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

[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.

 

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

 

That's exactly what Vanilla Ice said before Queen served him with papers.

[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.

 

That's exactly what Vanilla Ice said before Queen served him with papers.

 

People keep bringing up music, but these are individual panels picked out of hundreds in any given book, the musical equivalent would be taking 3 seconds of a song and turning it into a slightly distorted version that runs for 5 minutes.

[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.

 

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

 

That's exactly what Vanilla Ice said before Queen served him with papers.

 

People keep bringing up music, but these are individual panels picked out of hundreds in any given book, the musical equivalent would be taking 3 seconds of a song and turning it into a slightly distorted version that runs for 5 minutes.

 

You are right music and art are different in some ways, the comic panels are entirely covered under copyright protection, 100% and in their entirety, each panel is protected and easily identifiable, whereas for music it must be a large enough sample to prove it's the same song.

 

However it's odd you brought up 3 seconds. In music, 3 seconds of sampling is enough for the sampler to owe 1/2 of all royalties to the original artist and is enough to be infringement. They need at least a few seconds to make the sample recognizable and distinct and thus able to be infringed.

 

Each and every one of these panels are clear and distinct images easily and clearly traced back to the source material.

 

So you are right, this isn't the same as music sampling...it's a lot more egregious and blatant.

[pinupcartoonguy]

So is all this about giving the original artist credit or having violated a copyright? Let's say Lichtenstein had gotten permission from the publisher to use the images, he still wouldn't have to give the artist credit. At the most, he'd be compelled to include Copyright (insert publisher).

[comix4fun]

So is all this about giving the original artist credit or having violated a copyright? Let's say Lichtenstein had gotten permission from the publisher to use the images, he still wouldn't have to give the artist credit. At the most, he'd be compelled to include Copyright (insert publisher).

 

 

Well it depends on who you ask. I am sure there are people upset with both instances.

 

Legally, it's getting permission, paying permission to the holder of the rights.

 

That's not where I am coming from. I am just correcting the mistaken assumptions about whether what went down was completely acceptable.

 

Where I am coming from is, if this art that was created came from some pure artistic place, from some self-expression and deep examination of the human condition that has changed the world....then I would think giving the true origin of the piece, and its creator, from the very beginning, in clear terms, in the description of the piece where ever it is exhibited, would be something that would have been done from day 1.

 

If the goal of the artwork is to show the transformation of a simple, throwaway piece of art into a statement about modern life, then where the piece came from, who original created it, and where it came from would be a valuable piece of that demonstration and artistic expression.

 

However if the goal was profit and keeping all of the credit with the artist who lifted the image in the first place then it would make sense why the names of Kirby, Kubert, Heath, Novick, Grandetti, etc. etc. were excluded. It's much more impressive to pass the pieces off leaving that information out.

 

But the comment about "He still wouldn't have to credit the artist" is just the kind of "act in the minimally legal way" instead of the intellectually and artistically honest way that artists creating for the sake of art instead of for the sake of fame and fortune would not undertake.

[tth2]

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.

 

That's exactly what Vanilla Ice said before Queen served him with papers.

Greatest move ever was after George Harrison lost the infringement case for "My Sweet Lord", he simply bought the rights to "He's So Fine". Case dismissed.

[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.

 

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

 

That's exactly what Vanilla Ice said before Queen served him with papers.

Greatest move ever was after George Harrison lost the infringement case for "My Sweet Lord", he simply bought the rights to "He's So Fine". Case dismissed.

 

Easier than paying half the royalties from the song...not cheaper...but easier.

 

If only everyone had Beatle cash.

 

BTW...side note. Did you happen to see Scorsese's documentary on the life of George Harrison on HBO? Could not stop watching it. Amazing.

