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

[Terry Doyle]

Out of curiosity, are people more offended by the fact the Lichtenstien profited from the use of the work or the fact that the original artist didn't profit?

 

When I first became aware of Lichtenstein's comic panel pages, back in the 1960s (I think), I thought they were pretty cool images - and I found comfort in the idea that they kind of showcased/helped legitimize the stuff I collected to an adult audience.

 

Had absolutely no idea (at the time) that they were direct swipes from the published works of others.

 

Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.

 

Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

 

 

[Bronty]

yeah well put. When I first saw them I didn't know they were direct swipes either. My respect for the work definitely nosedived after finding out.

[Dr. Balls]

Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.

 

Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

 

 

As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.

[DailySuperpower]

Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.

 

Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

 

 

As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.

 

It's unfortunate that you call yourself an artist, but would destroy another person's work because you disagree with their view of art.

 

Sometimes it's more about an original idea than an original image.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.

 

Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

 

 

As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.

 

It's unfortunate that you call yourself an artist, but would destroy another person's work because you disagree with their view of art.

 

Sometimes it's more about an original idea than an original image.

 

 

Blatantly ripping off someone's work in such a huge, far-reaching manner is not art or expression for that matter. Taking an image the size of a business card and blowing it up 1000% does not constitute as an "original idea".

 

Coming to the defense of someone who's entire reputation is based on infringing on other people's art? I'm pretty sure you're going to be in the minority on that.

[AtlasFan]

Is there a complete list of Lichtenstein comic art mapped to the original comic book issue # and artist?

 

I ask because:

- Seems like something I would want to see listed in Overstreet.

- It would be interesting to see is there was a pattern of "inspired" images and any particular company or artist

 

Also, are there any comments or articles about the original comic artists to Lichtenstein? If Alex Toth was one of the artists, I am sure he must have had something to say on this topic!

[Dr. Balls]

This guy might be able to point you in the right direction:

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

 

Not sure if he's still around, I think he made his point about Lichtenstein's work and let it speak for itself on this website.

[Terry Doyle]

I wonder if any of the original comic-books pages, that Lichtenstein swiped from, are known to exist?

 

 

[The Troll King]

This guy might be able to point you in the right direction:

 

Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein

 

Not sure if he's still around, I think he made his point about Lichtenstein's work and let it speak for itself on this website.

 

It does speak, very loudly in fact. It's quite obvious how poor the draftmanship is of the originals. In many cases the women look like they have facial deformities.

 

I see nothing inspiring at all in his copies and anyone who claims that the original panels are simply just throw-away art really need to look again. Throw-away or not, they are crafted far better than the Lichtenstein copies.

 

What this reminds me of is a child who is aspiring to be an artist and uses comic book panels as "practice". Sure they look similar to the originals but there's usually something that's either just a little off or missing.

[The Troll King]

This is what it states that you have to agree to on the Lichtenstein Foundation web site:

 

The contents of this websire are for personal and/or educational use only. The texts, graphics and designs contained in this website may not be reproduced, downloaded or modified in any form without the express written permission of the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. Imagines of any work of visual art that are contained in this website may not be reproduced, downloaded or modified in any form without the express written permission of the Estate of Roy Lichtenstein or, if another copyright holder is identified on any such image, such other copyright holder...

 

...Nothing contained in this website shall be construed as conferring any license or right to any copyright or trademark in this website.

 

Oh the irony!

[chrisco37]

Different strokes and all that.

 

I love his stuff.

[bluechip]

This is what it states that you have to agree to on the Lichtenstein Foundation web site:

 

The contents of this websire are for personal and/or educational use only. The texts, graphics and designs contained in this website may not be reproduced, downloaded or modified in any form without the express written permission of the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation. Imagines of any work of visual art that are contained in this website may not be reproduced, downloaded or modified in any form without the express written permission of the Estate of Roy Lichtenstein or, if another copyright holder is identified on any such image, such other copyright holder...

 

...Nothing contained in this website shall be construed as conferring any license or right to any copyright or trademark in this website.

 

Oh the irony!

 

Nobody needs to reproduce or modify Lichtenstein's work when they can go back to the source material themselves and redraw it themselves in their own way (perhaps better?), print it up big and put it in a show.

 

 

 

 

[DailySuperpower]

Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.

 

Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

 

 

As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.

 

It's unfortunate that you call yourself an artist, but would destroy another person's work because you disagree with their view of art.

 

Sometimes it's more about an original idea than an original image.

 

 

Blatantly ripping off someone's work in such a huge, far-reaching manner is not art or expression for that matter. Taking an image the size of a business card and blowing it up 1000% does not constitute as an "original idea".

 

Coming to the defense of someone who's entire reputation is based on infringing on other people's art? I'm pretty sure you're going to be in the minority on that.

 

I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.

 

Have you even read this thread?

[MrBedrock]

If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it.

No you wouldn't.

[Dr. Balls]

I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.

 

Have you even read this thread?

 

We can agree to disagree. There is nothing close-minded about vilifying someone who's entire career and reputation is based upon the stealing of other people's work to make a buck. It's an embarrassment, and standing up for it under the guise of being "open-minded" is insulting to most artists. End of story.

