Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[kav]

They can't just whack pumpkins with a gerbil and call it 'music'

'Art'-absolutely you can do that and be a 'genius'

 

I am all over this whacking pumpkins with a gerbil idea, except that I'm against animal cruelty. Maybe a taxidermied gerbil?

Art must contain an element of suffering

[Speedy-D]

One of the few actual artists here is my significance. Someone who actually experienced art school.

Since when does going to art school make someone significant? Do I get a bump in my significance for getting a BFA too?

[DeadpoolJr.]

Picasso and Duchamp could draw if they wanted to as evidenced by their early work.

Guston - not so much

not at all

 

And it matters why that they could draw? Drawing is an overrated skill. My wife is a trained artist - she's the most creative person I know and she can draw with the best of them. That and $2.50 will get her to her real job on the subway in the morning. Plain vanilla drawings? WHO CARES. Been there, done that for hundreds of years. Sorry Kav - it's just not that interesting. At least poop in a can or someone recording their bowel movements isn't

I'll sell you mine at a quarter of the price, it will be a new art series, as an ode to the original poop cans.I will title it "Volume 2 No.2" feel free to pick which bathroom you would like the delivery to be I'm always willing to work with clients.

[kav]

One of the few actual artists here is my significance. Someone who actually experienced art school.

Since when does going to art school make someone significant? Do I get a bump in my significance for getting a BFA too?

Well if you're discussing art and art school it's not some great leap to say someone with actual experience with art and art school has input which is significant.

This is not rocket science.

[Comicopolis]

One of the few actual artists here is my significance. Someone who actually experienced art school.

Since when does going to art school make someone significant? Do I get a bump in my significance for getting a BFA too?

 

Did you suffer for it?

[delekkerste]

In circling back to the original post, I don't believe that Lichtenstein (or his estate) owes the original source artists money, but still think an attribution is warranted. He's not evil. Not a greedy hack. Just on marginal ethical grounds when using someone else's art and repackaging, repurposing, reclassifying it as his.

 

A modern version of this would be Shia LaBeouf using Daniel Clowes comic for a short film. The comic and its creator were brushed aside in LaBeouf's effort to create his own art. His art, trumping the source, which, , it's just a comic, who will notice? Ah, nice to live in a digital age.

 

I'm not saying that RL shouldn't have done more to acknowledge where he appropriated his source material. That said, if you attended the retrospective last year, there were interviews with RL in the audio guide where he expressed his admiration for comic artists and had good things to say about them - far from the picture painted here where people say that he snubbed his nose at comics and that he felt he was elevating the mundane. Not true at all.

 

BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous.

[Rip]

Did you actually get a degree in Art History?

 

[kav]

In circling back to the original post, I don't believe that Lichtenstein (or his estate) owes the original source artists money, but still think an attribution is warranted. He's not evil. Not a greedy hack. Just on marginal ethical grounds when using someone else's art and repackaging, repurposing, reclassifying it as his.

 

A modern version of this would be Shia LaBeouf using Daniel Clowes comic for a short film. The comic and its creator were brushed aside in LaBeouf's effort to create his own art. His art, trumping the source, which, , it's just a comic, who will notice? Ah, nice to live in a digital age.

 

I'm not saying that RL shouldn't have done more to acknowledge where he appropriated his source material. That said, if you attended the retrospective last year, there were interviews with RL in the audio guide where he expressed his admiration for comic artists and had good things to say about them - far from the picture painted here where people say that he snubbed his nose at comics and that he felt he was elevating the mundane. Not true at all.

 

BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous.

That's strange because Tiger Woods tried to sue an artist who painted a pic of him from a photo and sold posters and lost. The judge ruled it became the artist's property once he created his own representation of the photo-which was an exact copy. Then there was that Amy Grant Dr Strange cover-they were unable to sue for the use of the image but were successful in suing for tying her to witchcraft which was against her religion.

[kav]

Did you actually get a degree in Art History?

Hell no. 2 years of that brainwashing was enough for me to switch majors to science.

[vodou]

BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous.

You mean his stencil collage. Shepard Fairey is another contemporary artist for which there is no historical record of any drawing ability, four years at RISD notwithstanding. Oh the horror!

[Rip]

Did you actually get a degree in Art History?

Hell no. 2 years of that brainwashing was enough for me to switch majors to science.

I was dumb enough.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[kav]

Did you actually get a degree in Art History?

