Lichtenstein's Theft and the Artists Left Behind 1 1

[kav]

Roy Liefeild or whatever sucks

[MrBedrock]

Roy Liefeild or whatever sucks

Can I choose both?

[Terry Doyle]

Way to kill the thread RMA!

 

My work here is done.

 

(thumbs u

[Comicopolis]

Russ Heath’s Lichtenstein comic: an overnight sensation two years in the making

[kav]

Heath is still claiming sole credit even though 2 other comic artist's panels contributed to that work....

[Unca Ben]

I like Lichtenstein, I would like to see one of his pieces in person.

I also like Jackson Pollock and Rothko.

 

While it makes for interesting discussion, if others don't like these artists or how they created their work, it doesn't bother me. It's art.

Even if others don't think it's art, that's okay too.

 

I adhere to the viewpoint that it's all boils down to an opinion. Sure, people can bring up art history and education, objective opinion based on this and that, but when it comes down to it, a piece either grabs me or it doesn't. It is predominantly subjective.

 

Like falling in love and choosing a girlfriend or mate.

What others think, good or bad, is of little consequence. My appreciation of art is the same in that it's personal.

 

my

 

[Speedy-D]

Yes its time for this thread to end,

The copycat so called pop artist RL's name should never be mentioned on these boards again... except in disgrace, to refer to him by name is an insult to all who cherish comic collecting, to call him merely "spoon" is not severe enough.

Awesome!!

[Rip]

For those curious, this is Heath's contribution to the piece.

 

 

From All-American Men of War 89

 

Full credit would be something like this

Robert Kanigher, Irv Novick, Jerry Grandenetti, Russ Heath and Gaspar Saladino, plus another colorist no one knows the name of.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Rip

[JAM_NYC]

Yes its time for this thread to end,

The copycat so called pop artist RL's name should never be mentioned on these boards again... except in disgrace, to refer to him by name is an insult to all who cherish comic collecting, to call him merely "spoon" is not severe enough.

[kav]

I'd say Heath contributed like 10%

He didn't even get the rear stabilizers-Lichy had to add those....

[RockMyAmadeus]

Yes its time for this thread to end,

The copycat so called pop artist RL's name should never be mentioned on these boards again... except in disgrace, to refer to him by name is an insult to all who cherish comic collecting, to call him merely "spoon" is not severe enough.

 

That face is what every girl in school always made when I walked into the room.

 

[That Ron Dude]

Hey! I still have something new to add!

 

I am quoting Michael Kaluta here from an old fanzine called MCR. From about 45 years ago I think it is still relevant. Who knows what Mike Kaluta thinks today?

 

The entire letter and much more can be found at kenmeyerjr.com

 

“It does not come as a shock to find your work swiped by another artist. Neither do you foam at the mouth, or buy a gun to hunt out the with the intent to shoot him between the eyes. You laugh. Again it’s the artistic ego. You know you did it first and your ego is flattered to see someone else using your art. I say this from personal experience. The only horror that slyly creeps yup is the fear that possibly the fans will think you swiped it from him. Obviously your ego tells youth he is an inferior artist— after all he swiped from you, didn’t he? The only kind of swiping that does offend falls into two categories: a) idea and mood swipes. Let’s say somebody looks at Vaughn Bode’s lizard worlds and then goes about building universes and histories, much as Vaughn did, peoples the universes with nitwitted, pitiable sadists; and then sells it as his own. —Thats a crime. And, b) somebody that swipes something from you and obviously does it better than you could every hope to do. Which makes you wish you never did it in the first place. “

Edited November 13, 2014 by That Ron Dude

[delekkerste]

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.

 

Joseph, I've read your posts for years here and know you're a smart guy. Why on earth is this a "great comment" and why do you agree with it? First, the guy doesn't seem to understand Pop Art at all. I mean, his critique about "incompetent reproductions" and "recontextualizing" betray a total ignorance of why people appreciate Lichtenstein and Pop Art. I mean, he's basically advocating that Lichtenstein should have done less to change the source material, perhaps because, as he intimates, he already feels that it's fine art.