 

I didn't need to read the thread, and I don't care to. The only people who value Lichtenstein's work are people who own it and need to convince themselves that a lifetime of lifting, lightboxing, photo referencing, tracing or whatever he did was "artistic license", people that actually never realized that he stole his compositions from comic books or people who think that stealing others' art and claiming it's your own is an acceptable form of expression.

[DailySuperpower]

I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.

 

Have you even read this thread?

 

We can agree to disagree. There is nothing close-minded about vilifying someone who's entire career and reputation is based upon the stealing of other people's work to make a buck. It's an embarrassment, and standing up for it under the guise of being "open-minded" is insulting to most artists. End of story.

 

Again, happy to be in the minority here as most artists take themselves way too seriously.

 

I didn't need to read the thread, and I don't care to. The only people who value Lichtenstein's work are people who own it and need to convince themselves that a lifetime of lifting, lightboxing, photo referencing, tracing or whatever he did was "artistic license", people that actually never realized that he stole his compositions from comic books or people who think that stealing others' art and claiming it's your own is an acceptable form of expression.

 

...

 

[comix4fun]

Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.

 

Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

 

 

As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.

 

It's unfortunate that you call yourself an artist, but would destroy another person's work because you disagree with their view of art.

 

Sometimes it's more about an original idea than an original image.

 

 

Blatantly ripping off someone's work in such a huge, far-reaching manner is not art or expression for that matter. Taking an image the size of a business card and blowing it up 1000% does not constitute as an "original idea".

 

Coming to the defense of someone who's entire reputation is based on infringing on other people's art? I'm pretty sure you're going to be in the minority on that.

 

I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.

 

Have you even read this thread?

 

 

Did you ever read the part of Roy's biography where his kids were looking at a Disney drawing and they challenged their dad saying " I bet you can't draw this that well, Dad." and he proceeded to create his copy of the Disney piece?

 

That's where the "big idea" came from. That's it's origin.

 

All the ivory tower "deconstruct modern society and shine a light on the insignificant corners of it that speak to the basics of humanity" stuff got tacked on at the end by people that had nothing to do with the creation of the art....it was really to win a bet with his kids.

[adamstrange]

Out of curiosity, are people more offended by the fact the Lichtenstien profited from the use of the work or the fact that the original artist didn't profit?

 

 

Neither.

 

Credit, attribution, and honest disclosure. That's what's set me off from the beginning. Rob Granito gets my ire up too, and that's a few hundred dollars total.

 

Those original artists' names belong right there, next to Roy's on every single piece. The dollar amount is inconsequential to the overarching ethical issue.

 

Russ Heath, one of the artists swiped by Lichtenstein, was invited to a NY showing of Roy's paintings that was to have a special appearance by Roy. In following up he found it was a ticket only (no travel expenses) and he (Russ) was included to allow him to help honor Roy. He declined to attend.

[adamstrange]

As for the old masters, basically they were old, working a long time ago. Times were very different. They painted NOT what they felt or even chose to paint.. They painted to eat! They always had a benefactor paying them for each portrait, etc.

 

Plenty of old masterpieces were painted by the artist for themselves. The Mona Lisa isn't known to be a commission and it was in his possession until he died. Who exactly did Van Gogh paint for? Only a couple were sold in his lifetime. Rembrandt didn't do self-portraits because he was such a popular pin-up model.

 

Regardless, I view this modern/academic argument that it is somehow "lesser" art if there is a commission as a rather silly distinction. Critics and agents have often played a strong role in influencing the direction of many of the modern artists who are more "purely" motivated than their predecessor. Furthermore, if it is a universal rule, then practically no architecture could ever be art as it is almost all commissioned and often very closely supervised by the client and modified by the engineer/builder.

 

[DailySuperpower]

Now, I just find it sad that Lichtenstein & co. made money off the backs of others.

 

Looking back on those works, now, I no longer retain any fondness for them, sorry . . .

 

 

As an artist, it breaks my heart knowing that he directly copied a huge amount of his work, gained notoriety and wealth from it. If I were Bill Gates-style rich, I'd buy the entire lot and destroy it. To me, it has almost zero worth, and the only insight it teaches people is that copying someone else's work can be profitable.

 

It's unfortunate that you call yourself an artist, but would destroy another person's work because you disagree with their view of art.

 

Sometimes it's more about an original idea than an original image.

 

 

Blatantly ripping off someone's work in such a huge, far-reaching manner is not art or expression for that matter. Taking an image the size of a business card and blowing it up 1000% does not constitute as an "original idea".

 

Coming to the defense of someone who's entire reputation is based on infringing on other people's art? I'm pretty sure you're going to be in the minority on that.

 

I'd rather be in an open-minded minority than a closed-minded majority.

 

Have you even read this thread?

 

 

Did you ever read the part of Roy's biography where his kids were looking at a Disney drawing and they challenged their dad saying " I bet you can't draw this that well, Dad." and he proceeded to create his copy of the Disney piece?

 

That's where the "big idea" came from. That's it's origin.

 

All the ivory tower "deconstruct modern society and shine a light on the insignificant corners of it that speak to the basics of humanity" stuff got tacked on at the end by people that had nothing to do with the creation of the art....it was really to win a bet with his kids.

 

I did read that part and it didn't change my view of the pieces. Good ideas come from all sorts of places.