Hell no. 2 years of that brainwashing was enough for me to switch majors to science.

I was dumb enough.

I just couldn't take it.

My teachers were such condescending too.

One guy said at least once every class period 'none of you will ever be able to draw as good as me'

Bragged constantly about his crappy drawings....

[DeadpoolJr.]

In circling back to the original post, I don't believe that Lichtenstein (or his estate) owes the original source artists money, but still think an attribution is warranted. He's not evil. Not a greedy hack. Just on marginal ethical grounds when using someone else's art and repackaging, repurposing, reclassifying it as his.

 

A modern version of this would be Shia LaBeouf using Daniel Clowes comic for a short film. The comic and its creator were brushed aside in LaBeouf's effort to create his own art. His art, trumping the source, which, , it's just a comic, who will notice? Ah, nice to live in a digital age.

 

I'm not saying that RL shouldn't have done more to acknowledge where he appropriated his source material. That said, if you attended the retrospective last year, there were interviews with RL in the audio guide where he expressed his admiration for comic artists and had good things to say about them - far from the picture painted here where people say that he snubbed his nose at comics and that he felt he was elevating the mundane. Not true at all.

 

BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous.

That's strange because Tiger Woods tried to sue an artist who painted a pic of him from a photo and sold posters and lost. The judge ruled it became the artist's property once he created his own representation of the photo-which was an exact copy. Then there was that Amy Grant Dr Strange cover-they were unable to sue for the use of the image but were successful in suing for tying her to witchcraft which was against her religion.

There are a few differences between the cases. For one the person suing was the photographer who took the picture, and owned the rights to it, it wasn't owned by any company that hired him to take it. Plus a judge doesn't always have to agree with case law.

[Rip]

Did you actually get a degree in Art History?

Hell no. 2 years of that brainwashing was enough for me to switch majors to science.

I was dumb enough.

I just couldn't take it.

My teachers were such condescending too.

One guy said at least once every class period 'none of you will ever be able to draw as good as me'

Bragged constantly about his crappy drawings....

 

I fought my teachers regularly. Now I find myself defending them.

Well at least graphic design pays my bills.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[Logan510]

When it comes to the "art" that is the original topic here one quote comes to mind: "there's a sucker born every minute".

[kav]

In circling back to the original post, I don't believe that Lichtenstein (or his estate) owes the original source artists money, but still think an attribution is warranted. He's not evil. Not a greedy hack. Just on marginal ethical grounds when using someone else's art and repackaging, repurposing, reclassifying it as his.

 

A modern version of this would be Shia LaBeouf using Daniel Clowes comic for a short film. The comic and its creator were brushed aside in LaBeouf's effort to create his own art. His art, trumping the source, which, , it's just a comic, who will notice? Ah, nice to live in a digital age.

 

I'm not saying that RL shouldn't have done more to acknowledge where he appropriated his source material. That said, if you attended the retrospective last year, there were interviews with RL in the audio guide where he expressed his admiration for comic artists and had good things to say about them - far from the picture painted here where people say that he snubbed his nose at comics and that he felt he was elevating the mundane. Not true at all.

 

BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous.

That's strange because Tiger Woods tried to sue an artist who painted a pic of him from a photo and sold posters and lost. The judge ruled it became the artist's property once he created his own representation of the photo-which was an exact copy. Then there was that Amy Grant Dr Strange cover-they were unable to sue for the use of the image but were successful in suing for tying her to witchcraft which was against her religion.

There are a few differences between the cases. For one the person suing was the photographer who took the picture, and owned the rights to it, it wasn't owned by any company that hired him to take it. Plus a judge doesn't always have to agree with case law.

 

"Tiger Wood's exclusive licensing agent sued, claiming in part that the print violated Tiger Woods' right of publicity under Ohio law. The Ohio federal court rejected Wood's argument that the print was "merely sports merchandise" unworthy of First Amendment protection. Instead, the court found that the print sought to convey a message, and that message was a unique expression of an idea, rather than the mere copying of an image. Accordingly, the court decided that the print was protected by the First Amendment, and dismissed the case"

[Aman619]

Did you actually get a degree in Art History?

Hell no. 2 years of that brainwashing was enough for me to switch majors to science.

I was dumb enough.

I just couldn't take it.

My teachers were such condescending too.