 

As per the bolded sections above, he's clearly an admitted "RL-hater" who is aggrieved that the medium we know and love so well (comics) is being "parodied" and "set up [as] straw men in the forms of incompetently reproduced comic panels to attack, as if his point was `look how bad his low art is'". I mean, seriously - how ridiculous is this? RL purposely made his art look worse to thumb his nose at the medium? First, it's not even true - RL's paintings with their bright, bold colors, large size, focus on a singular image and selectively thicker lines and Ben-Day dots are much more impactful and memorable than the originals printed in 4-colors in a tiny publication. Second, if the "RL-haters" actually investigated the real background of Roy Lichtenstein and not just inferred all these terrible things about him because he didn't give enough credit by modern day standards, you'd hear him have nothing condescending or untoward to say about comic artists. In fact, if any of you had gone to see his retrospective last year, a 1960s recording of RL is on the audio guide saying just the opposite - expressing admiration for artists working in the comics field. Oops.

 

I know that Dan (Bronty) was firmly in the RL as gypsy, tramp and thief camp a while back. But, instead of just insisting that the world is flat, he challenged his worldview and at least came to appreciate why others like myself have tremendous admiration for him, even if it still wasn't exactly his cup of tea. I mean, it's clear that there are pre-conceived notions among many here, several of which, like RL thumbing his nose at comic artists, are simply things that are inferred biases that are demonstrably untrue. That people continue to cling to these falsehoods despite being presented with these facts just shows that they are invested in the idea that, "we are comic book fans, and our own artists and medium have been slighted by this man, and thus we must oppose and fight him at all costs". They are egged on by people who have come to believe that all Modern and contemporary art is a sham. For the latter, there may truly be no hope, but I hope those who have either been sold a bill of goods or who have incorrectly inferred certain things by not having all the facts, will challenge their worldview as Dan did.

 

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Sir Winston Churchill

[kav]

Why this obsession with 'challenging'?

This is the easiest thing in the world to do-any bad artist can draw a piece of crud and say it 'challenges' art-

a gerbil taped to a pumpkin 'challenges' art...

[Speedy-D]

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.

 

Joseph, I've read your posts for years here and know you're a smart guy. Why on earth is this a "great comment" and why do you agree with it? First, the guy doesn't seem to understand Pop Art at all. I mean, his critique about "incompetent reproductions" and "recontextualizing" betray a total ignorance of why people appreciate Lichtenstein and Pop Art. I mean, he's basically advocating that Lichtenstein should have done less to change the source material, perhaps because, as he intimates, he already feels that it's fine art.

 

As per the bolded sections above, he's clearly an admitted "RL-hater" who is aggrieved that the medium we know and love so well (comics) is being "parodied" and "set up [as] straw men in the forms of incompetently reproduced comic panels to attack, as if his point was `look how bad his low art is'". I mean, seriously - how ridiculous is this? RL purposely made his art look worse so thumb his nose at the medium? First, it's not even true - RL's paintings with their bright, bold colors, large size, focus on a singular image and selectively thicker lines and Ben-Day dots are much more impactful and memorable than the originals printed in 4-colors in a tiny publication. Second, if the "RL-haters" actually investigated the real background of Roy Lichtenstein and not just inferred all these terrible things about him because he didn't give enough credit by modern day standards, you'd hear him have nothing condescending or untoward to say about comic artists. In fact, if any of you had gone to see his retrospective last year, a 1960s recording of RL is on the audio guide saying just the opposite - expressing admiration for artists working in the comics field. Oops.

 

I know that Dan (Bronty) was firmly in the RL as gypsy, tramp and thief camp a while back. But, instead of just insisting that the world is flat, he challenged his worldview and at least came to appreciate why others like myself have tremendous admiration for him, even if it still wasn't exactly his cup of tea. I mean, it's clear that there are pre-conceived notions among many here, several of which, like RL thumbing his nose at comic artists, are simply things that are inferred biases that are demonstrably untrue. That people continue to cling to these falsehoods despite being presented with these facts just shows that they are invested in the idea that, "we are comic book fans, and our own artists and medium have been slighted by this man, and thus we must oppose and fight him at all costs". They are egged on by people who have come to believe that all Modern and contemporary art is a sham. For the latter, there may truly be no hope, but I hope those who have either been sold a bill of goods or who have incorrectly inferred certain things by not having all the facts, will challenge their worldview as Dan did.

