Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[delekkerste]

Here is the Life Magazine article. I like it, its a famous one.

http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm

 

That's right - it's actually pretty favorable to RL. It's the NY Times review referenced therein which savaged him that is now widely derided.

[Prince Namor]

That quote from the bibliography's I can find is from a John Copland 1972 published interview.

 

Life Magazine published a critical review of his work as early as 1964.

 

So, in other words, you've got nothing that says he hid and denied that he used existing comic panels. Because we know that didn't happen and was, in fact, the antithesis of what he was trying to do with Pop Art.

 

As for the Life Magazine article, that was the art world's equivalent of "Dewey Defeats Truman".

 

Right. Which proves my point. Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

[Prince Namor]

That quote from the bibliography's I can find is from a John Copland 1972 published interview.

 

Life Magazine published a critical review of his work as early as 1964.

 

So, in other words, you've got nothing that says he hid and denied that he used existing comic panels. Because we know that didn't happen.

 

As for the Life Magazine article, that was the art world's equivalent of "Dewey Defeats Truman".

Here is the Life Magazine article. I like it, it's a famous one.

http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm

 

Where he admits he manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

[Prince Namor]

That quote was, of course, after his originality was called into question.

 

He did not disclose until pressed on the issue.

 

Now you're just making it up as you go along. His originality was called into question because he was reproducing actual objects, like panels from comic books (and stenographer's notebook covers, local advertisements, etc.) At no point did he attempt to conceal this fact. Sorry if that totally undermines the flimsy straw man you have attempted to create.

 

That quote from the bibliography's I can find is from a John Copland 1972 published interview.

 

Life Magazine published a critical review of his work as early as 1964.

 

Can you post the John Copland interview so we can see it?

 

Not sure if it's online, haven't found it yet anyway, but here's a link to the 'Google Books' view of the book...

Lichtenstein

[Rip]

That quote from the bibliography's I can find is from a John Copland 1972 published interview.

 

Life Magazine published a critical review of his work as early as 1964.

 

So, in other words, you've got nothing that says he hid and denied that he used existing comic panels. Because we know that didn't happen and was, in fact, the antithesis of what he was trying to do with Pop Art.

 

As for the Life Magazine article, that was the art world's equivalent of "Dewey Defeats Truman".

 

Right. Which proves my point. Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

You claimed "He was trying to hide the fact that he had 'manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own."

 

Huh? Can you quote where it says this? I do not see anything supporting your claims.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[Rip]

Here is the Life Magazine article. I like it, its a famous one.

http://www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm

 

That's right - it's actually pretty favorable to RL. It's the NY Times review referenced therein which savaged him that is now widely derided.

 

(thumbs u Very good article about the process.

[ft88]

 

Right. Which proves my point. Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

 

I don't think anyone is making a case otherwise, only whether it matters.or not. The manipulation that he did is what makes him important, not the image itself.

[Logan510]

 

Right. Which proves my point. Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

 

I don't think anyone is making a case otherwise, only whether it matters.or not. The manipulation that he did is what makes him important, not the image itself.

 

 

Sounds like a bit of hoop jumping to justify his hucksterism.

[Rip]

This could be the source quote of his confusion. From another interview.

 

"I don’t draw a picture in order to reproduce it—I do it in order to recompose it. Nor am I trying to change it as much as possible. I try to make the minimum amount of change... so there is no record of the changes I have made. Then, using paint which is the same color as the canvas, I repaint areas to remove any stain marks from the erasures. I want my painting to look as if it has been programmed. I want to hide the record of my hand." —Roy Lichtenstein

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[Chip Cataldo]

@ "Rob Lichtenfield."

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[comicwiz]

Here is a great comment in David Barsalou's Deconstructing Lichtenstein's FB group - one I agree with, addressing RL's work being more about reproducing/copying rather than "recomposing" or "recontextualizing":

 

Arlen: Pop art was about using pop culture iconography in high art. There is seldom anything iconographic about the images that RL stole (with some notable exceptions). They are quite clearly incompetent reproductions. Had RL decided that the iconographic element of comics was the outline/contour-line style, the flat shading, the word balloons, and the technical printing artifacts like halftoning, he could have made some really interesting "ART", putting those elements in the context of high art. Reproducing classic art pieces in that style, for example, while not exactly a mind-boggling premise, would have shown us that he at least had the idea that there were *ideas* worth exploring. As it is, though, all he did was reproduce existing images while often destroying many of the iconographic details that are supposed to be the hallmark of pop art, like mutilating the calligraphy to the point where it's no longer recognizable as comics lettering, removing differences in line thickness, etc. But, you may say, all Warhol, for example, did was to reproduce existing commercial art and present it as fine art. That's true, but were the original comics panels he swiped not already fine art? Sure, it was designed to appeal to the common person, but people were buying reproductions of it for its own sake. Had Campbell's changed to black and white block-letter packaging, it would have sold just as well (barring brand recognizability). Had National/DC started using stick figures or other poor draftsmanship, their sales would have gone down. You might also point out that comic panel art was being produced for commercial purposes. Well, that's true, too, but no one accuses Lautrec or Mucha of failing to be fine artists. Had he more accurately reproduced and enlarged the panels, despite it being seemingly more obviously plagiarism, it would have had more effect; it really would have been recontextualized. There is something to be said for pointing out to the high art community that there is value to be found in low art. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the fact that we RL-haters are aware of the fact that comics were being parodied, and that RL set up straw men in the forms of incompetently reproduced comics panels to attack, as if his point was "look how bad this low art is", when it was RL himself who made it low.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Putting aside the colorful history, why would he need to hide it?

