Ye Olde Illustration vs Fine Art debate

[Speedy-D]

Lichtenstein rocks!! I totally get what he did; it's not theft and it is original.

 

could you explain it to me then, because it looks like he just recreated existing imagery. Like a cover band remaking a song.

If by explain it to you, you mean convince you of my position, then probably not. How often does that happen on a message board?

 

You have to come at it from a fine art perspective rather than a comics perspective. There's a decent history of re-contextualizing "non-fine art" as "fine art" (think Duchamp's Fountain), especially in the 20th Century. It can be a controversial move and it doesn't always work/isn't always accepted, but in Lichtenstein's case it works.

 

For one thing, there's the matter of scale. Taking a panel from a comic and blowing it up like 100x changes it. The focus becomes much more on aspects of the printing process of the original panel...on the color dot patterns and whatnot.

 

In addition, pulling a single panel out and displaying it on its own, without the context of the full comic and story, changes it. It adds a sense of randomness, almost nonsense, and leaves the viewer to create his/her own story around it.

 

Also, ol' Roy often didn't just reproduce panels perfectly. He made changes, simplifying shapes and color schemes. It's pretty interesting to compare the original to his version and see what choices he made.

 

Finally, I just think they're beautiful. But that is of course in the eye of the beholder.

[drdroom]

I don't know for sure but I heard something about the 'after' tag being as a result of legal action in at least some cases

 

Yeah, you seem to be right about that, & Foss feels he was misled on the permission as well. I found this article that is pretty good on the backstory:

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-5-7-million-magazine-illustration

[Koa]

Lichtenstein rocks!! I totally get what he did; it's not theft and it is original.

 

could you explain it to me then, because it looks like he just recreated existing imagery. Like a cover band remaking a song.

If by explain it to you, you mean convince you of my position, then probably not. How often does that happen on a message board?

 

 

! no no, I'm not trying to be a jerk. i genuinely am curious. I know his comic inspired period polarizes many comic book fans. I don't hate his work personally but when i first saw some in person the color schemes upset me. go figure.

 

 

You have to come at it from a fine art perspective rather than a comics perspective. There's a decent history of re-contextualizing "non-fine art" as "fine art" (think Duchamp's Fountain), especially in the 20th Century. It can be a controversial move and it doesn't always work/isn't always accepted, but in Lichtenstein's case it works.

 

For one thing, there's the matter of scale. Taking a panel from a comic and blowing it up like 100x changes it. The focus becomes much more on aspects of the printing process of the original panel...on the color dot patterns and whatnot.

 

In addition, pulling a single panel out and displaying it on its own, without the context of the full comic and story, changes it. It adds a sense of randomness, almost nonsense, and leaves the viewer to create his/her own story around it.

 

Also, ol' Roy often didn't just reproduce panels perfectly. He made changes, simplifying shapes and color schemes. It's pretty interesting to compare the original to his version and see what choices he made.

 

Finally, I just think they're beautiful. But that is of course in the eye of the beholder.

 

Thank you.

[Speedy-D]

Lichtenstein rocks!! I totally get what he did; it's not theft and it is original.

 

could you explain it to me then, because it looks like he just recreated existing imagery. Like a cover band remaking a song.

If by explain it to you, you mean convince you of my position, then probably not. How often does that happen on a message board?

 

 

! no no, I'm not trying to be a jerk. i genuinely am curious. I know his comic inspired period polarizes many comic book fans. I don't hate his work personally but when i first saw some in person the color schemes upset me. go figure.

 

 

You have to come at it from a fine art perspective rather than a comics perspective. There's a decent history of re-contextualizing "non-fine art" as "fine art" (think Duchamp's Fountain), especially in the 20th Century. It can be a controversial move and it doesn't always work/isn't always accepted, but in Lichtenstein's case it works.

 

For one thing, there's the matter of scale. Taking a panel from a comic and blowing it up like 100x changes it. The focus becomes much more on aspects of the printing process of the original panel...on the color dot patterns and whatnot.

 

In addition, pulling a single panel out and displaying it on its own, without the context of the full comic and story, changes it. It adds a sense of randomness, almost nonsense, and leaves the viewer to create his/her own story around it.