[AKA Rick]

I think in this case, from an art community perspective of both fans of the original artists (on this comic book forum, so of course more are critical of his work than defensive to protect his creativity) and artists alike, it's less an issue of what is legal (copyright violations) or not, but more of a moral obligation to acknowledge those facts and ultimately do the right thing and give credit where credit is due. I don't think even Lichtenstein can deny the influence of the original artists to his work, it's not coincidental in creation he was working on at the same time as the orignal artist, it's a purposeful effort to reimagine the work of another artist for profiteering.

 

I wonder if someone took Lichtenstein's work, and either printed them as "reverse negatives", recolored them, produced them in B&W, changed the text in the word balloons, or any other minor modification and then marketed them as their own new creation, if his estate or the art community would be in an uproar?

 

So is all this about giving the original artist credit or having violated a copyright? Let's say Lichtenstein had gotten permission from the publisher to use the images, he still wouldn't have to give the artist credit. At the most, he'd be compelled to include Copyright (insert publisher).

[pinupcartoonguy]

So is all this about giving the original artist credit or having violated a copyright? Let's say Lichtenstein had gotten permission from the publisher to use the images, he still wouldn't have to give the artist credit. At the most, he'd be compelled to include Copyright (insert publisher).

 

 

Well it depends on who you ask. I am sure there are people upset with both instances.

 

Legally, it's getting permission, paying permission to the holder of the rights.

 

That's not where I am coming from. I am just correcting the mistaken assumptions about whether what went down was completely acceptable.

 

Where I am coming from is, if this art that was created came from some pure artistic place, from some self-expression and deep examination of the human condition that has changed the world....then I would think giving the true origin of the piece, and its creator, from the very beginning, in clear terms, in the description of the piece where ever it is exhibited, would be something that would have been done from day 1.

 

 

I think if Lichtly had given credit, a lot of people still wouldn't be satisfied. I think there's a segment that can't come to grips with the fact that comic art is not "fine" art, and that the panel that was used should be on at least a high a pedestal (if not higher since it was first) as the derivative piece.

 

But as another poster accurately stated earlier, most comic art was just a paycheck, and by all accounts, many of the earlier comic book artists didn't really want to be comic book artists.

[thethedew]

Regardless, I view this modern/academic argument that it is somehow "lesser" art if there is a commission as a rather silly distinction.

 

snip>... 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.

 

Exactly. The Sistine Chapel was a commission. So was the Last Supper. etc.

 

Andrew

[comix4fun]

So is all this about giving the original artist credit or having violated a copyright? Let's say Lichtenstein had gotten permission from the publisher to use the images, he still wouldn't have to give the artist credit. At the most, he'd be compelled to include Copyright (insert publisher).

 

 

Well it depends on who you ask. I am sure there are people upset with both instances.

 

Legally, it's getting permission, paying permission to the holder of the rights.

 

That's not where I am coming from. I am just correcting the mistaken assumptions about whether what went down was completely acceptable.

 

Where I am coming from is, if this art that was created came from some pure artistic place, from some self-expression and deep examination of the human condition that has changed the world....then I would think giving the true origin of the piece, and its creator, from the very beginning, in clear terms, in the description of the piece where ever it is exhibited, would be something that would have been done from day 1.

 

 

I think if Lichtly had given credit, a lot of people still wouldn't be satisfied. I think there's a segment that can't come to grips with the fact that comic art is not "fine" art, and that the panel that was used should be on at least a high a pedestal (if not higher since it was first) as the derivative piece.

 

But as another poster accurately stated earlier, most comic art was just a paycheck, and by all accounts, many of the earlier comic book artists didn't really want to be comic book artists.

 

 

And Lichtenstein's first comic lifted pieces were done to prove to his kids he could copy the image, then they were done for a paycheck for the gallery that had him on stipend.

 

I think trying to get into "Why" a piece was created is fallacious in determining whether or not it has any artistic merit. Creating or using the "why" is the Monday morning quarterback's way of elevating or denigrating a work depending on their personal point of view. "How" a piece was created will tell you much more, especially given these circumstances.