One guy said at least once every class period 'none of you will ever be able to draw as good as me'

Bragged constantly about his crappy drawings....

 

 

At school teachers tend to be that way, they are frustrated (stereotypically) failures who must teach because the world won't pay them to create. S they find themselves surrounded by younger and weaker artists, human nature leads them to be condescending.

 

But, oftentimes, art school students have no chance of success so early discouragement like this is beneficial. Weeds out those lacking confidence, and feeds the desire of the rest to succeed even more.

 

Also, funny story as even then, you were faced with advice that drawing skill isn't the be all end all of art, and didn't Agree even back then.

[DeadpoolJr.]

In circling back to the original post, I don't believe that Lichtenstein (or his estate) owes the original source artists money, but still think an attribution is warranted. He's not evil. Not a greedy hack. Just on marginal ethical grounds when using someone else's art and repackaging, repurposing, reclassifying it as his.

 

A modern version of this would be Shia LaBeouf using Daniel Clowes comic for a short film. The comic and its creator were brushed aside in LaBeouf's effort to create his own art. His art, trumping the source, which, , it's just a comic, who will notice? Ah, nice to live in a digital age.

 

I'm not saying that RL shouldn't have done more to acknowledge where he appropriated his source material. That said, if you attended the retrospective last year, there were interviews with RL in the audio guide where he expressed his admiration for comic artists and had good things to say about them - far from the picture painted here where people say that he snubbed his nose at comics and that he felt he was elevating the mundane. Not true at all.

 

BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous.

That's strange because Tiger Woods tried to sue an artist who painted a pic of him from a photo and sold posters and lost. The judge ruled it became the artist's property once he created his own representation of the photo-which was an exact copy. Then there was that Amy Grant Dr Strange cover-they were unable to sue for the use of the image but were successful in suing for tying her to witchcraft which was against her religion.

There are a few differences between the cases. For one the person suing was the photographer who took the picture, and owned the rights to it, it wasn't owned by any company that hired him to take it. Plus a judge doesn't always have to agree with case law.

 

"Tiger Wood's exclusive licensing agent sued, claiming in part that the print violated Tiger Woods' right of publicity under Ohio law. The Ohio federal court rejected Wood's argument that the print was "merely sports merchandise" unworthy of First Amendment protection. Instead, the court found that the print sought to convey a message, and that message was a unique expression of an idea, rather than the mere copying of an image. Accordingly, the court decided that the print was protected by the First Amendment, and dismissed the case"

The subject of the picture was suing, because someone was selling an image of him without his consent. In this case Obama was not the one suing, it was the photographer who owns the right to the image. Different things.

[Aman619]

In circling back to the original post, I don't believe that Lichtenstein (or his estate) owes the original source artists money, but still think an attribution is warranted. He's not evil. Not a greedy hack. Just on marginal ethical grounds when using someone else's art and repackaging, repurposing, reclassifying it as his.

 

A modern version of this would be Shia LaBeouf using Daniel Clowes comic for a short film. The comic and its creator were brushed aside in LaBeouf's effort to create his own art. His art, trumping the source, which, , it's just a comic, who will notice? Ah, nice to live in a digital age.

 

I'm not saying that RL shouldn't have done more to acknowledge where he appropriated his source material. That said, if you attended the retrospective last year, there were interviews with RL in the audio guide where he expressed his admiration for comic artists and had good things to say about them - far from the picture painted here where people say that he snubbed his nose at comics and that he felt he was elevating the mundane. Not true at all.

 

BTW, someone mentioned the Shepard Fairey Obama photo lawsuit earlier. How absurd is it that Fairey couldn't model his painting on a photo of a public official running for president? To me, that's just petty and ridiculous.

 

I don't agree with you here. Photographers have their rights to their work too. For years painters treated their work as scrap to be copied at will. If the final product elites heavily on a particular photographic image I believe the photograph is within his rights to seek compensation.

 

But Faireys final piece involved a lot more tha copiying a photo. Breaking it down into color areas isn't pushing a button, even in Photoshop. As I wrote yesterday, his mistake IMO was denying that he used that photo. He would have been far better to say yes he STARTED with it, but look how much I changed it!

[Rip]

When it comes to the "art" that is the original topic here one quote comes to mind: "there's a sucker born every minute".

 

I would suggest learning more about art history starting with Manet, its a good jumping point for modern history.

 

You'll see Pre-Raphelites hated him also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsIO41-RCo