 

Also, ol' Roy often didn't just reproduce panels perfectly. He made changes, simplifying shapes and color schemes. It's pretty interesting to compare the original to his version and see what choices he made.

 

Finally, I just think they're beautiful. But that is of course in the eye of the beholder.

 

Thank you.

And it's not like a cover band. I haven't studied Lichtenstein, haven't read much about him or his inspirations, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was doing this stuff from something other than a love of the originals. Even if he was, I'd say it's more like covers from a band that's otherwise great in its own right, like The Sisters Of Mercy doing Gimme Shelter and making it their own, rather than a Beatlemania, just trying to be as true to the original as possible. Think Jimi's All Along The Watchtower or even better, his take on The Star-Spangled Banner.

[Koa]

Lichtenstein rocks!! I totally get what he did; it's not theft and it is original.

 

could you explain it to me then, because it looks like he just recreated existing imagery. Like a cover band remaking a song.

If by explain it to you, you mean convince you of my position, then probably not. How often does that happen on a message board?

 

 

! no no, I'm not trying to be a jerk. i genuinely am curious. I know his comic inspired period polarizes many comic book fans. I don't hate his work personally but when i first saw some in person the color schemes upset me. go figure.

 

 

You have to come at it from a fine art perspective rather than a comics perspective. There's a decent history of re-contextualizing "non-fine art" as "fine art" (think Duchamp's Fountain), especially in the 20th Century. It can be a controversial move and it doesn't always work/isn't always accepted, but in Liechtenstein's case it works.

 

For one thing, there's the matter of scale. Taking a panel from a comic and blowing it up like 100x changes it. The focus becomes much more on aspects of the printing process of the original panel...on the color dot patterns and whatnot.

 

In addition, pulling a single panel out and displaying it on its own, without the context of the full comic and story, changes it. It adds a sense of randomness, almost nonsense, and leaves the viewer to create his/her own story around it.

 

Also, ol' Roy often didn't just reproduce panels perfectly. He made changes, simplifying shapes and color schemes. It's pretty interesting to compare the original to his version and see what choices he made.

 

Finally, I just think they're beautiful. But that is of course in the eye of the beholder.

 

Thank you.

And it's not like a cover band. I haven't studied Lichtenstein, haven't read much about him or his inspirations, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was doing this stuff from something other than a love of the originals. Even if he was, I'd say it's more like covers from a band that's otherwise great in its own right, like The Sisters Of Mercy doing Gimme Shelter and making it their own, rather than a Beatlemania, just trying to be as true to the original as possible. Think Jimi's All Along The Watchtower or even better, his take on The Star-Spangled Banner.

 

The cover song analogy is probably the wrong one. I'm not overly familiar with Roy's work and probably shouldn't have made that comparison.

 

 

[drdroom]

Cover version works better for Glen Brown's paintings than for Lichtenstein's, since the source panel for a Lichtenstein is just a small piece of the total artwork by the original comic team. I guess you could call it a cover of the panel, but in pop music a cover song succeeds or fails in the same arena and on the same terms as the original. In these Brown/Lichtenstein situations the visual idea is taken to a different arena to be judged on quite different terms.

 

I think you are quite justified in being upset by Lichtenstein's color schemes! It's a fine line to convey the idea of banal, factory ugliness and yet also make a painting that people want to look at for more than a few seconds. I think he succeeded sometimes.

[Koa]

 

I think you are quite justified in being upset by Lichtenstein's color schemes! It's a fine line to convey the idea of banal, factory ugliness and yet also make a painting that people want to look at for more than a few seconds. I think he succeeded sometimes.

 

That's an interesting observation. I remember seeing his work in the late 90's and it felt condescending, that he was making fun of comics. Perhaps his intent was to create a negative response in the viewer rather than seeking the reverence

[Speedy-D]

He was definitely not "seeking the reverence."

[drdroom]

 

I think you are quite justified in being upset by Lichtenstein's color schemes! It's a fine line to convey the idea of banal, factory ugliness and yet also make a painting that people want to look at for more than a few seconds. I think he succeeded sometimes.