Admitting sources didn't hurt his career.

 

I have no idea of his motives, just that he manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

 

I feel that the manipulation was to such an extent that it was far enough removed from the original, to be a new work, especially at the time it was produced. Clearly there are many here who disagree, but I believe many opinions are clouded by 50 years of pop art hindsight.

 

Additionally, the internet doesn't translate the argument for RL well, since the works look essentially the same on a computer screen.

 

Would this fly today? No, but mostly because there would be nothing new or novel about it.

 

As an aside. I don't really care for RL's works. Although I think he or his agents were genius at marketing.

 

 

 

[Prince Namor]

That quote from the bibliography's I can find is from a John Copland 1972 published interview.

 

Life Magazine published a critical review of his work as early as 1964.

 

So, in other words, you've got nothing that says he hid and denied that he used existing comic panels. Because we know that didn't happen and was, in fact, the antithesis of what he was trying to do with Pop Art.

 

As for the Life Magazine article, that was the art world's equivalent of "Dewey Defeats Truman".

 

Right. Which proves my point. Lichtenstein manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own.

You claimed "He was trying to hide the fact that he had 'manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own."

 

Huh? Can you quote where it says this? I do not see anything supporting your claims.

 

Quote what? That he was hiding it? You'd expect him to say that in print?

 

I just can't find anywhere a quote that shows he's acknowledging his source or artist in any way other than as 'comic book'.

 

Especially since most of the quotes appear after he'd become successful from it.

 

So what it appears to be is, he manipulated someone else's commercial art, to claim as his own, and then when pressed on the subject, tried to downplay the importance of the material he copied as much as possible.

 

Ya know, kinda what you guys are doing.

[Rip]

Sorry I though you were pointing out articles to support your claims. Not just dropping sources.

After his 1964 articles he certainly didn't loose popularity. The problem is that it would be no secret and simply understood as part of the movement. There is nothing to downplay. It's understood and celebrated.

 

Here is the Drowning Girl at the Moma. With the source right by it.

http://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/lichtenstein-drowning-girl-1963

 

Click the word "appropriation" on the right. Read about it and why.

 

Nothing to downplay. It's just you need to understand the context.

Read the Life article! Its a good one that goes into some detail about the process.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[kav]

"Appropriation: Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist."

haha ha the BS they spew.

 

 

 

[Unca Ben]

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?

 

Yeah, my degrees don't mean much, except to employers and potential students, so bringing them up is rather meaningless.

 

 

Oh oh! I know the answer to this one!

 

I recently re-read the following piece while participating in another thread.

 

"The drum major instinct can lead to exclusivism in one's thinking and can lead one to feel that because he has some training, he's a little better than that person who doesn't have it."

 

-Martin Luther King, "The Drum Major Instinct"

[Logan510]

"Appropriation: Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist."

haha ha the BS they spew.

 

 

 

I expect it from them...it's all about the marketing, I get that. What I don't understand are people who appear to be intelligent, buying into it hook, line and sinker.

[kav]

Yup

[Rip]

For you Kav

Appropriation:

 

Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist.

 

 

See how Pop artists seized on and critiqued celebrity culture.

 

Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects. It is a strategy that has been used by artists for millennia, but took on new significance in mid-20th-century America and Britain with the rise of consumerism and the proliferation of popular images through mass media outlets from magazines to television.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Rip

[kav]

For you Kav

Appropriation:

 

Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist.

 

 

See how Pop artists seized on and critiqued celebrity culture.

 

Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects. It is a strategy that has been used by artists for millennia, but took on new significance in mid-20th-century America and Britain with the rise of consumerism and the proliferation of popular images through mass media outlets from magazines to television.

So if artists had been doing it for millenia, how is it 'new' and 'challenging'? Because more people started doing it? Shouldn't that make it less significant, not more?

That's the thing with 'Artspeak'-if you actually analyze what theyre saying, it makes no sense.