso is a household name and I feel that his paintings only command the prices that they do, not for the subject matter but for the name recognition. Same with Pollock and even Warhol. These people became celebrities not just in their own circled but worldwide and to say it's simply because of the art they produced is truly elitist.

 

As I mentioned above, Picasso hated the art community and found it riddled with hypocrisy. Once he had the critic following and the public following he did everything he could to get rid of it. He mocked everyone including his own work. To some this would seem more like the modest hero of the art world but he would have detested that title too.

 

We can read all the history and critical review of these "pop" artists all we want. When I read them I see a lot of attempts at justification of because of celebrity.

 

We all agree now that Britney Spears is mostly but there was a moment when she was at the top of the world. Someone cared and it wasn't just 'Tweens buying CDs. I feel like the only reason the art world hasn't finally come out and admitted that Pollock, Lichtenstein, etc are is because it's now become value protection to the owners and to the future commission earners. No one wants to suffer a loss and it's become a badge of honor with bragging rights to own a piece by them.

 

Thomas Kinkade is and people finally came to their senses over that, why not these other artists?

I guess the foundation question really should be... Is it the art that's worthy or the artist and why?

If it's simply the artist and everyone across the board accepted that I could accept that too. Unfortunately that won't be the case.

 

Kinkade was almost purely about marketing and speculation, and that market was house of cards that came crashing down. Re Lichtenstein et al., I'd argue that were part of a viable movement (pop art) that really captured a time and place. There's also a nostalgia factor associated with it, a factor which also seems to drive another hobby where many "hack" artists garner a fair chunk of change.

 

 

[The Troll King]

Ok Gene, let's talk something we both know. Pin-up art.

 

Just because I like Earl Moran and Fritz Willis better than Elvgren doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about with the subject. Art is personal preference above anything. I could elaborate on why I prefer Moran and Willis over Elvgren but that is not what's at issue. This issue is that because more people know who Elvgren was and are familiar with his work they will blindly claim him as a favorite.

 

I feel this comparison is frequently made with the abstract painters as well. Picasso is a household name and I feel that his paintings only command the prices that they do, not for the subject matter but for the name recognition. Same with Pollock and even Warhol. These people became celebrities not just in their own circled but worldwide and to say it's simply because of the art they produced is truly elitist.

 

As I mentioned above, Picasso hated the art community and found it riddled with hypocrisy. Once he had the critic following and the public following he did everything he could to get rid of it. He mocked everyone including his own work. To some this would seem more like the modest hero of the art world but he would have detested that title too.

 

We can read all the history and critical review of these "pop" artists all we want. When I read them I see a lot of attempts at justification of because of celebrity.

 

We all agree now that Britney Spears is mostly but there was a moment when she was at the top of the world. Someone cared and it wasn't just 'Tweens buying CDs. I feel like the only reason the art world hasn't finally come out and admitted that Pollock, Lichtenstein, etc are is because it's now become value protection to the owners and to the future commission earners. No one wants to suffer a loss and it's become a badge of honor with bragging rights to own a piece by them.

 

Thomas Kinkade is and people finally came to their senses over that, why not these other artists?

I guess the foundation question really should be... Is it the art that's worthy or the artist and why?

If it's simply the artist and everyone across the board accepted that I could accept that too. Unfortunately that won't be the case.

 

Kinkade was almost purely about marketing and speculation, and that market was house of cards that came crashing down. Re Lichtenstein et al., I'd argue that were part of a viable movement (pop art) that really captured a time and place. There's also a nostalgia factor associated with it, a factor which also seems to drive another hobby where many "hack" artists garner a fair chunk of change.

 

 

Well, with comics there is an amount of bragging rights too. We all post our latest art and book pick-ups because we're looking for community acceptance of what we collect. Community acceptance let's us know we're not alone in our genre of collecting.

 

What is a collection if we're unwilling to show it off other than an accumulation of things?

 

I have no desire to own an Action 1, Detective 27, or even an AF 15. Would I be grateful if one fell in my lap, sure, who wouldn't. I feel that many people that actively seek these books are simply doing it so that others know... I have the grail of grails. There aren't a whole lot of us around any more that can speak of the nostalgia of those major keys (with the exception of AF 15 of course) so to own one usually is to simply say, "I have it".

 

The same can be said of the fine art world in many respects.

[Aman619]

yeah, definitely parallels to our comics world. Some comics grow in stature and value, others wane. Some artists retain their lofty status, others not so much. The market decides. Sometimes it after careful consideration, sometimes theyre sheep.

[comix4fun]

yeah, definitely parallels to our comics world. Some comics grow in stature and value, others wane. Some artists retain their lofty status, others not so much. The market decides. Sometimes it after careful consideration, sometimes theyre sheep.

 

 

You forgot the "Mwah, ha, ha" again. It works for most situations.

[Bronty]

wouldn't that be "baaaa, baaa, baa" in this case?