 

That's an interesting observation. I remember seeing his work in the late 90's and it felt condescending, that he was making fun of comics. Perhaps his intent was to create a negative response in the viewer rather than seeking the reverence

 

I think this is a key question. What is the attitude of Pop Art to popular culture? It certainly isn't respectful in the way comic fans respect comics, and perhaps that's why some of us hate Lichtenstein so much more than Warhol, who did the same thing with product labels and glamour photos. On the other hand, the pop artists recognized the cultural centrality of these artifacts at a time when other parts of the art world were not even interested in representation at all.

[vodou]

What is the attitude of Pop Art to popular culture? It certainly isn't respectful in the way comic fans respect comics, and perhaps that's why some of us hate Lichtenstein so much...

Well if we assume that the art of "comic art" is storytelling..the sequential nature of panels "read" (the words synthesized with the pictures) in a specific order...then no friggin' way is Lichtenstein respectful of that. He pulled panels out of that context. Whether doing "that" was art remains a conversation 50 years later. But it sure doesn't pay any sort of homage to what came before, the intent of the writers and artists...the STORY-tellers.

 

But if we don't assume the form at essence is sequential, if we just call comic art covers, pinups, random 'cool' pages separated from the rest of the story (since collecting/buying vintage compete stories is generally price prohibitive these days), non-sequential commissions...then is that really any different than Lichtenstein elevating panels to singular status? Making panels "covers" (if you will)? The publishers did plenty of that too, elevating splash pages to covers (presumably to save paying for covers!)

[Speedy-D]

As good a place as any to start reading about Pop Art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_art

[drdroom]

What is the attitude of Pop Art to popular culture? It certainly isn't respectful in the way comic fans respect comics, and perhaps that's why some of us hate Lichtenstein so much...

Well if we assume that the art of "comic art" is storytelling..the sequential nature of panels "read" (the words synthesized with the pictures) in a specific order...then no friggin' way is Lichtenstein respectful of that. He pulled panels out of that context. Whether doing "that" was art remains a conversation 50 years later. But it sure doesn't pay any sort of homage to what came before, the intent of the writers and artists...the STORY-tellers.

 

But if we don't assume the form at essence is sequential, if we just call comic art covers, pinups, random 'cool' pages separated from the rest of the story (since collecting/buying vintage compete stories is generally price prohibitive these days), non-sequential commissions...then is that really any different than Lichtenstein elevating panels to singular status? Making panels "covers" (if you will)? The publishers did plenty of that too, elevating splash pages to covers (presumably to save paying for covers!)

 

Let's assume a double essence of comic art/ cartooning: it is sequential and it is expressive. The vivacity of the cartoon line has been revered by fine artists from Picasso to Guston to Twombly. Lichtenstein's choice to DEADEN the line (and thereby mock the narrative), was a striking departure, and I think that is why he is famous.

Even though I can't usually afford complete stories, I'm still collecting with an eye on both storytelling and expressivity. It's entirely un-Lichtensteinlike! One panel page can hold a tremendous amount of narrative skill, even a cover can. If I were a "Pop" collector of comic OA, I'd be going for totally different (and much cheaper) examples: hilariously dumb hack stuff. I do have one piece that I bought for that reason, an Iger shop horror sci-fi page with Atomic explosion panel & a bizarre romance panel.

[vodou]

If I were a "Pop" collector of comic OA, I'd be going for totally different (and much cheaper) examples: hilariously dumb hack stuff. I do have one piece that I bought for that reason, an Iger shop horror sci-fi page with Atomic explosion panel & a bizarre romance panel.

Nah...Pop is short for Popular. Nothing more popular in comics than the vintage superheroes. Those same that most of us collect and have pushed prices so high on already.

[Garf]

I don't get on with it because this

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/deconstructing-roy-lichtenstein/

 

is the same as this

 

http://www.ebay.com/sch/leadpink/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc

 

 

[drdroom]

If I were a "Pop" collector of comic OA, I'd be going for totally different (and much cheaper) examples: hilariously dumb hack stuff. I do have one piece that I bought for that reason, an Iger shop horror sci-fi page with Atomic explosion panel & a bizarre romance panel.

Nah...Pop is short for Popular. Nothing more popular in comics than the vintage superheroes. Those same that most of us collect and have pushed prices so high on already.

 

Personally I collect art by artists & I'm very happy to find a great Kirby page without popular characters on it. But are you saying the average OA collector likes art for the same reason that Lichtenstein was drawn to his panels, i.e. popularity?