 

Why a piece was created is irrelevant in determining whether or not it has artistic merit. The questions of artistic honesty, transparency and clarity I mentioned earlier can tell us so much more than whether or not the artist was in need of a paycheck that week.

 

For the record though, most folks may not consider "pop art" to be "fine art". I don't think a high price tag necessarily equates to "fine".

[chrisco37]

I looked at the "Deconstructing Lichtenstein" website (thanks for that link).

 

One question I have is on the Disney piece (Mickey/Donald). Did Disney go after him for that painting? Aren't they notoriously protective of their properties? I would think that, if there could be anything done to him legally, they would've been leading the charge.

 

I'm a fan of his stuff, still. I don't care if he ripped it off. I think it's interesting. To me, it IS "pop art". The first time I ever saw his stuff, I thoght "cool! it's a comic book!".

 

 

[kaylab]

so, where does everyone put Mel Ramos in this discussion, a contemporary to Lichtenstein, Ramos has built a very successful career, and this started with him painting pop art using the DC superheroes as his subjects, without any sign that he ever had permission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[comix4fun]

Hard to say exactly what happened with Ramos without delving deeper into it.

 

It certainly looks like copyright infringement and possibly trademark infringement. Being that they are one-off pieces and not being reprinted by the thousands may explain why action was or was not taken.

 

Sometimes, businesses may not take action when they are otherwise justified to do do so out of lack of incentive or the potentially Pyrrhic nature of any possible action.

[SC in SC]

Copyright/trademark infringement aside, is there any evidence to suggest Ramos lifted those images or did he create the scene/pose on his own? The Atom piece would provide the most evidence since it's not just a static pose.

Edited October 28, 2011 by SC in SC

[comix4fun]

Copyright/trademark infringement aside, is there any evidence to suggest Ramos lifted those images or did he create the scene/pose on his own? The Atom piece would provide the most evidence since it's not just a static pose.

 

 

The Atom is the cover image from The Atom #1

 

 

[Dr. Balls]

This "dress" featuring Roy Lichtenstein?

 

 

It costs $2000. And there are only 99 available. Go buy one for the wife.

 

This is the stuff I have a problem with. Not so much that he licenses it to m0rons who put a $8 silkscreen on a $10 garment and charge idi0ts $2000 for it. But because he swiped the image, composition and style from someone else and he/his estate profiteers greatly from it.

 

If an artist in this day and age attempted to do what Lichtenstein did - they'd be sued. Just because the laws were lax 50 years ago does not make what he did acceptable. Regardless of "personal expression".

 

This argument could go on forever, and probably will. Such a shame - I'd rather die a complete unknown artist that had a modicum of integrity, than die knowing that a large portion of the art community thought I was nothing more than a copy artist in a turtleneck.

[SC in SC]

Copyright/trademark infringement aside, is there any evidence to suggest Ramos lifted those images or did he create the scene/pose on his own? The Atom piece would provide the most evidence since it's not just a static pose.

 

 

The Atom is the cover image from The Atom #1

 

 

 

Looks to me like Ramos was no better than Lichtenstein.

[The Troll King]

Copyright/trademark infringement aside, is there any evidence to suggest Ramos lifted those images or did he create the scene/pose on his own? The Atom piece would provide the most evidence since it's not just a static pose.

 

 

The Atom is the cover image from The Atom #1

 

 

 

Looks to me like Ramos was no better than Lichtenstein.

 

Did Ramos do those because he's a fan or did he do them to exhibit?

[kaylab]

Did Ramos do those because he's a fan or did he do them to exhibit?

 

Ramos isn't in the same league as Warhol or Lichtenstein, but he's pretty well know in the fine art world for his pop art.

Wiki entry

 

And his intent, just like Lichtenstein, was to exhibit publicly, his works are quite valuable

Ramos Green Lantern sells for $600k

Edited October 29, 2011 by kaylab