 

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Sir Winston Churchill

M'man, I think you need to spend more time in the Julie Newmar thread. All you're gonna get here is kav answers.

[delekkerste]

I like Lichtenstein, I would like to see one of his pieces in person.

I also like Jackson Pollock and Rothko.

 

While it makes for interesting discussion, if others don't like these artists or how they created their work, it doesn't bother me. It's art.

Even if others don't think it's art, that's okay too.

 

I adhere to the viewpoint that it's all boils down to an opinion. Sure, people can bring up art history and education, objective opinion based on this and that, but when it comes down to it, a piece either grabs me or it doesn't. It is predominantly subjective.

 

Like falling in love and choosing a girlfriend or mate.

What others think, good or bad, is of little consequence. My appreciation of art is the same in that it's personal.

 

my

 

I applaud your taste in art.

 

I agree that whether certain art grabs you or not is predominantly subjective. That said, you've got people here saying that most art has been a sham or fraud for decades now, including Roy Lichtenstein (and Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollock and virtually every big name in art from the past 70+ years). I mean, OK, sure, there's no way to disprove that in no uncertain terms, just as it's impossible to prove definitively that Rob Liefeld is a bad comic artist - it's "subjective" (evolution vs. creationism is subjective too by that standard). But we know it's not really.

[delekkerste]

I like Lichtenstein, I would like to see one of his pieces in person.

 

As for seeing Lichtenstein's work in person, you really need to. Seeing one of his paintings next to an identically sized photo of a comic panel on Barsalou's website could not be more misleading. Unfortunately, they didn't allow photographs at the retrospective in the National Gallery in D.C. last year, but here's a photo of me next to "Sleeping Girl" (which is much smaller than some of his other well-known works) when it was displayed at the Philadelphia Museum of Art last year.

 

Compare this to what would have been maybe a 3" x 4" panel in a comic book printed in muted 4-colors on newsprint. Well, to the extent you can, anyway. Only one of them attracts your eye and holds your attention with its bright, garish commercial printing colors, thick black lines and dotted face. There is no text (unlike the source material) - it leaves you to create your own narrative. In the comic, the narrative is spoon-fed to you - it was not meant to question or inspire, it was meant to entertain a 14-year old kid. That's not an insult, that's just a simple fact. To say that the art hasn't been transformed in a meaningful and interesting way is demonstrably false. All you have to do is physically compare that one panel in a comic book to this painting and look at the difference in color palette, size, texture, verbiage (or lack thereof), and, most importantly, context. You experience the comic and you experience Lichtenstein's painting in completely different ways.

 

If Lichtenstein had gotten express permission to use the images and Russ Heath, Irv Novick, etc. were enthusiastic fans of his, few of you would be calling this work the boring work of a thieving hack. At the very least, you'd look at the art with an open mind and give it a chance. Instead, because he didn't go out of his way to do so and win the hearts and minds of future comic book aficionados in 2014, many of you view him as a pariah, and none of the extenuating circumstances (work-for-hire, publishers not caring back then, publishers sometimes not even crediting the artist, things being far less litigious back then (let alone arguing for fair use), RL actually having positive things to say about comic artists, scholars and museums later acknowledging the source material in exhibitions and materials, etc.) will dent your single-minded fury at the artist. And that, to me, is just a bit sad and misguided, because, as comic fans, I feel we should be enjoying this work even more than others.

[kav]

All art looks better in person including orig comic art.

That's no special accomplishment.

[delekkerste]

All art looks better in person including orig comic art.

That's no special accomplishment.

 

Thank you. And your point is? That art should only be presented in your mind or compared on a webpage in equal sizes? Maybe some people actually care about how it looks and presents and makes you think and feel in person.

[kav]

I actually like Lichtenberger btw

And Warhol

My mom has a small sketch and sig that my sister got from Andy in the 80's on an art mag